Steven Kuhn, DAB, CR6884 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA or Respondent), requested a hearing to dispute the alleged debt owed to the United States Government.  SSA states that the debt arose from two erroneous pay increases based on career ladder promotions (CLP) issued prior to eligibility.  Petitioner did not dispute the alleged overpayment other than to state, “[the] only thing I can think of is my grade increases that happened in the month of January.”  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 1 (Hearing Request). 

As discussed below, I agree with SSA that a debt was incurred due to the premature payroll processing of two CLPs (Debt ID number 60481931844).  Therefore, I find the debt in the gross amount of $732.81 and net amount of $591.83 is valid. 

I. Background and Procedural History

On or about January 29, 2023, Petitioner was hired as a Social Insurance Specialist, Claims Specialist, in the Bristol, Virginia field office, in a career conditional appointment at a General Schedule, Grade 5, Step 9 (GS-5/9) annual pay rate.  SSA Exhibit (Ex.) 1. 

Page 2

On January 28, 2024, Petitioner received a CLP to a GS-7/4, annual pay rate.  Id. at 2.  On January 11, 2025, SSA processed a CLP that advanced Petitioner to a GS-9/1 annual pay rate, effective January 12, 2025.  Id. at 3. 

On February 4, 2026, SSA processed a series of personnel actions (SF-50).  Id. at 4-7.  First, SSA changed the effective date of Petitioner’s GS-9/1 CLP to January 26, 2025.  Id. at 4.  This adjustment corrected the time-in-grade requirement for Petitioner’s promotion.  See 5 C.F.R. § 531.405(a)(i) (providing the waiting periods for time-in-grade increases, i.e. mandatory 52-week requirement). 

Next, on February 4, 2026, SSA processed a second corrective SF-50 for Petitioner’s subsequent CLP.  Id. at 5.  This SF-50 incorrectly promoted Petitioner from GS 9/2 to a GS 11/1 annual pay rate effective January 11, 2026.  Id. 

A third corrective SF-50 was processed on February 4, 2026, adjusting Petitioner from a GS 9/1 to GS 9/2 annual pay rate effective January 25, 2026.  Id. at 6. 

A fourth and final corrective SF-50 was processed on February 4, 2026, adjusting Petitioner’s effective date for his 2026 GS 11/1 CLP from January 11, 2026, to January 25, 2026.  Id. at 5, 7. 

SSA issued an overpayment letter to Petitioner on February 17, 2026, advising that the Petitioner was overpaid $732.81 during pay periods 2025-03 and 2026-03.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a (Debt Letter) at 9. 

Petitioner filed a timely Hearing Request seeking clarification of the overpayment stating, “only thing I can think of is my grade increases that happened in month of January.”  Hearing Request. 

In accordance with the deadlines established in the Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order and Notice of Informal Conference or Meeting issued on March 6, 2026, SSA filed a timely prehearing exchange consisting of a brief (SSA Br.), a proposed witness list with one proposed witness, and an exhibit list with three proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-3).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 4, 4a-4e.  Petitioner did not file a prehearing exchange. 

After reviewing the docket, on March 26, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Hearing, determining that this matter would be resolved based on the written record.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5.  Further, neither party requested an oral hearing, and no issue of credibility or veracity is involved.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(ii). 

Accordingly, I find the record is complete and this case is ripe for a decision. 

Page 3

II. Issues

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(e)(2)(ii), the issues to be decided in this case are: 

1. Whether Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government; and
2. If so, whether Petitioner owes a gross total of $732.81, and net total of $591.83. 

III. Jurisdiction

The issues identified above are the only appealable issues regarding a salary overpayment matter.  5 U.S.C § 5514(a)(2)(D); 20 C.F.R. §§ 422.810(e)(2)(ii), (f)(1)(vii), (h)(4)(ii).  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.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2); see also 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(d) (definition of Hearing Official, (i)(1).  SSA maintains an interagency agreement under which administrative law judges with the Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), Civil Remedies Division adjudicate SSA federal salary overpayment cases.  See Jan Donsbach, DAB CR1536 at 1 n.1. (2006); Portia L. Pierce, DAB CR2049 at 5 (2009). 

