Kenneth Burden, DAB CR6977 (2026)

DECISON

Petitioner, Kenneth Burden, is a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA or Respondent) disputing an alleged debt owed to the United States Government.  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 1 (Hearing Request).  As discussed below, I agree with SSA that Debt ID 61601925740 for a gross amount of $17,888.78 and a net amount of $14,834.93, is valid.  Therefore, I AFFIRM SSA's determination that the overpayment debt is valid and accurate, and the amount owed by Petitioner is correct.

I.  Factual Background and Procedural History

On August 10, 2022, SSA General Counsel Royce Min announced a pilot project to "test a possible expansion of the agency's current remote work (formerly known as ‘outstationing') rules . . .".  P. Ex. 2 (August 10, 2022, Email titled "INFORMATION: OGC Test of Remote Work Expansion") at 2.  As part of this pilot program, SSA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) gained authority "to hire [personnel] directly into remote positions," whereas previous rules "specifically excluded new hires" from remote work

Page 2

positions.  Id.; see also P. Ex. 16 (Personnel Policy Manual Remote Work issued August 10, 2022).

On January 17, 2023, Petitioner was hired as a full-time, remote employee under the pilot project by OGC's Office of Program Litigation, Division 3, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  P. Ex. 15.  Specifically, Petitioner was appointed to a GS-13, Step 5, General Attorney position working remotely from his home in Princeton Junction, New Jersey, which is in the New York-Newark locality pay area.  P. Ex. 1 (SF-50 dated January 17, 2023) at 1-2; P. Ex. 15 (Appointment Affidavit); SSA Ex. 2 (November 8, 2022, Email titled "Official Offer of Employment with the Social Security Administration") at 1, 2.  On appointment, Petitioner's Official Duty Station (ODS) was recorded in the SF-50 as Princeton Junction, Mercer, New Jersey, which is Petitioner's hometown.  P. Ex. 1 (Box 39, SF-50); see also SSA Exs. 1-2.  Princeton Junction, New Jersey, is in the New York-Newark locality pay area, and so, Petitioner received general schedule locality pay for the New York-Newark locality area.  SSA Exs. 11-13.  On May 3, 2023, Petitioner's immediate supervisor approved Petitioner to telework daily from his home in Princeton Junction, New Jersey.  P. Ex. 17.

On January 30, 2024, the SSA Commissioner, Martin O'Malley, issued a statement requiring SSA "employees in headquarters components, regional offices, and area director offices [to] increase their onsite presence to three days per week with two days of telework optional[,]" effective April 7, 2024.  SSA Ex. 3 (January 30, 2024, Email titled "Increasing Our Onsite Presence").  The Commissioner's statement informed employees that they would receive more information regarding logistics from their respective managers.  Id.

On February 1, 2024, Petitioner's immediate supervisor sent Petitioner an email informing him of the changes to telework and reminding him to submit requests for Alternate or Compressed Work Schedules, Telework, and Transit Subsidy.  SSA Ex. 4 at 1-3 (February 1, 2024, Email titled "ACTION: Semi-Annual Reminders – February 2024").  With respect to telework, Petitioner was informed that OGC's new telework frequency would be 2 days per week, with Wednesday as the "core day" on which employees could not telework.  Id. at 1.  Employees, such as Petitioner, who teleworked more frequently or on the core day were directed to submit an updated telework agreement.  Id.  In a February 7, 2024, email to OGC management, Petitioner expressed his "disappointment with the return to office directive" and requested to "remain on remote work status, five days per week."  P. Ex. 19 at 1-2.

On March 25, 2024, Petitioner was informed that "[e]mployees with approved remote work or outstationing-to-home agreements" were not impacted by the previously announced changes to OGC's telework frequency.  SSA Ex. 4 at 4 (March 25, 2024, Email titled "UPDATE TO OGC'S INCREASED ONSITE PRESENCE: ACTION: Semi-Annual Reminders – February 2024").  OGC also announced revisions to its

Page 3

previous telework frequency; instead, authorizing telework up to 3 days per week and no core day, effective April 7, 2024.  Id.

On April 3, 2024, Petitioner entered into a scheduled telework agreement requiring him to report to his Official Duty Station (ODS) two days a week and to work remotely from his Alternate Duty Station (ADS) three days a week.1  SSA Ex. 6, Scheduled Telework Agreement; see also P. Ex. 4.  This agreement indicated that Petitioner's ADS was his home address in Princeton Junction, New Jersey.  Id. at 1.

