Melissa Thole, DAB CR6880 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA), disputes an alleged debt owed to SSA.  As discussed below, I agree with SSA that a debt related to unpaid Federal Employee Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) premiums exists and conclude that the amount of this debt is $8,393.15.

I. Background and Procedural History

On July 24, 2008, after Petitioner was hired by SSA, Petitioner completed a life insurance election form (Standard Form 2817, OMB No. 3206-0230).  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 10a.  At that time, Petitioner requested FEGLI basic1  coverage (Option A) and additional coverage (Option B) at five times her salary.  Id.  However, instead of the FEGLI coverage requested, SSA admits it erroneously enrolled Petitioner in FEGLI basic coverage (Option A) and family coverage (Option C), effective August 1, 2008.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 2.  The erroneous coverage for Option C rather than Option B x5 continued from August 1, 2008 for many years, and during these years Petitioner was unaware that SSA had enrolled her for FEGLI life

Page 2

insurance coverage other than what she had requested in her 2008 FEGLI life insurance election form.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1 at 1; 12 at 1-2.

Petitioner’s family circumstances subsequently changed and in late 2024, Petitioner decided she wanted to reduce her amount of FEGLI life insurance coverage.  See id.  Thus, Petitioner began inquiring with SSA’s Office of Operational Human Resources (HR) on the process necessary to effectuate such a change.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1 at 1, 7-11; 12 at 1.  Petitioner first contacted SSA HR on December 31, 2024 and, after some email communication, on July 8, 2025, Petitioner emailed SSA HR and submitted a new life insurance election form to request FEGLI Option A (i.e. basic coverage) only.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10c; 12a.  At this time, Petitioner indicated that she had learned that her original (2008) life insurance election form  “was not processed correctly or apparently completed incorrectly.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10c at 5.

On September 12, 2025, SSA processed Petitioner’s life insurance election and retroactively corrected her FEGLI enrollment error from over 17 years prior.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10b.  The retroactive correction of SSA’s processing error in 2008 subsequently resulted in SSA issuing a letter on January 20, 2026, informing Petitioner that she owes SSA an overpayment of $8,409.75 for unpaid FEGLI premiums (for the Option B x5 coverage) or “certain deduction(s) retroactively.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 1, 18.  Enclosed with the letter was a breakdown of the total deduction underpayments for these premiums by year based on a payroll audit.  Id. at 12-18. 

In response to the notification letter, Petitioner timely requested a hearing by letter dated January 30, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 1-2.  Petitioner argues that she believed the FEGLI deductions taken from her biweekly salary were accurate for 17 years.  Id.  at 1.  Petitioner also “question[ed] the amount of the debt,” as her December 23, 2025, pay statement “showed a debt of $6,120.45,” but notes that amount differs from the $8,409.75 listed in the January 30, 2026 letter.  Id. at 2, 5.  Lastly, Petitioner asks that this debt collection be waived “due to the lack of information provided at benefit enrollment, miss information [sic], and errors by the agency.”  Id. at 2.   

On February 6, 2026, an SSA employee electronically filed Petitioner’s hearing request and SSA’s January 20, 2026 notification of salary overpayment.2   CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1a.  The case was docketed and assigned to me for adjudication. 

Page 3

On February 10, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order, and Scheduling of Informal Conference or Meeting (Prehearing Order).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 3.  The Prehearing Order provided the parties with instructions on how and when to submit arguments and evidence and scheduled an oral hearing for March 17, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 3 at 2, 4.  In my Prehearing Order, I noted that any oral hearing, including an informal conference or meeting, would be necessary only “if the hearing official determines that the matter cannot be resolved by review of documentary evidence alone because an issue of credibility or veracity is involved.”  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810; Id. at 4.  The Prehearing Order also stated that “[i]f a party wants witnesses to testify at an informal conference, wants an informal meeting, or wants to make an oral presentation, then that party must indicate that in the prehearing exchange and state why an oral hearing or meeting is necessary.”  Id.  The Prehearing Order directed SSA to submit its prehearing exchange by February 23, 2026, and Petitioner to submit her prehearing exchange by March 9, 2026.  Id. at 3.  I also allowed SSA until March 12, 2026, to file any objections to any proposed exhibits or witnesses provided by Petitioner.  Id. 

On February 20, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion for extension of time to file briefs.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5.  On February 23, 2026, I issued an order granting the joint motion for extension, and set new deadlines for the parties’ briefs and the oral hearing.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 7. 

On March 9, 2026, SSA filed a timely prehearing exchange consisting of a brief and motion for summary judgment, a proposed exhibit list, six proposed exhibits, and a witness list with two proposed witnesses.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9, 10, 10a-10f, 11.  On March 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a timely prehearing exchange consisting of a brief, one exhibit, and witness list with one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12, 12a, 12b.  On March 25, 2026, SSA filed objections to Petitioner’s brief.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13. 

