Thomas A. Hunt, DAB CR6936 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Thomas A. Hunt, 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 debt amount of $17,310.15 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

In an April 29, 2026 letter, SSA informed Petitioner that he owed an overpayment in the amount of $17,310.15 (Debt ID M2611900003) as a result of owing retroactive retirement deductions.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 1, 9.  The letter informed Petitioner that if the full amount owed was not paid within 30 days, then interest of 4.000% per annum and a late penalty of 6.000% per annum will accrue until the debt is paid in full.  See id. at 1, 3.  SSA’s letter also stated that Petitioner could request a hearing to dispute the existence of the debt or the amount of the debt.  Id. at 8. 

Page 2

On May 13, 2026, Petitioner sent SSA an email, with supporting documentation attached, challenging the existence of the debt and requesting a hearing.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1a, 1b.  On May 14, 2026, SSA electronically filed Petitioner’s request for a hearing with the Civil Remedies Division (CRD) of the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Departmental Appeals Board (DAB).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1a, 1b. 

On May 15, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order, and Notice of Informal Conference or Meeting (Prehearing Order).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2.  In the Prehearing Order, I provided a schedule for the submission of arguments and evidence as well as notice that I may hold an informal conference or meeting on June 16, 2026, if the parties explained why such a conference or meeting was necessary.  Id. at 2-5. 

On June 8, 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 five proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-5).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 5, 5a-5g.  Petitioner did not file a prehearing exchange. 

On June 9, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Oral Hearing.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6.  On June 11, 2026, Petitioner emailed the attorney advisor assisting me with this case seeking assistance with the DAB E-File system.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 8, 8a.  On June 11, 2026, Petitioner also filed a letter that explained his arguments about the overpayment and why it was not his fault.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9.  Petitioner also renewed his request for a hearing and acknowledged that he missed the deadline to explain why a hearing was necessary.2  See id.  On June 12, 2026, SSA filed Respondent’s Objections to Petitioner’s Brief/Respondent.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11. 

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 $17,310.15.

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 CRD 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 a request for hearing, a copy of the debt letter, copies of his SF-50s, and the June 11, 2026 letter.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1a, 1b, 9. 

SSA’s complete prehearing exchange includes a brief, five proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-5), and one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 5, 5a-5g. 

Given that Petitioner did not object to SSA’s exhibits, I admit SSA’s exhibits into the administrative record.  While SSA did object3 to Petitioner’s June 11, 2026 letter, I admit Petitioner’s request for hearing, a copy of the debt letter, copies of his SF-50s, and the June 11, 2026 letter into the administrative record.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1a, 1b, 9. 

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 was placed into the wrong retirement system in 2013.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 3. 

Page 4

Beginning on January 1, 2013, new federal employees were to be enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System-Revised Annuity Employees (FERS-RAE) retirement system.  Public Law 112-96, § 5001.  FERS-RAE employees pay a 2.3% higher employee contribution (3.1% total) above the percentage set for FERS, which requires a 0.8% contribution rate.  Id.; see 5 C.F.R. § 841.103.  Employees hired after December 31, 2012, who were not excluded from FERS (K) coverage are subject to FERS-RAE (KR), unless they meet specific service requirements as of December 31, 2012, that would allow them to be subject to original FERS.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5c (SSA Ex. 2, United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Benefits Administration Letter 12-104).  Benefits Administration Letter 12-104 states that employees eligible for retirement in 2013 or later will be excluded from FERS-RAE coverage if any of the following exceptions apply:

1. the individual on December 31, 2012, was covered under FERS; or
2. the individual on December 31, 2012, was performing civilian service which is creditable or potentially creditable service under FERS (for example the individual may have been covered under another retirement system from which service credit may be transferred to FERS, such as CSRS, CSRS-Offset, Foreign Service, Federal Reserve, or CIARDS), or
3. the individual on December 31, 2012, was not covered under FERS and was not performing civilian service which is creditable or potentially creditable service under FERS, but as of December 31, 2012, had performed at least five years of civilian service creditable or potentially creditable under FERS, including service subject to CSRS or CSRS-Offset.

Id. at 1-2.

On December 30, 2012, Petitioner began working at SSA in a temporary appointment, not to exceed one year.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 1-3.  During the temporary appointment, Petitioner was not covered by any retirement plan.  See id. at box 30.  When Petitioner’s temporary appointment at SSA was converted to an excepted service appointment in 2013, Petitioner was incorrectly placed into the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS).  See id. at box 45.  On November 21, 2025, after inquiring about making a military deposit, Petitioner was notified by a human resources (HR) specialist that in 2013 he was incorrectly placed into FERS instead of FERS-RAE.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5b (SSA Ex. 1).  Petitioner is subject to FERS-RAE because he became eligible for retirement coverage after December 31, 2012; his appointment to excepted service was effective on August 25, 2013.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b.  Additionally, Petitioner does not meet the exceptions listed in the OPM Benefits Administration Letter 12-104.  As of December 31, 2012, Petitioner was not covered

Page 5

under FERS, had no credible service under FERS, and had no previous civilian service.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 1, 3.

SSA’s payroll provider, the Department of the Interior (DOI), conducted an audit of Petitioner’s retirement contributions.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5e (SSA Ex. 4).  The DOI audit shows that from 2013 through 2025, Petitioner contributed $5,396.96 towards his retirement under FERS when he should have contributed $20,912.22 under FERS-RAE for a difference of $15,515.26.  Id.  When Petitioner’s retirement code was corrected in pay period 202525, he had under contributed $1,794.89.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5f (SSA Ex. 5).  The audit shows that Petitioner underpaid his retirement contributions from 2013 through 2025 by $17,310.15.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5e (SSA Ex. 4) at 2.

Petitioner argues that he is not at fault for the overpayment because he would not know which retirement code he should be under.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9.  I understand Petitioner’s argument and frustration given he did not have any fault in any of the actions that were created by HR placing him in the wrong retirement account in 2013.  However, upon careful review of the evidence in the record, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government, which Petitioner does not deny.  I also conclude that the amount of the debt is $17,310.15.

VI.  Waiver

The April 29, 2026 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.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a 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.  I strongly urge SSA to consider a waiver if Petitioner decides to pursue a waiver.

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

Page 6

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.

VIII.  Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the government in the amount of $17,310.15.

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).