On May 6, 2024, SSA General Counsel, Tina Waddell, announced in an email to all OGC employees, including Petitioner, that she "will be ending OGC's remote work test, effective July 31, 2024.  SSA Ex. 5 (May 6, 2024, Email titled "INFORMATION: OGC Remote Work Test").  The email stated that OGC leadership would contact affected employees with additional information and instructions regarding their individual status as soon as possible.  Id.

In May or June 2024, Petitioner's immediate supervisor informed Petitioner that "pursuant to agency policy, [Petitioner was] no longer eligible to work remotely and [he] would be required to report to OGC's Philadelphia office twice a week, effective August 5, 2024."  P. Ex. 14 at 1.

Beginning August 1, 2024, Petitioner reported to OGC's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office twice a week, and worked from his home in Princeton Junction, New Jersey three times a week.  P. Ex. 4 at 1.  On April 2, 2025, Petitioner began working 5 days a week in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office.  Id.  Except for episodic approved telework, approved parental and regular leave, and furlough during the 2025 government shutdown, Petitioner continued to work 5 days a week at the Philadelphia office through the present day.  Id.; see also P. Br. at 7 (Chart detailing Petitioner's remote and in-office work).

From January to February 2026, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Petitioner, and SSA human resources officials discussed correcting Petitioner's ODS from his home in Princeton Junction, New Jersey to OGC's Philadelphia office.  P. Exs. 4, 6-10.  Initially, Petitioner requested a prospective effective date for his change in ODS, specifically, the next pay period following February 13, 2026.  P. Exs. 7-9.  HR staff also considered an effective date of April 2, 2025, when Petitioner began reporting to the Philadelphia office

Page 4

five days a week, but ultimately concluded that the appropriate effective date for Petitioner's change in ODS was August 1, 2024, when the remote work test ended and Petitioner began reporting to the Philadelphia office twice a week.  P. Exs. 7-10; SSA Exs. 7, 16.  Since August 1, 2024, Petitioner's duty station had been incorrectly listed as his home in Princeton Junction, New Jersey, which resulted in putting him in the incorrect locality pay area and paying Petitioner at a higher pay rate.  Petitioner whose paternity leave lasted from November 24, 2025, to February 28, 2026, first became aware of the Respondent's intent to change his ODS when he returned from paternity leave on March 1, 2026.  P. Br. at 8.

On or about May 21, 2026, SSA initiated personnel actions to correct Petitioner's ODS and locality pay from Princeton Junction, New Jersey, in the New York-Newark locality pay area to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office and locality pay area, which was effective retroactive to August 1, 2024.  SSA Exs. 7, 9-10.  This correction in locality pay area for a 22-month period spanning August 1, 2024, to May 16, 2026, resulted in 16 SF-50s and an overpayment totaling $17,888.78 gross and $14,834.93 net.  P. Ex. 5; SSA Exs. 9, 14.

On June 8, 2026, SSA issued a letter notifying Petitioner of the alleged overpayment (Debt ID No. 61601925740) and his related due process rights.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a (Debt Letter).  This letter informed Petitioner that if he did not pay the full amount of the debt to SSA within 30 days from the date the notice was mailed, then interest of 1% per year and a late penalty of 6% per year would accrue until the debt was paid in full.  Id. The letter also informed Petitioner that he could request a hearing to dispute the administrative determination of the existence of the debt or the amount of the debt by mailing, within 15 days of the date on SSA's letter, a written request for hearing to the Director, Division of Reimbursable and Administrative Collections (DRAC, Social Security Administration) PO Box 17042, Baltimore, Maryland, 21235 or OF.Debt.Management.Team@ssa.gov.  Id. at 8.

On June 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a timely Hearing Request by email, disputing the existence and amount of the alleged overpayment.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 (Hearing Request).  Further, Petitioner alleged:

• SSA's recoupment action denies Petitioner due process of law; and
• SSA's retroactive change of Petitioner's Duty Station violates federal regulations and the SSA Personnel Policy Manual.

Id. at 2-3.  Petitioner also reserved his rights to further develop the basis for his arguments depending on SSA's justification for its action.  Id. at 4.

