Fred Roper, DAB CR6944 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Fred Roper, is employed as an Attorney Advisor with the Social Security Administration (SSA), paid at the GS-12, step 8 level.  On or about April 3, 2026, SSA changed Petitioner’s official duty station (ODS) from St. Louis, Missouri to Richmond, Contra Costa, California.  On or about April 23, 2026, SSA corrected Petitioner’s ODS back to St. Louis, Missouri.  The change in rate prompted SSA to notify Petitioner on May 11, 2026, that he was overpaid during pay period 2026-09 and received “employee pay that was higher than it should have been.”  The net amount of the assessed overpayment is $1,255.54. 

Petitioner does not dispute the existence of the debt but challenges the amount of the assessed debt. 

As discussed below, I agree with SSA that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government due to the change in Petitioner’s ODS during pay period 2026-09.   Therefore, I affirm SSA’s determination that the overpayment debt is valid and the net amount of $1,255,54 owed by Petitioner is accurate.

Page 2

I.      Background and Procedural History

On or about May 11, 2026, Petitioner received a letter stating he owed a debt (Debt ID: 61321267391) to SSA in the net amount of $1,255.54, due to an overpayment resulting from “employee pay that was higher than it should have been.”  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 1a at 1 (Debt Letter); Exs. 2, 6.  The Debt Letter advised Petitioner that he could request a hearing to dispute the “administrative determination of the existence or amount of the debt” within 15 days of the date of the letter.  Id., Ex. 5. 

On May 21, 2026, Petitioner timely submitted a request for hearing to SSA by email, challenging the debt determination.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 1 (Hearing Request).  Petitioner argued that the calculation in the letter is in error because Missouri wages, but California taxes, were applied in two of three incorrect paychecks.  Id.  Petitioner also requested a waiver of repayment.  Id. 

On May 27, 2026, SSA forwarded this request for hearing to the DAB’s Civil Remedies Division (CRD).  CRD docketed the request under the above-captioned case number and assigned it to me for adjudication. 

On June 2, 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 outlined the procedures governing this case, established prehearing deadlines, and scheduled an oral hearing, if necessary, for June 18, 2026.  Id. at 1, ¶¶ 1-7. 

On June 8, 2026, SSA filed its prehearing exchange.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 5, 5a-5d.  On June 8th and 9th, Petitioner filed his prehearing exchange.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 7, 7a-7d, 8-10, 10a. 

Petitioner’s prehearing exchange includes a brief (P. Br.), five proposed exhibits (P. Exs. 1-5), and four proposed witnesses.1  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1a, 7, 7a-7d, 10, 10a. 

P. Ex. 1: Earnings and Leave Statement (ELS) for Pay Period (PP) ending
               04/04/2026.  
P. Ex. 2: ELS for PP ending 04/18/2026.  
P. Ex. 3: ELS for PP ending 05/02/2026.  
P. Ex. 4: ELS for PP ending 05/16/2026. 

Page 3

P. Ex. 5: ELS for PP ending 05/30/2026. 

SSA’s prehearing exchange includes a brief (SSA Br.), two proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-2), and one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 5, 5a-5d. 

SSA Ex. 1: ELS for PPs 2026-08 to 2026-10. 
SSA Ex. 2: SF-50s of Petitioner. 

Neither party asserted any reason why an oral hearing was necessary outside of the evidence they had already submitted.  Therefore, on June 15, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Oral Hearing.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11.  I found that because there is no dispute as to the existence of the alleged debt and no oral hearing need be provided, this case would be adjudicated as a paper hearing.  Id. at 2. 

On June 16, 2026, SSA filed its Objections to Petitioner’s Brief/Response.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12. SSA objected to Petitioner’s waiver request, Petitioner’s contention that the collections on the debt had started, and the fact that Petitioner has not provided evidence to dispute the agency’s debt calculation.  Id. at 1-2. 

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

The record is now complete, and this case is ripe for a decision. 

II.     Issues

I am only authorized to decide the following issues in this case: 

1) Whether Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government (that is, the existence of the debt); and

2) If so, whether $1,255.54 net is the correct amount of debt owed (that is, the amount of the debt). 

See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D); 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(e)(2)(ii).2

Page 4

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) (Hearing Official definition), (i)(1).  SSA maintains an interagency agreement under which administrative law judges with the CRD adjudicate SSA federal salary overpayment cases.  See Portia L. Pierce, DAB CR2049 at 5 (2009); Jan Donsbach, DAB CR1536 (2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 422.801. 

IV.    Ruling

1. SSA’s objection to Petitioner’s waiver request is sustained. 

Petitioner also included in his Hearing Request a request to waive repayment.  Hearing Request at 1.  Petitioner contends that “as it was due to an administrative error … [it] was not my fault [and] I tried to get it corrected immediately upon discovering it.”  Id. Petitioner also notes the Debt Letter “was confusing regarding my appeal rights, as it was not clear where to send each appeal to,” and “for waivers, the letter did not specify how to contact the Servicing Personnel Office.  Id. 

SSA objects to Petitioner’s waiver request and argument, stating that these are not issues pending before me.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12, A. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)). 