I reviewed both parties’ prehearing exchanges and, on March 26, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Hearing.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 14.  Based on my review of the parties’ briefs and documentary evidence provided, I concluded that the decision as to the existence and amount of the alleged debt did not turn on issues of credibility or veracity.  Thus, I found that a paper hearing was appropriate and that an oral hearing was unnecessary.  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(iii).

This matter is now ripe for a decision based on my review of the available documentary evidence, including all filings and evidence submitted by the parties.

Page 4

II. Issues

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D)3, I may decide the following issues:

1) Whether Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government (i.e. the existence of the debt); and 

2) If so, whether $8,409.75 is the correct amount of the debt owed (i.e. the amount of the debt).

III. Jurisdiction

The statute authorizing these proceedings specifies that the head of an agency may appoint an administrative law judge to adjudicate an employee’s appeal of an alleged debt due to salary overpayment.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2); see also 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(d) (definition of Hearing Official).  SSA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) maintain an interagency agreement under which administrative law judges at the HHS Departmental Appeals Board’s Civil Remedies Division adjudicate federal salary overpayment cases involving SSA employees. 

IV. Analysis

A. A debt exists.

As stated above, in 2008, SSA erroneously enrolled Petitioner in basic life insurance coverage (Option A) and family coverage (Option C).  Compare CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10a with CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10b (CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10a shows Petitioner’s 2008 election of Option A and Option Bx5 received by SSA on July 29, 2008, and CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10b shows SSA’s September 12, 2025 correction from Option A and Option C to Option A and Option Bx5 effective August 1, 2008).  This error and subsequent correction led to SSA’s salary overpayment determination as incorrect FEGLI premium payments were withdrawn from Petitioner’s biweekly paychecks for approximately 17 years, from August 1, 2008, through September 12, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a.

The FEGLI program is subject to United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations and guidance.  The controlling regulations allow the employing office to make corrections of administrative errors regarding coverage or changes in coverage.  5 C.F.R. § 870.103(a).  “Retroactive corrections are subject to provisions of section

Page 5

870.401(f)” and instruct that when an agency withholds less than the proper amount of basic and additional life insurance, “the agency must submit an amount equal to the sum of the uncollected deduction and any applicable agency contributions” to the Employee’s Life Insurance Fund.  5 C.F.R. §§ 870.401(f), 810.402(f) (emphasis added).  OPM’s FEGLI Program Handbook permits the “employing office [to] correct administrative errors regarding coverage or changes in coverage at any time . . . [with the] effective date [being] the same as if the error had not happened.”4   SSA argues that had Petitioner’s FEGLI insurance become payable (i.e. had Petitioner died) “SSA would have been required to correct the enrollment error and pay Petitioner’s beneficiaries according to the 2008 election form.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 5.

As stated, the error related to Petitioner’s life insurance coverage was discovered sometime after Petitioner emailed SSA HR on July 8, 2025 and provided an updated life insurance election form to reduce her life insurance coverage to only Option A.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10c at 5.  As SSA began effectuating this change, it began an investigation into Petitioner’s past payment of FEGLI premiums, culminating in an email dated September 5, 2025, that informed Petitioner that “according to policy an input will be processed to correct your record and update the enrollment of Part A and Part B of FEGLI back to the initial 2008 date.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10c at 2-3. 

SSA argues that OPM’s FEGLI Program Handbook “sets forth SSA’s responsibilities as the employing agency when an employee dies,” which includes, “contacting the person(s) who appear entitled to benefits and providing assistance when filing a claim.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13 at 2.  SSA states that SSA HR would have reviewed Petitioner’s “records to confirm the correct FEGLI enrollment.”  Id.  Therefore, if Petitioner’s FEGLI benefits had become payable between August 1, 2008 and September 12, 2025, SSA would have “discovered that Petitioner was incorrectly enrolled in Basic coverage (Option A) plus Family coverage (Option C) and certified that her beneficiaries were instead entitled to Basic coverage (Option A) plus Additional coverage (Option B) at 5 times her pay, based on her 2008 election, when certifying her insurance status.”  Id.; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10a. 

I understand Petitioner’s frustration and hesitancy to take SSA’s assertion that it would have been obligated to pay Petitioner’s beneficiaries for the Option B x5 coverage at face value.  However, it is clear that Petitioner contributed less than the required deduction of her salary into the FEGLI program until the error was revealed sometime after July 8, 2025, and subsequently corrected on September 12, 2025.  While Petitioner was not at fault for the erroneous processing and oversight by SSA, the regulations state that any FEGLI payment which should have been deducted from an employee’s pay constitutes an

Page 6

overpayment that is subject to collection by the agency from the employee. 5 C.F.R. § 841.505(d).  Thus, based on my review of relevant regulations and guidance, I find that SSA has met its burden of proving that a debt exists involving the erroneous salary deduction amounts for Petitioner’s FEGLI life insurance premium payments from August 1, 2008 to September 12, 2025.  