Page 5

In accordance with the deadlines established in the Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order and Notice of Oral Hearing or Paper Hearing (Prehearing Order) issued on July 1, 2026, both parties filed timely prehearing exchanges and responsive briefs and objections.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2 ¶ 4.  On July 13, 2026, SSA filed its brief (SSA Br.), proposed witness list, exhibit list, and 14 proposed exhibits (SSA Exhibits (Exs.) 1-14).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 4-5, 5a-n, 6.  Later that day, Petitioner filed his brief (P. Br.), proposed witness list, exhibit list and 14 proposed exhibits (P. Exs. 1-14).2  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 7-8, 8a-b.  In addition to the arguments raised in his Hearing Request, Petitioner argued that SSA had recouped $5,531.74 of the alleged overpayment in his paycheck for the pay period ending June 13, 2026.  P. Br. at 10.

On July 20, 2026, SSA filed objections to Petitioner's brief, and Petitioner filed a responsive brief, an updated witness list and three more proposed exhibits (P. Exs. 15-17).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 (SSA Objections) at 1-2.  On July 23, 2026, Petitioner filed four notices to appear at the July 27, 2026, hearing: one for each of his four proposed witnesses.3  See, e.g., CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2 at 1, 4 ¶ 7.  On that same day, SSA filed a joint motion to reschedule the hearing because two witnesses were out of the office and their availability unknown, and the two other witnesses were unavailable.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13.  On July 24, 2026, I granted the motion and continued the July 27th hearing, ordering parties to confer with their witnesses and to submit notice of their proposed August hearing dates by July 31, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 14.

On July 31, 2026, and after parties' joint response regarding their witnesses' availability, I issued an order rescheduling the hearing to take place on August 10, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 16; see also CRD Dkt. Entry No. 15.  On August 4, 2026, Petitioner filed an amended proposed witness list and a notice to appear for one additional witness.4  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 17, 17a.

Page 6

On August 10, 2026, I presided over an informal oral hearing via Microsoft Teams.  Present at the hearing were:  Jennifer Patel and Patricia Stewart, counsels appearing on behalf of SSA; SSA and its witness, Adriana L. Rios, Human Resources (HR) Specialist; Petitioner; Petitioner's witnesses, April J. Knox and Dyanette M. Siaca, Program Analysts in Law & Policy, and Sara T. Bell, Head of Human Resources.  Also present were Hsin-I Russell, CRD Attorney Advisor assisting me on this case, and Evie James, CRD paralegal, to record the hearing.  I reviewed the issues in the case and acknowledged receipt of the parties' prehearing exchanges, including SSA's objections and Petitioner's responsive brief.  As neither party objected, I admitted both parties' exhibits into the administrative record as SSA Exhibits (SSA Exs.) 1-14 and Petitioner Exhibits (P. Exs.) 1-17.

At the hearing, I ruled on one of the two objections raised by SSA in its Responsive Brief and Objections.  See SSA Objections at 1-2.  I sustained SSA's objection to Petitioner's waiver request, ruling that I do not have jurisdiction to waive the alleged overpayment debt.  However, I deferred ruling on SSA's second objection regarding Petitioner's arguments concerning $5,531.74 already deducted from Petitioner's pay until I had a chance to examine the record.

I swore-in Petitioner and the four witnesses.  Next, SSA and Petitioner each provided a brief presentation on their arguments, including witness testimony.  Ms. Rios testified that she completed the personnel action to change Petitioner's ODS and the process of determining Petitioner's official duty station and locality pay, referencing telework agreements, personnel record changes and HR policy guidance.  Ms. Rios was cross-examined by Petitioner and re-crossed by SSA.  SSA Head of HR Sara Bell testified that the retroactive changes to Petitioner's duty station and locality pay rate on his SF-50s were the result of an administrative error and from not processing the change at the time it occurred.  Ms. Bell was cross-examined by Petitioner and re-crossed by SSA.  SSA Program Analysts in Law & Policy April Knox and her supervisor at the time of the ODS change action, Dyanette Siaca, described their roles in the internal communications around Petitioner's change in duty station.  Both witnesses were cross-examined by SSA counsel, as well.  During the hearing, I also questioned several witnesses, including Petitioner, concerning SSA policy and Petitioner's remote work agreement.

