Jonathan Kennedy, DAB, CR6902, (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Jonathan Kennedy, is a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA or Respondent) disputing a notice of alleged debt 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 a gross debt amount of $427.60, and net debt amount of $299.29, is 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

On December 18, 2025, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued Memorandum CPM 2025-17 to all “Heads of Departments and Agencies” informing them that President Trump “issued an Executive Order excusing Federal employees from duty on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 and Friday, December 26, 2025” so “there will now be three holidays within the same pay period (December 24, December 25, and December 26, 2025).”  U.S. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., Closing of Federal Government Department and Agencies on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 and Friday, December 26, 2025, CPM 2025-17 at 1-2. (Dec. 18, 2025). 

Page 2

Petitioner, a Watch Officer for SSA, worked 12-hour shifts, on Thursday, December 25, and Friday, December 26, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10; see CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11c (SSA Exhibit (Ex.) 3) (“1200” in yellow font color under “THU” and “FRI” in blue font color, in the document titled, “FPPS original Time and Attendance for pay period 2026-01 before Time and Attendance List of Errors (TALE) correction.”) 

On January 21, 2026, SSA identified that Petitioner was overpaid during pay period 2026-01.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11a at 2 (SSA Ex. 1).  A debt letter was issued by SSA on February 2, 2026, informing Petitioner that “the processing of an amended time and attendance record or a personnel action has shown that you previously received employee pay that was higher than it should have been.” and referred Petitioner to Exhibit 6 of the Debt Letter for a detailed breakdown.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 1.  Exhibit 6 of the debt letter lists the “pay codes and amounts, which were part of the overpayment.”  Id. at 9.  More specifically, Exhibit 6 shows that during pay period 2026-01, Petitioner was paid 36 “Holiday-Not Worked” hours and 8 “Holiday – Worked” hours totaling a gross overpayment pay amount of $2,351.80, which less applicable recoveries equaled a net amount of $1,535.79.  Id. 

The Debt Letter informed Petitioner that a request for hearing must be postmarked no later than 15 days from the date of the letter.  Id. at 8.  However, a delay in filing a request for hearing may be excused and an extension be granted if the debtor shows good cause for the late filing.  Id. 

On February 19, 2026, Petitioner submitted a hearing request by email to the SSA contact listed in the Debt Letter, formally disputing “both the existence and the amount of the alleged debt”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 3.  Petitioner also stated that he “did not receive this notice until February 18, 2026.  Any response deadlines or collection actions should reflect the date of actual receipt.”  Id. 

On March 11, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment, Order to Show Cause, and Stay of Decision Deadline (Order to Show Cause), directing SSA to file a written response on (1) the timeliness of Petitioner’s hearing request, (2) if untimely, whether the delay was the result of circumstances beyond Petitioner’s control or due to the fact that Petitioner did not receive actual notice of the filing deadline, (3) SSA’s position on when the 60-day regulatory deadline should commence, and (4) the current collection status of the debt.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 3 at 3. 

On March 19, 2026, SSA filed a written response to the Order to Show Cause indicating that “the Director DRAC excuses the untimely filing due to circumstances beyond Petitioner’s control[,]” and that the 60-day time limitation commences on February 24, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 4 at 2.  SSA also stated that “Petitioner’s debt has been adjusted.  The Department of Interior (DOI) informed counsel for Respondent that a partial correction ran for Petitioner’s debt.  Specifically, 36 hours of holiday worked were 

Page 3

corrected and $1,236.50 was applied towards the debt.  Collections have been suspended as the debt is in hearing status.”  Id. at 3. 

On March 22, 2026, Petitioner filed a response to the Order to Show Cause raising issue with the correction and stating that “SSA’s original determination was materially flawed.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5 at 1.  Petitioner stated “SSA’s calculations remain inconsistent with Petitioner’s official Earnings and Leave Statement, which reflect payment for 32 hours of holiday worked.”  Id.; see also CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11e (SSA Ex. 5).  Petitioner then admitted that “Petitioner’s actual hours worked were 24 hours, resulting in a discrepancy of only 8 hours.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5 at 1.  Petitioner also argued that since the overpayments were not caused by Petitioner, collection would be against equity and good conscience, and respectfully requested the dismissal or any relief deemed appropriate.  Id. at 2.  Petitioner attached two exhibits to his written response, which I identify as Petitioner (P.) Exs. 1 and 2.  Exhibit 1 is email confirmation of legal consultation (March 18, 2026).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5a.  Exhibit 2 is Petitioner’s DAB E-File registration confirmation (March 19, 2026).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5b. 

