William Habermann, DAB CR6893 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, William Habermann, is a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA or Respondent) disputing two notices of alleged debts owed to the United States Government.  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 1 (Hearing Request).  As discussed below, I agree with SSA that Debt ID numbers 25221947624 and 25231947624, each for $1,622.00, totaling $3,244.00, are valid.  Therefore, I AFFIRM SSA’s determination that the overpayment debt is valid and the amount owed by Petitioner is correct.

I.        Background and Procedural History

From October 1, 2025, through November 12, 2025, SSA furloughed Petitioner from his position with SSA, and he did not receive his regular biweekly pay due to a lapse in federal appropriations.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 7 at 2.  The furlough period included part of pay period 21, all of pay periods 22 and 23, and part of pay period 24 (pay period “2025-21” through pay period “2025-24”).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8a (SSA Exhibit (Ex.) 1).  Once the furlough period ended, SSA’s payroll provider, the Department of Interior, Interior Business Center (IBC), began processing retroactive pay for federal employees who were not paid during the government shut down.  The retroactive pay included “two

Page 2

types of payments – interim off cycle payments and payments included in the normal biweekly payroll cycle” in pay period 2025-24.  Id.

The IBC provided a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document explaining that the interim off-cycle payments were processed and documented in the employee’s Earnings and Leave Statement (LES) for pay period 2025-24.  Id. at 1.  The IBC’s FAQs explained that a separate LES would not be produced for the interim off-cycle payments.  Id. at 3.  The “interim off-cycle payment will be reported in the ‘Earnings’ section as Advance Pay” and the “interim off-cycle payment collection (Advance Pay – Deduction) will be reported in the ‘Deductions’ section.”  Id.

SSA issued its own FAQs explaining the interim off-cycle salary payments and the pay period 2025-24 LES.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8b (SSA Ex. 2).  The SSA FAQs answered “[d]id the interim off-cycle salary payments include all my retroactive pay?” by explaining the interim off-cycle payment consisted of:  “60% of gross salary for pay period 2025-21 (October 1 through October 4); 50% percent of gross salary for pay period 2025-22; and 50% of gross salary for pay period 2025-23.”  Id. at 1.

The SSA FAQs also addressed how the “interim off-cycle payment, retroactive pay, and deductions for pay periods [2025] 21-23 [will] be reflected on the LES?”  The FAQs state that under the “Earnings Section” of the LES:  

Regular Pay – [] reflects the number of regular hours the employee worked in pay period 2025-24 when the government reopened (November 13-15, 2025).

Advanced Pay – [] reflects the dollar amount the employee received on November 17, 2025[,] for their interim off-cycle payments.”  Id.

Government Shutdown Retro Pay – The [Adjusted] Hours column reflects the number of paid furlough hours the employee is receiving for pay periods 2025-21, 2025-22, and 2025-23 (October 1 – November 1, 2025).  The Hours column reflects the number of paid furlough hours the employee is receiving for pay period 2025-24 (November 2 – November 12, 2025).

SSA Ex. 2 at 4.  SSA’s FAQs also include a section explaining the “Deductions Section.”  Id.  This section explains that the “Adjusted column reflects the deductions for pay periods 2025-21, 2025-22, and 2025-23,” and notes that the “deductions for each pay period are calculated separately, even though the [LES] will reflect a single amount for each deduction in this column.”  Id.

Page 3

With regard to “Advance Pay – Deduction” SSA’s FAQs stated that “[t]his amount offsets the amount of Advanced Pay received in the Earnings section[,]” explaining “since employees already received the interim off-cycle payment, the amount of the interim off-cycle payment is deducted so that the employee does not receive double payment.”  Id.

On January 21, 2026, SSA issued Petitioner two debt notices, each for $1,622, totaling $3,244.  The first debt letter with Debt ID number 25221947624 is for pay period 2025-22.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a.  The second debt letter with Debt ID number 25231947624 is for pay period 2025-23.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b.  The debt letters informed Petitioner of the alleged overpayment and his related due process rights.  Petitioner filed a timely Hearing Request seeking clarification of the debt.  Petitioner states he “reviewed his [LES] to determine any possible errors and was unable to determine any conclusions.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 1.  Petitioner included six LES for pay periods 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1c.

In accordance with the deadlines established in the Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order and Notice of Informal Conference of Meeting (Prehearing Order) issued on February 26, 2026, the parties were both given an opportunity to file prehearing exchanges.1  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 4.  On February 26, 2026, Petitioner emailed a Request for Extension requesting an additional 30 days.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 3.  On February 27, 2026, I issued an order granting Petitioner’s request for extension and setting new deadlines in the case.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5.

On March 12, 2026, SSA filed a prehearing exchange consisting of a brief and motion for summary judgment (SSA Br.), a proposed witness list with one proposed witness, an exhibit list, and three proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-3).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 7, 8, 8a-8c, 9.  Petitioner did not file a prehearing exchange.