After the hearing, I directed Ms. Russell to ask Petitioner and SSA to submit a few demonstratives referenced during the hearing.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 19.  SSA supplemented its evidence by filing one additional exhibit (SSA Ex. 15) on August 10, 2026, CRD Dkt. Entry No. 18, and two demonstratives (SSA Exs. 16-17) on August 11, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 20, 20a.  Petitioner filed a post hearing exhibit list and two proposed exhibits (P. Exs. 18-19) the following day.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 21.

Page 7

On August 12, 2026, a copy of the hearing recording was made available to the parties through the Departmental Appeals Board electronic filing system (DAB E-File).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos 22, 22a-c.  The record is complete and ready 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 total gross debt of $17,888.78 and a total net debt of $14,834.93; and
3. If there is a repayment schedule that is established other than by written agreement, whether the terms of the repayment schedule are appropriate.

III.  Jurisdiction

The three 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 with the Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), under which administrative law judges from the Civil Remedies Division adjudicate SSA federal salary overpayment cases.  See Portia L. Pierce, DAB CR2049 at 5 (2009); Jan Donsbach, DAB CR1536 at 1 n.1 (2006).

IV.  Rulings

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

On July 20, 2026, SSA filed timely objections to Petitioner's brief.  SSA Objections.  Petitioner then filed a responsive brief, an updated witness list and three more proposed exhibits (P. Exs. 15-17).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10-11, 11a.

Petitioner's prehearing brief noted that he "reserves all rights afforded to him SSA's debt recovery action" which "includes but is not limited to Petitioner's reservation of the right to request a waiver of the purported debt."  P. Br. at 1 n.1.  In Section IV of Petitioner's brief, he asserts that he had clean hands and argues that SSA should be estopped from collecting on his debt as he is without fault in causing the overpayment.  P. Br. at 18-22.  SSA objects to what appears to be Petitioner's waiver argument, stating that waiver is

Page 8

separate from the hearing process and is not an issue pending before the DAB.  SSA Objections at 1-2.

As explained above, I sustained SSA's objection at the hearing.  Although I sympathize with Petitioner, 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).  My jurisdiction is limited to determining the existence, amount, and repayment schedule of an alleged debt.  While fault and other equitable considerations are factors in determining whether to waive a debt owed by a federal employee, they are not factors in this proceeding.  Decisions on whether to waive an employee's overpayment debt are determined solely by SSA.  Therefore, I have no jurisdiction over a 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, especially given Petitioner's equitable arguments and lack of fault.  Exhibit 4 to Petitioner's debt letter provides instructions and requirements for submitting a waiver request to Petitioner's Servicing Personnel Office.  See, e.g., CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 7.

2. SSA's objection to Petitioner's contention that $5,531.74 was deducted from Petitioner's pay in pay period 13 of 2026, is overruled.

SSA also objected to Petitioner's contention that $5,531.74 was deducted from his pay without notice in pay period 13 (PP 13) of 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9; see P. Br. at 10.  SSA asserts that debt collection is on hold and no money has been recouped yet.  SSA Objections at 2.  At the hearing, I deferred ruling on this objection.  I now overrule SSA's objection because whether a portion of the alleged overpayment debt was deducted from Petitioner's paycheck is a factual issue that I must decide in determining the net amount of any overpayment debt.  Accordingly, it is relevant and material to the issues in this proceeding.

As explained below, however, I find that the evidence of record establishes that SSA did not deduct $5,531.74 from Petitioner's pay.  Rather, the "Federal Debt Recovery – Voluntary" item on Petitioner's Earnings and Leave Statement (LES) ending June 13, 2026, is merely a placeholder for future collection of the alleged debt.  To illustrate, SSA noted that had $5,531.74 been deducted from Petitioner's biweekly pay, Petitioner would have received almost no pay in PP 13.  P. Ex. 12 at 1.  Instead, Petitioner received $2,983.09, which was actually higher than his net pay from the previous pay period (PP 12).  Compare P. Ex. 12 with P. Ex. 11 at 1.

Page 9

3. All exhibits proposed by SSA and Petitioner are admitted into the record.

Since neither party objected to the other's proposed exhibits at the hearing, both parties' evidence was admitted into the record as SSA Exhibits (SSA Exs.) 1-14 and Petitioner Exhibits (P. Exs.) 1-17.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 22, 22a-c; see CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 5a-n, 8a, 11a.