IV. Admission of Evidence

As noted above, SSA submitted a brief, three proposed exhibits, and one proposed witness.  Petitioner did not file a prehearing brief and did not object to SSA’s proposed exhibits or witness.  Accordingly, I admit all three SSA exhibits into the administrative record. 

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

I find that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government due to a salary overpayment for the gross amount of $732.81, and net amount of $591.83, based on the calculations provided by SSA.  The record supports that Petitioner received a premature CLP in January 2025, and another in January 2026.  SSA Ex. 1 at 3-7.  These premature CLPs resulted in Petitioner being paid at a higher rate before being eligible to receive these rate increases.  See 5 C.F.R. § 531.405(a)(i). 

As Petitioner recognizes, the overpayment occurred as a of result of his “grade increases . . . in the month of January.”  Hearing Request.  Indeed, at no fault of Petitioner, SSA’s Human Resources (HR) processed two CLPs prematurely.  SSA Ex. 1. 

Page 4

The first premature CLP was processed on January 11, 2025, promoting Petitioner from a GS-7/4 to a GS-9/1.  Id. at 3.  As indicated in a corrected SF-50, HR should have processed this CLP on January 26, 2025.  Id. at 4.  As a result, Petitioner received a higher pay rate during pay period 2025-03, resulting in an overpayment of $236.  SSA Ex. 3 at 1-2; Debt Letter at 9. 

The second premature CLP was processed on January 11, 2026.  Id. at 5.  This time HR erroneously utilized the incorrect SF-50 dated January 11, 2025, to process Petitioner’s next CLP.  Id.  The SF-50 incorrectly categorized Petitioner as a GS-9/2 and promoted him to a GS-11/1 annual pay rate.  Id.  A series of corrective SF-50s were issued on February 4, 2026, changing Petitioner’s effective date from January 11, 2026, to January 25, 2026, and adjusted his annual pay rate to GS 11/1.  Id. at 5-7.  These corrections resulted in Petitioner receiving an overpayment for pay period 2026-03 in the gross amount of $496.81.  SSA Ex. 3 at 3-4; Debt Letter at 9. 

SSA’s Personnel Policy Manual on Career Ladder Promotions requires that employees meet the appropriate time-in-grade requirements for the position to which they are being promoted.  SSA Ex. 2 at 2.  As explained by the applicable regulation, “[f]or an employee with a scheduled tour of duty, the waiting periods for advancement to the next higher step in all [GS] grades [] are . . . 52 calendar weeks of creditable service.  5 C.F.R. § 531.405(a)(1)(i). 

Petitioner began his employment with SSA on January 29, 2023.  SSA Ex. 1 at 1.  His next promotion became effective on January 28, 2024.  Id. at 2.  This met the 52-calendar week time-in-grade requirement.  Petitioner’s next promotion erroneously occurred on January 12, 2025.  Id. at 3.  Here, the promotion was premature by one pay period and did not meet the time-in-grade requirement.  The correction to this premature advancement resulted in an overpayment for pay period 2025-03.  SSA Ex. 3 at 1-2.  Again, on January 11, 2026, Petitioner received a promotion that did not meet the time-in-grade requirement, as it was premature by one pay period.  SSA Ex. 1 at 5.  The subsequent correction on February 4, 2026, resulted in an overpayment for pay period 2026-03.  Id. at 7; SSA Ex. 3 at 3-4. 

Therefore, the current gross amount owed by Petitioner is $732.81, and the net amount due is $591.83, as demanded by SSA in the debt letter to Petitioner. 

VI. Waiver

Petitioner’s hearing request does not request waiver, even though the debt letter provides instructions as an alternative to the outcome of this case.  See Debt Letter at 7.  For reference, the Debt Letter states 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, [he] may request a waiver within 3 years from the date of th[e] letter.”  Id.  The

Page 5

letter 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.  Petitioner should consider whether they wish to pursue waiver given they were not at fault for HR’s multiple premature promotions.  

VII. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the government in the gross amount of $732.81 and a net amount of $591.83.  In accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii)(B), I also conclude that Petitioner’s hearing request was not baseless or resulted from an intent to delay SSA’s collection activity. 

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