On April 1, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Hearing, determining that this matter would be resolved based on the written record.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10.

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

Page 4

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 $3,244. 

III.     Jurisdiction

In addition to the debt repayment schedule, 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, Petitioner did not file a prehearing exchange but did include six LES for pay periods 2025-21 through 2025-26 with his request for hearing.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1c.  I consider the LESs as Petitioner’s sole exhibit (P. Ex. 1).

SSA’s complete exchange includes a brief, three proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-3), and one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 7, 8, 8a-8c, 9.

Given that neither party objected to the other party’s exhibits, I admit all exhibits into the administrative record.

V.      Analysis and Conclusions of Law

I find that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government for $3,244 due to a salary overpayment.  The record supports that Petitioner was furloughed from October 1, 2025, through November 12, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 2.

Petitioner received a partial payment of salary for 56 hours worked in pay period 2025-21, no payment in pay period 2025-22, no payment in pay period 2025-23, and a partial payment for 17 hours worked in pay period 2025-24.  P. Ex. 1 at 1-8.  Consistent with the IBC’s FAQs, Petitioner also received an interim off-cycle payment during pay period

Page 5

2025-24, as Advanced Pay for the pay periods impacted by the furlough.  SSA Ex. 1 at 1; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1c at 7.  This off-cycle payment is reflected under the Earnings section in the LES for pay period 24, where Petitioner received Advance Pay in the amount of $3,828.00.  P. Ex. 1 at 7.

The amount of $3,828.00 Advance Pay follows SSA’s FAQ guidance.  See SSA Ex. 2 at 1.  SSA’s FAQs provide that the interim off-cycle payment (i.e., Advance Pay), consists of 60% of gross salary for pay period 2025-21, 50% of gross salary for pay period 2025-22, and 50% of gross salary for pay period 2025-23.  Id.  The record shows that Petitioner was paid for 56 hours worked in pay period 2025-21, meaning there were 24 unpaid hours from this pay period that were part of the Advance pay in pay period 2025-24.  P. Ex. 1 at 1.  When you multiply the 24 unpaid hours by Petitioner’s hourly rate of $40.54, you receive a sum of $972.96.  Sixty percent of $972.96 is $583.77, which SSA rounds up to $584 Advance Pay for pay period 2025-21.

Similarly, for pay period 2025-22, when you multiply the 80 unpaid hours by Petitioner’s hourly rate of $40.54, the sum is $3,243.20.  Consistent with SSA’s FAQ guidance, 50% of $3,243.20 is $1,622.10, which SSA rounds down to $1,622 Advance Pay for pay period 2025-22.  SSA Ex. 2 at 1; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1c at 7.

Pay period 2025-23 follows the same math.  Petitioner’s 80 unpaid hours, multiplied by his hourly rate, results in $3,243.20, of which 50% equals $1,622 Advance Pay for pay period 2025-23.  Id.

When you add the $584 from pay period 2025-21, plus $1,622 for pay period 2025-22, and an additional $1,622 for pay period 2025-23, you reach a sum of $3,828.  This is equal to the total Advance Pay amount listed under the Earnings section for pay period 2025-24. Thus, Petitioner received a total of $3,828 interim off-cycle salary payments in 2025-24.

The issue with pay period 2025-24 is found in the Deductions section.  According to SSA’s FAQs, to avoid “double payment,” the “Advance Pay – Deduction” should be the same amount as the “Advance Pay” amount in the Earnings section.  This was not the case.  Petitioner’s LES shows that the total Advance Pay amount reflected in pay period 2025-24 is $3,828, but the Advance Pay – Deduction amount is only $584, which only reflects Petitioner’s Advance Pay for pay period 2025-21.  P. Ex. 1 at 7.  Petitioner’s Advance Pay for pay periods 2025-22 and 2025-23 were not included in the Advance Pay – Deduction.  The difference between Petitioner’s total Advance Pay ($3,828) and Advance Pay – Deduction ($584) is $3,244, or if divided in half, represents the $1,622 Advance Pay for pay period 2025-22, and $1,622 Advance Pay for pay period 2025-23 that are listed in the debt letters.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1a, 1b, 1c.  Accordingly, Petitioner received “double payment” of salary for pay periods 2025-22 and 2025-23, totaling $3,244.

Page 6

Upon careful review of the evidence in the record, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government.  I also conclude that the amount of the debt is $1,622 each for pay periods 2025-22 and 2025-23, totaling $3,244.

VI.     Waiver

The debt letters 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.”  Debt Letter at 7.  The 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 may pursue waiver, but I note that this is a separate process altogether from the current review of the debt.

VII.     Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a total debt to the government in the amount of $3,244.  This amount is for the Advanced Pay – Deductions for pay periods 2025-22 and 2025-23.

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).