During the hearing, parties referred to demonstratives that were not in the record.  After the hearing SSA filed one post-hearing exhibit (SSA Ex. 15).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 18.  Then, in response to my post-hearing request for three demonstratives used during the August 10th hearing, SSA submitted two additional exhibits (SSA Exs. 16-17) and Petitioner submitted two additional exhibits (P. Exs. 18-19).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 20, 20a, 21.  After reviewing parties' post-hearing submissions, I now admit SSA Exhibits 15 through 17, and Petitioner Exhibits 18 and 19 into the record.

SSA's complete exchange includes a prehearing brief (SSA Br.), objections to Petitioner's prehearing brief, proposed witness list, exhibit list, and 17 exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-17).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 4-5, 5a-n, 6, 9, 18, 20, 20a.

Petitioner's complete exchange includes a prehearing brief (P. Br.), a reply brief (P. Reply Br.), updated witness list, amended exhibit list and 19 exhibits (P. Exs. 1-19).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 7-8, 8a-b, 10, 11a, 17, 21.

V.  Applicable Law

If SSA determines that a current SSA employee is indebted to the United States government, SSA may recover the overdue debt in installment deductions and by administrative offset from the employee's salary.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 422.310(a); see also 20 C.F.R. § 422.810 et seq.  Before SSA offsets the debt, however, it must provide 30 days written notice to the employee concerning the nature and amount of the debt, its intent to collect the debt through salary offset, and the employee's due process rights.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 422.310(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(f)(1).  Among others, the employee has the right to request a hearing before an administrative law judge in order to dispute the existence of the debt, the amount of the debt, and/or if a repayment schedule has been established, the terms of the payment schedule.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D); 20 C.F.R. §§ 422.310(c)(6), 422.810(h)(1).

The administrative law judge will make a determination after an oral or paper hearing.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(ii)-(iii).  An oral hearing consists of an informal meeting or conference where testimony is taken under oath.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(ii).  A paper hearing is based on a review of the documentary evidence in the record.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(iii).  The administrative law judge must issue a written decision no later

Page 10

than 60 days after SSA receives the employee's request for hearing.5  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(i).  The written decision must include findings of fact, analyses, and conclusions of law concerning the existence and amount of the debt, including its origin and nature, and the terms of any repayment schedule, if applicable.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii).

VI.  Analysis and Conclusions of Law

1. Petitioner owes a debt to the United States government due to a salary overpayment, resulting from a retroactive change in his official duty station effective August 1, 2024.

The parties agree that the alleged overpayment owed by Petitioner is the result of a retroactive correction to his ODS.  However, the primary issues in dispute are whether Petitioner's ODS should have been changed from Princeton Junction, New Jersey, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and, if so, the effective date of Petitioner's change in ODS.  Petitioner contends that his ODS should not have been changed because he was hired as a remote employee.  According to Petitioner, SSA violated law and SSA policy when it unilaterally changed the terms of Petitioner's employment without advance notice, and SSA should be equitably estopped from pursuing this debt collection action.  P. Br. at 3-4, 15, 16.  To the extent his ODS should have been corrected, Petitioner contends the change in his ODS should have been prospective, effective May 22, 2026, based on the date when HR completed the corrective personnel actions.  P. Br. at 1-2, 7-9, 14; Hearing Recording, 1:42:56.  A prospective change in Petitioner's ODS would not generate an overpayment debt, according to Petitioner.  Id. at 9.  Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the ODS change should be effective, April 2, 2025, when SSA required him to work in the Philadelphia office five days per week, thereby reducing the amount of the alleged overpayment.  P. Br. at 7, 17, 22-23.

In contrast, SSA contends that the agency accurately determined, based on OPM regulations and SSA policy that, "as of August 1, 2024, the first day after the ending of full remote work . . . Petitioner's duty station had been incorrectly listed as his home, which placed him in the incorrect locality pay area with a higher pay rate."  SSA Br. at 3.  Consequently, Petitioner was paid a higher locality pay rate than he was entitled to receive.  Id. (comparing General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables for "New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA" and "Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD."  SSA notes that Petitioner was advised of changes to the agency's telework and remote policies, as early as January 30, 2024, Petitioner subsequently entered into a telework agreement requiring him to report to the Philadelphia office as his ODS twice a week and began working in the Philadelphia office twice a week, beginning August 1, 2024.  Id.