B. The amount of the debt is $8,393.15.

In her letter requesting a hearing, Petitioner also questions the amount of the debt owed.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 2.  Specifically, Petitioner points to her Earnings and Leave Statement for pay period 2025-26, showing a debt of $6,120.45, which differs from the amount in the January 20, 2026 letter informing Petitioner that she owes SSA debt of $8,409.75 for salary overpayment.  See id. at 2, 5. 

SSA argues the total debt amount is $8,409.75 and explains the debt amount with a chart.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 6.  However, this chart does not match Petitioner’s corresponding earnings and leave statements “LES” provided as documentary evidence.  SSA’s chart shows that during pay period 2025-20 Petitioner’s pay was deducted “$48 for FEGLI OPTIONAL, $2,440.50 for FEGLI ADDITIONAL; and was credited $199.20 for FEGLI FAMILY, giving a sum of $2,289.30.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 6 (emphasis added).   SSA cites Petitioner’s LES for pay period 2025-20 to extrapolate the data in SSA’s chart.  Id.  (“Th[is] amount [is] shown on Petitioner’s 2025-20 [] LES []”).  Yet the LES for pay period 2025-20 shows a different dollar amount ($215.80) for the “FEGLI FAMILY” credit.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 3.  In recalculating these figures to accord with the documentary evidence provided (i.e. by subtracting a corrected FEGLI FAMILY credit of $215.80), I find a sum of $2,272.70, and a difference of $16.60 from the amount of debt SSA claims.   

SSA also cites an LES for pay period 2025-24 to explain the remaining balance.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 6.  Specifically, during pay period 2025-24, “Petitioner’s salary was deducted $204.70 for FEGLI OPTIONAL, $6,773.90 for FEGLI ADDITIONAL and was credited $858.15 for FEGLI FAMILY for a total sum of $6,120.45.”  Id.

My review of Petitioner’s LES for pay period 2025-24 confirms the amounts used in SSA’s chart for pay period 2025-24 are accurate.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10f.  Therefore, based on the documentary evidence of record and noting the $16.60 discrepancy discussed above, I find the total debt owed to SSA is $8,393.15 and not the $8,409.75 amount indicated in the January 20, 2026 notification SSA provided to Petitioner.

Page 7

C. I have no jurisdiction to review a request for a waiver of the debt.

Petitioner’s Hearing Request asks that I “waive the premium collection of this debt due to the lack of information provided at benefit enrollment, miss information [sic], and errors by the agency.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 2. 

While I entirely understand Petitioner’s frustration given the facts discussed above, the waiver process is separate and independent and I have no jurisdiction to review any waiver request.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5584; 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(e)(2)(ii).  However, Petitioner still may pursue waiver of the existing debt by following the instructions in the January 20, 2026 letter informing Petitioner of the debt due to salary overpayment.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 10.  SSA instructed Petitioner that “if [Petitioner] . . . believe[s] that collection of the debt would be against equity and good conscience or not in the best interest of the United States, [she] may request a waiver [from SSA] within 3 years from the date of th[e] letter.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 10 (emphasis added).  SSA advises that “[o]verpayments eligible for waiver are those resulting from an erroneous payment through administrative error when there is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the employee.”  Id.  Although I have no jurisdiction to review a waiver request, I sympathize with Petitioner’s predicament and encourage Petitioner to pursue her right to request a waiver by contacting her “Servicing Personnel Office”.  Id.  Should Petitioner choose to request a waiver, I encourage SSA to expeditiously review her request and clearly communicate with Petitioner to effectuate any potential resolution.

Further, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM’s) FEGLI Handbook provides guidance that may assist Petitioner if SSA were to deny a waiver request.  Specifically, the handbook states “[i]n situations in which your agency does not have the authority to correct an error, OPM may order correction of an administrative error after reviewing evidence that it would be against equity (fairness) and good conscience not to do so.  You or your agency should send the request for review to OPM, Individual Benefits and Life, RM 3400, 1900 E Street, NW, Washington DC 20415.”  See OPM FEGLI Handbook, page 16-17, 78, 111; (https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/life-insurance/reference-mater…) (last visited April 20, 2026).

D. Petitioner’s dispute of the debt was not baseless, and Petitioner did not dispute the debt with the intent to delay SSA’s collection activity. 

The applicable regulations state that my decision must “includ[e] a determination whether the employee’s petition for hearing was baseless and resulted from an intent to delay the creditor agency’s collection activity.”  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii)(B).  I find that Petitioner’s hearing request was not baseless, nor did Petitioner dispute the debt with intent to delay SSA’s collection activities.  Based on the facts discussed above, I find that

Page 8

Petitioner challenged the debt in good faith and there is no indication Petitioner sought to delay payment. 

V. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that a debt to SSA in the amount of $8,393.15 exists.  

This decision is the final agency decision.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2).