This objection is sustained.  A hearing request under 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and a waiver request under 5 U.S.C. § 5584 are “distinct, but not mutually exclusive methods of seeking relief from the agency’s intended action” to collect a debt from a federal employee.  Petra A. Illig, M.D., DAB CR2559 at 2 (2012).  I previously noted this in my Prehearing Order and referred Petitioner to Exhibit 4 to the Debt Letter.  Prehearing Order at 1, n.1.  My authority is limited to determining the existence, amount, and repayment schedule of an alleged debt.  Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to decide Petitioner’s waiver request.  See Alfred H. Varga, DAB CR342 at 1-3 (1994).  I encourage Petitioner to submit his waiver request through the appropriate channels at SSA.  Exhibit 4 to Petitioner’s debt letter provides instructions and requirements for submitting a waiver request to Petitioner’s Servicing Personnel Office.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a. 

Page 5

V.      Analysis and Conclusions of Law

1. Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government due to a salary overpayment. 

Due to a reorganization, SSA incorrectly changed Petitioner’s duty station from St. Louis, Missouri to Richmond, Contra Costa, California (Box 39), where the locality adjusted pay is higher; with an effective date of April 5, 2026.  SSA Ex. 2 at 1.  Afterward, SSA cancelled the improper change in duty station, thereby correcting Petitioner’s duty station back to Missouri, effective April 5, 2026.  SSA Ex. 2 at 2.  The time it took for SSA human resources staff to effect this change, or one pay period, resulted in an overpayment in the amount of $1,593.44 gross and $1,255.54 net in PP 2026-09, which Petitioner was notified of.  Debt Letter, Ex. 6.  There is no dispute that SSA made a mistake during PP 9 and Petitioner was overpaid. 

After comparing the earnings and leave statements for pay periods before, during and after pay period (PP) 9, it is clear that Petitioner’s gross pay and net pay in PPs 8 and 10 are the same, i.e. $7,268.16 gross and $4,653.64 or $4,413.27 net, while his gross and net pay in PP 9 is higher, $8,861.60 gross and $5,276.69 net.3  Compare P. Ex. 1 (PP 8) and P. Ex. 3 (PP 10) with P. Ex. 2 (PP 9).  The difference in pay is the amount noticed in the Debt Letter.4  SSA incorrectly listed Petitioner as a California resident, rather than as a Missouri resident, for PP 9.  Petitioner does not dispute this overpayment, and notes that he took immediate steps to rectify the error. 

I understand Petitioner’s frustration at being required to repay a debt, particularly one that resulted from SSA’s error and through no fault of his.  However, I have no discretion under the governing statute or regulations to waive or reduce a valid debt, regardless of how the debt originated.  Therefore, while I sympathize with Petitioner’s situation, I am unable to provide any relief on this basis. 

I find that due to an error in change to Petitioner’s ODS made by SSA in PP 9, Petitioner was overpaid, resulting in an overpayment of his salary of $1,593.44 gross and $1,255.54

Page 6

net.  Although the overpayment was caused by SSA’s error, I find that Petitioner is liable for the resulting debt.  Therefore, I conclude that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government. 

2. The net total amount of the debt may be recalculated.

There is one issue and that is the net total amount of the overpayment.  The gross amount paid in PP 9 was higher than in PPs 8 or 10, and Petitioner worked the same number of hours in PPs 8, 9, and 10: 

Regular                                    80
Overtime – Regular            36
FLSA Premium                     36

SSA Ex. 1 at 1, 3, 5.  So, the comparison between salary paid in PP 9 (erroneous locality adjusted pay) and PP 8 or 10 (correct locality adjusted pay) is valid. 

However, Petitioner is also correct in that California state tax as well as the deductions for his Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contribution, OASDI Tax, FEGLI and union dues, were deducted at a higher rate in PP 9 than when properly located in Missouri, e.g., in PP 8/10.  The fact that Petitioner was paid at the higher locality adjusted pay in PP 9 may account for the higher taxes and deductions.  Unfortunately, for Petitioner, the gross debt calculation of $1,593.44 is still correct.  Furthermore, the state tax withholding issue is for Petitioner to sort out with the Internal Revenue Service.  The TSP contribution while higher in PP 9 was made in his name to his account, but Petitioner may want to check his statements to ensure his year-to-date contribution total matches his total ELS deductions.  Finally, the union dues deducted in PP 9 do not affect the debt amount since Petitioner intended to pay his dues through payroll deductions and he would typically contact the union directly if he wanted to change his membership status. 

Based on the evidence in the record, I conclude that the total debt for Debt ID: 61321267391 owed by Petitioner is $1,593.44 gross and $1,255.54 net.  This amount represents the difference in Petitioner’s locality pay adjustment from Missouri to California.  Compare P. Ex. 1 (PP 8) and P. Ex. 3 (PP 10) with P. Ex. 2 (PP 9).  SSA notes that this debt has not been collected, and debt collection is currently on hold.  SSA’s Objections at 1-2, B.; cf. P. Br. at 2 (Petitioner contends that collection has begun).  Petitioner is correct about some of the excess deductions resulting from SSA’s error and may request that SSA recalculate the debt with those factors in mind as well as submit a waiver request.  See Section IV. Ruling. 

Page 7

VI.    Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government in the amount of $1,255.54. 

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