Page 11

Accordingly, Petitioner was overpaid because agency policy dictates that "an employee's official worksite for locality pay for employees with a telework agreement will be the locality rate for their ODS location when they are scheduled to work twice per pay period at the ODS on a regular basis."  Id.

I agree with SSA.  Although Petitioner was hired as a remote employee, he was on notice that SSA could unilaterally change his duty station.  Petitioner was hired under a remote work expansion test program, and, thus, knew the program could be temporary, and he could be required to work in the Philadelphia office.  P. Ex. 2.  Indeed, the Remote Work policy (S650_3) issued on August 10, 2022, in conjunction with the remote work test program, states the agency may "terminate remote work and return employees to their home component's ODS at SSA's expense when in the best interest of SSA."  P. Ex. 16 at 2, 21.  Petitioner was advised of SSA's policy changes and, eventually, cancellation of remote work in several emails and meetings with OGC leadership in January, February, March, April, May, and June of 2024.  SSA Exs. 3-6; P. Ex. 14.  Based on documentary evidence in the record and credible testimony from Petitioner, I find that Petitioner received adequate notice before SSA canceled his remote work arrangement and required him to work in the Philadelphia office, beginning August 1, 2024.  I also find the testimonies of Ms. Rios, Ms. Bell, Ms. Knox, and Ms. Siaca to be credible and consistent with other documents in the record concerning SSA personnel policies and the retroactive correction of Petitioner's ODS.  See, e.g. SSA Ex. 16.  Consequently, I conclude that Petitioner's ODS properly changed to the Philadelphia locality rate when his remote work terminated, and Petitioner was overpaid, as of August 1, 2024.  Unfortunately, the ODS correction action was not processed until May 21, 2026, resulting in an overpayment debt.  SSA Ex. 10; SSA Ex. 7 at 1.  Although HR staff suggested later effective dates for Petitioner's ODS change to minimize the possible financial impact, Ms. Knox testified, "It didn't stick."  HR had to follow applicable regulations, manuals, and policies to correct Petitioner's ODS and corresponding locality pay to the Philadelphia office, effective August 1, 2024.

Therefore, I conclude that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government due to a salary overpayment.  The record supports that from August 1, 2024, when SSA ended remote work for all its employees, through May 16, 2026, Petitioner was erroneously paid at a higher rate.  See SSA Exs. 7, 11-13; see also P. Exs. 4, 6-10.  As Petitioner acknowledges, SSA failed "to change Petitioner's official duty station in his SF-50 when it required Petitioner to report to Philadelphia on a part time based on August 1, 2024."  P. Br. at 12.  Accordingly, SSA was obligated to correct the error in Petitioner's ODS retroactively.

Under Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations, an employee's locality pay is determined based on the employee's official worksite.  5 C.F.R. § 531.604(b).  The official worksite is the location of an employee's position of record where the employee regularly performs his duties.  5 C.F.R. § 531.605(a)(1). Further, if the employee's work

Page 12

involves recurring travel or the employee's work location varies on a recurring basis, the official worksite remains the location where the work activities of the employee's position of record are based, as determined by the employing agency.  5 C.F.R. § 531.605(a)(2).  According to agency policy, an employee's official worksite for locality pay for employees with a telework agreement will be the locality rate for their ODS location when they are scheduled to work twice per pay period at the ODS on a regular basis.  SSA Ex. 8 (Personnel Policy Manual (PPM) Telework (S650_1)) at 2.  Thus, based on OPM regulations and SSA policy, the agency accurately determined that, as of August 1, 2024, the first day after full remote work ended, Petitioner's duty station had been incorrectly listed as his home, which placed him in the incorrect locality pay area with a higher pay rate. SSA Ex. 7; SSA Ex. 16 at 8-12; Hearing Recording, 2:14:40.

As mentioned above, Petitioner argues that since SSA first changed his ODS to Philadelphia on May 22, 2026, that May 22, 2026, is the first date that SSA may adjust Petitioner's pay and benefits to the Philadelphia locality area.  P. Br. at 1-2; see e.g., Hearing Recording, 1:42:56.  However, if I accept this argument, this would be in direct contravention of OPM regulations and HR practice.  Furthermore, Petitioner by his actions and communications with management understood even before the date of the personnel actions taken on May 22, 2026, that the Philadelphia office was his correct ODS.  See, e.g., SSA Exs. 4, 6 (April 3, 2024, Telework Program Request and Agreement indicating his ADS is home address); see also SSA Ex. 3 at 12.