On March 31, 2026, I issued an Order lifting the stay and establishing deadlines.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 7.  On April 10, 2026, SSA filed a status report indicating that “Petitioner was erroneously paid for 32 hours of pay code 051 holiday worked during pay period 2026-01.  The correction from 32 to 24 hours of pay code 051 holiday worked in pay period 2026-01 resulted in an 8-hour debt to the agency totaling $427.60 gross amount and $299.29 net amount.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8 at 1-2. 

On April 22, 2026, Petitioner filed a response to SSA’s status report along with exhibits in support of his response.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 9, 9a.  Petitioner’s exhibits are combined into a 73-page document that lists exhibits A through T.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9a. 

On April 23, 2026, SSA filed a prehearing exchange consisting of a brief and motion for summary judgment1 (SSA Br.), a proposed witness list with one proposed witness, an exhibit list, and six proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-6).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10, 11, 11a-11f, 12.  Petitioner filed an opposition to SSA’s motion for summary judgment on April 24, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13. 

On April 30, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Hearing and Seeking Clarification of the Debt Amount.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 14.  SSA provided a written response to the April 30, Order stating, “Petitioner’s outstanding debt is $427.60 gross amount and $299.29 net amount.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 15.  Petitioner filed an objection to SSA’s clarification on May 8, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 16. 

Page 4

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

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 $427.60 and net total of $299.29.

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 filed multiple pleadings, exhibits, and oppositions, which I will collectively construe as his prehearing exchange.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 5, 5a, 5b, 9, 9a, 13, and 16.  I also consider Petitioner’s two exhibits filed on March 22, 2026, as Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and 2 (P. Ex. 1 and 2).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 5a, 5b.  Petitioner’s combined exhibits filed on April 22, 2026, are construed as Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 (P. Ex. 3).  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9a. 

SSA’s complete prehearing exchange includes a brief, six proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-6), and one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10, 11, 11a-11f, 12. 

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

Page 5

V.  Analysis and Conclusions of Law

I find that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government due to a salary overpayment.  The record supports, and Petitioner does not dispute, that Petitioner worked a 12-hour shift on Thursday, December 25, 2025, and Friday, December 26, 2025, totaling 24 hours.  P. Ex. 3 at 26, 35, 40; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13 at 4.  These dates were designated as federal holidays pursuant to OPM Memorandum CPM 2025-17.  P. Ex. 3 at 41-42. 

SSA admits the Debt Letter showed an incorrect debt amount.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10 at 3 n.1.  To explain the discrepancy in Petitioner’s Debt Letter, SSA submits the sworn declaration of Jeremy Rabenstein, Financial Management Analyst, in SSA’s Office of Human Resources (HR).  SSA Ex. 2.  Mr. Rabenstein proffers to being familiar with “the procedures SSA employes when processing time sheets through the Federal Personnel and Payroll Systems (FPPS).”  Id. at 1.  According to Mr. Rabenstein,

• FPPS is not equipped to process 12-hour shifts.  SSA uses a work around to accommodate employees who work 12-hour shifts.  Once the FPPS system issues a Time and Attendance List of Errors (TALE), an HR employee intervenes and splits up the twelve-hour days into 8- and 4-hour increments in order to process the timesheet.  

Id.  Mr. Rabenstein admits he was the HR employee who processed Petitioner’s TALE for pay period 2026-01.  He states,

• Petitioner’s time sheet for pay period 2026-01 was originally submitted with 24 hours of Pay Code 051 – Holiday Worked and 36 hours of Pay Code 50 – Holiday not Worked.  When correcting the TALE for pay period 2026-01 [Mr. Rabenstein] inadvertently added 8 extra hours of pay code 051 – Holiday Worked to Petitioner’s time sheet.
• When notified . . .of this discrepancy, [Mr. Rabenstein] amended [Petitioner’s] timesheet and changed it back to 24 hours of Pay Code 051 – Holiday Worked and 36 hours of Pay Code 050 – Holiday not Worked.  This created a debt for 8 hours of Pay Code 051 – Holiday Worked.  
• The amended timesheet was processed in pay period 2026-03. 