Although Petitioner raises several equitable arguments, such as the doctrines of equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and laches, I do not have authority to grant such relief.  Employees affected by the termination of the remote pilot test program were given notice on the return to the office phases and advised of their eligibility for reimbursement of relocation expenses and/or severance pay if they chose to separate.  See, e.g., SSA Ex. 15 (February 7, 2024, Email from Petitioner asking about "RTO Directive and Remote Work Agreements").  Petitioner asserts there were "two pieces" to the remote program, one as an expansion of remote work for existing employees (affecting more people) and one as a hiring component for new employees to the agency (only several people like himself), and most of these discussions were about these employees who were given remote status during the pandemic and once the pilot ended, to pull back their remote status.  P. Reply Br. 1-2; Hearing Testimony at 1:53:55, 1:55:01, 2:04:27 (ten hires at the time of his hiring).  Petitioner says there is a difference in that he "was hired under this program and [his] ODS was set as [his] home whereas an employee that was hired during the pandemic would have started when they started being employed with the agency in Philadelphia [and his] ODS was never Philadelphia."  Hearing Testimony at 1:54:30.  Although Petitioner signed the 2024 telework agreement with his home city as his ADS, he makes several distinctions: 1) the 2024 telework agreement signed after remote work ended does not state what his ODS is; 2) Princeton Junction, New Jersey, was recorded on all his SF-50s as his ODS, and 3) he had upon hire as a fully remote employee also signed a 2023 telework agreement that set him up for teleworking from his home 24

Page 13

hours a day and seven days a week, and 4) "my official duty station was never discussed as changing."  P. Reply Br. 3-6; Hearing Testimony at 1:57:58, 1:58:20, 2:01:00.  Petitioner asserts that "when [he] was hired it was a fully remote thing," Hearing Testimony at 2:01:50, and "that was the promise that was made when [he] was hired" and "Philadelphia was never on the table and then they changed the contract and that led to [his grievance] and now they're changing my pay rate, which was never discussed with me until now . . . [and] now they're changing my contract again.  If you look at my offer letters, which are in my exhibits, I'm set up as a fully remote anywhere in the US employee . . . there's no discussion of being set as a Philadelphia employee but then being allowed to telework, or then being allowed to remote, it was always fully remote on the New York scale.  Hearing Recording at 2:02:00.  Petitioner contends that his home location is a permissible construction of how an ODS is defined under the PPM and regulations, the agency can choose to change his ODS by going through the process and recording that change but they made a choice and the choice was his home until May of 2026, "now they're saying they're going to change it and do it retroactively . . . and it affects my ability to have actually have made a decision about my working here in 2024."  Hearing Testimony at 2:11:45, 2:12:47 ("I have incomplete information to make a decision on my life … [this is] breaking absolutely fundamental contract principles").  Petitioner's equitable arguments are better suited for a waiver request, which is a separate process outside my jurisdiction.  I also understand Petitioner's frustration that he was not fully advised of the financial implications of the cancellation of his remote work agreement, and, thus, did not have an opportunity to consider whether to decline the change in duty station and seek employment elsewhere, or to inquire about his eligibility to receive relocation or travel expenses if he accepted the change in duty station.  Hearing Testimony at 2:09:50; see also P. Ex. 16 at 14 (Remote Work Policy (S650_3), Sections 5.7.12 and 5.7.13 stating that SSA home components "will pay remote work employees' travel expenses when they require employees to return to their home components to perform official duties . . .[and] will pay remote work employees' relocation expenses to return to their home components or alternative locations that will become employees' ODSs only if the relocation is primarily in the interest of the government.").  Nevertheless, I find that SSA had authority to cancel Petitioner's remote work agreement, provided sufficient notice of the cancellation, and was obliged to make the make the corrections retroactively to August 1, 2024, after SSA failed to change Petitioner's ODS at the time it cancelled Petitioner's remote work.  See P. Ex. 16 at 21; Hearing Testimony at 2:07:06.  Accordingly, although Petitioner is not at fault for the accumulated debt, I find that the overpayment debt is valid.

2. Petitioner owes a total gross debt of $17,888.78 and a total net debt of $14,834.93.

Having determined that Petitioner's overpayment debt is valid, I now turn to whether SSA's calculation of the amount of the debt is correct.  As explained above, Petitioner was hired as a remote worker with an ODS of Princeton Junction, New Jersey on January

Page 14

17, 2023.  Upon termination of its remote work test program, SSA should have changed Petitioner's ODS from Princeton Junction, New Jersey, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, effective August 1, 2024.  Instead, Petitioner continued to receive pay at the higher locality pay for Princeton, New Jersey, rather than the reduced locality pay for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, until SSA processed the ODS correction action on May 21, 2026.  Consequently, Petitioner was overpaid from August 1, 2024, through May 16, 2026.

To support its calculation of Petitioner's overpayment debt, SSA submitted Petitioner's Earnings and Leave Statements from pay periods 2024-17 (ending 08/10/24) through 2026-11 (ending 05/16/26) showing Petitioner's "Duty Station" as "NJ" and Petitioner's corresponding hourly rate of pay.  SSA Exs. 11-13.  For pay periods 2026-12 (ending 05/30/26) and 2026-13 (ending 06/13/26), Petitioner's Earnings and Leave Statement indicates that Petitioner's "Duty Station" was changed to "PA," and he was paid at a lower hourly rate of pay.  SSA Ex. 13 at 22-26.  SSA also provided links to the GS Locality Pay Tables for "New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA" and "Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD" for the years 2024, 2025, and 2026, documenting the relative difference in pay for each year Petitioner was overpaid.  Lastly, SSA submitted a chart calculating the amount Petitioner was overpaid in each pay period from 2024-17 through 05/16/26, totaling $17,888.78.  SSA Exs. 11-14; SSA Br. at 5-7.

Although Petitioner contested SSA's determination of August 1, 2024, as the date his ODS should have changed to Philadelphia, Petitioner did not contest SSA's numerical calculation of the overpayment debt resulting from that effective date.

Upon review of the documents in the administrative record, I conclude that Petitioner owes a gross debt of $17,888.78.  Comparing copies of Petitioner's LES and the salary tables for New York-Newark and Philadelphia locality areas in the period between August 1, 2024, and May 16, 2026, the differences in pay are noted as follows:

Page 15

SSA Exs. 11-13, LES from 2024-17 (August 1, 2024, is in middle of this PP) through 2026-11 (PP ending May 16, 2026).  Accordingly, the preponderance of evidence in the record demonstrates that, starting on August 1, 2024, Petitioner received a gross overpayment totaling $17,888.78 and a net overpayment of $14,834.93 after recoverables.  SSA Ex. 14; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a.

3. SSA did not prematurely collect $5,531.74 of the $14,834.93 net debt.

As discussed above in IV.B., I overruled SSA's objection to Petitioner's contention that $5,531.74 was deducted from his pay in PP 13 of 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9; see P. Br. at 10.  Regarding Petitioner's alarm over the "Federal Debt Recovery – Voluntary" on his LES ending June 13, 2026, I note that had $5,531.74 been deducted from Petitioner's biweekly pay, Petitioner would have received almost no pay in PP 13.  P. Ex. 12 at 1.  Instead, Petitioner received $2,983.09, which was actually higher than his net pay from the previous pay period (PP 12).  Compare P. Ex. 12 with P. Ex. 11 at 1.  I see nothing in the record to indicate that a formal repayment schedule has been established, and I hold that Petitioner's due process rights have not been violated in this regard.  Furthermore, had SSA already collected $5,531.74 of the debt from Petitioner, I would deduct that payment from Petitioner's net debt amount owed.  Finding that SSA has not collected any of the debt, I conclude that Petitioner owes a net debt of $14,834.93.

Finally, I must determine "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 did not file a baseless request for hearing, nor did he dispute the debt with the intention of delaying SSA's collection activity.

Page 16

There is no indication in the record that Petitioner sought to delay payment of the debt, but rather, undertook efforts to understand the existence, nature, and calculation of the debt, including whether SSA had prematurely collected any portion of the debt.

VII.  Conclusion

Based on the preponderance of evidence in the administrative record, Petitioner is indebted to the United States government in the gross amount of $17,888.78 and in the net amount of $14,834.93 due to a retroactive correction of his duty station and the corresponding locality pay.  In accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii)(B), I also conclude that Petitioner's hearing request was not baseless nor resulted from an intent to delay SSA's collection activity.  This decision is the final agency decision.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2).