Id. (Emphasis added).  SSA Exhibit 3, the original FPPS for pay period 2026-01, shows 24 hours of pay code -051, on Thursday, December 25, 2025, and Friday, December 26, 2025, 

Page 6

before the manual TALE corrections were entered by Mr. Rabenstein, to account for the system’s inability to process 12-hour shifts.  See SSA Ex. 3. 

SSA Exhibit 4 shows the FPPS for pay period 2026-01, after the 12-hour shifts worked by Petitioner on Thursday, December 25, 2025, and Friday, December 26, 2025, were broken into 8-hour shifts.  See SSA Ex. 4.  SSA Exhibit 4 shows “0800” hours under “WED, THU, FRI,” and “SAT” of “PP2601,” which is incorrect as Petitioner only worked 24 hours (two twelve hours shifts) on December 25 and 26, eligible for pay code -051.  Therefore, I find SSA has met their burden in showing an overpayment of 8 hours exists.  SSA submits SSA Exhibit 6 showing the correction to 24 hours of pay code 051-Holiday Worked in support of this overpayment.  See SSA Ex. 6. 

Understanding the difference owed is 8 hours, I look at Petitioner’s Earnings and Leave Statement for pay period 2026-01 to understand the amount of the debt.  See SSA Ex. 5.  SSA Exhibit 5 shows Petitioner’s hourly rate is $53.45.  Id.  During pay period 2026-01 Petitioner was paid $1,710.40 for 32 hours of Holiday-Worked, which divided by 32, is $53.45, matching Petitioner’s hourly wage.  Following this math, we know that 8 overpaid hours of Holiday Worked, multiplied by Petitioner’s hourly rate of $53.45, equals $427.60.  Accordingly, I find Petitioner’s gross amount owed is $427.60, the amount in SSA’s April 30, 2026 clarification of debt amount filing.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 15 at 1. 

After clarifying what appears to be a typo, SSA provides that the exact net debt for the 8 hours is $299.29.  Id.  However, Petitioner raises issue with “how the gross amount became a net amount of $299.29.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 16 at 3. 

Looking at Petitioner’s Earnings and Leave Statement for pay period 2026-01, it’s evident that there were various deductions and benefits paid for either directly by Petitioner or by the government.  SSA Ex. 5.  These calculations are based on the total amount paid to the employee, which in this instance includes the overpayment.  SSA states that upon adjusting the debt “by removing 36 hours of pay code 050 Holiday”, where “Petitioner was previously paid for these hours during pay period 2026-01,” a sum of “$1,236.50 is not directly returned to [Petitioner], but is applied to the debt thereby reducing it to $427.60 gross and $299.29 net.”  SSA Br. at 7; P. Ex. 3 at 11.  SSA argues that the “debt was adjusted by removing 36 hours of pay code 050 Holiday -Not Worked, which is the equivalent of $1,924.20 gross and $1,236.50 net, thus reducing the debt from what was originally sought to the present $299.99 [sic] net.”2  SSA Br. at 7-8.  This is the closest we get to obtaining an explanation from SSA on the net debt calculation. 

Page 7

I understand Petitioner’s frustration with this process given he did not have any fault in any of the actions that were created by a simple processing error in correcting the TALE for pay period 2026-01.  And I appreciate Petitioner’s diligence in pointing out the discrepancies in the record, for which I urge SSA to be more prudent in reviewing their filings before confusing the record, however, 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 gross debt is $427.60 and the net debt is $299.29. 

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 my current review of the debt. 

VII.  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 record, it is clear Petitioner is frustrated and surprised by SSA’s overpayment determination and genuinely believes the decision was unwarranted.  Thus, while I do not find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive, I do find that he challenged the debt in good faith and there is no indication Petitioner sought to delay payment of the debt.  It is also worth mentioning that Petitioner did not request any delay in this case despite having the opportunity and right to do so. 

Page 8

VIII.  Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a gross debt to the government in the amount of $427.60 and net debt of $299.29.  This amount is for the overpayment in pay period 2026-01. 

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).