Christine Tyler, DAB CR6982 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner Christine Tyler, an employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA or Respondent) appeals SSA’s determination that she owes a gross debt of $3,249.92 to the United States Government due to salary overpayment.  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 1 (Hearing Request).  I find that SSA overpaid Petitioner by $3,249.92 (net amount of $2,748.42) and affirm SSA’s determination.

I. Background

Petitioner works for SSA as a GS-09, step 7 Paralegal Specialist in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 6f.  SSA reassigned Petitioner to a new position effective May 28, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6a.  Due to an administrative error, this Notification of Personnel Action also changed Petitioner’s duty station from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to SSA headquarters in Woodlawn, Baltimore, Maryland.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6a (Box 39), 6f.

Section 5304 of Title 5, United States Code, authorizes higher locality pay for federal employees with duty stations in certain areas of the United States.  Employees at SSA

Page 2

headquarters in Woodlawn, Baltimore, Maryland, earn a higher locality rate of pay than SSA employees in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  As a GS-09, step 7 Paralegal Specialist with a duty station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Petitioner’s adjusted salary was:

As a GS-09, step 7 Paralegal Specialist with a duty station in Baltimore, Maryland, Petitioner’s adjusted salary was:

Because the SSA personnel office incorrectly changed Petitioner’s duty station in the payroll system, SSA paid Petitioner’s salary at the Baltimore locality rate starting on May 28, 2025.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6f-6g, 6h (Petitioner’s Earnings and Leave Statements for pay periods 202512 to 202613).

On June 25, 2026, SSA initiated a personnel action to correct Petitioner’s duty station and locality rate from the Baltimore, Maryland locality pay area to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania locality pay area, effective May 28, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6f-6g.  SSA contends that the correction to place Petitioner at her correct duty station with Philadelphia, Pennsylvania locality pay from May 28, 2025, through June 25, 2026, resulted in total salary overpayment in the amount of $3,249.92 (gross) and $2,748.42 (net).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a.

On July 6, 2026, SSA issued a Debt Letter informing Petitioner of the alleged overpayment and her due process rights.  Id. at 1.  On July 21, 2026, Petitioner emailed a timely request for hearing.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  Petitioner “respectfully dispute[s] the existence and/or amount of the alleged debt ” and does “not believe the Agency has established that I am legally indebted for the amount claimed.”  Id. at 1.  Petitioner did not submit any supporting documents with her hearing request.  SSA forwarded Petitioner’s hearing request to the Civil Remedies Division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Departmental Appeals Board on July 22, 2026.

Page 3

I subsequently issued an Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order and Notice of Oral Hearing or Paper Hearing (Prehearing Order).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2.  In accordance with the deadlines established in my Prehearing Order, SSA filed a timely prehearing exchange consisting of a brief and motion for judgment (SSA Br.), a proposed witness list, an exhibit list, and nine proposed exhibits (SSA Exhibits 1-9).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 5-6, 6a-6i, 7.  Petitioner did not file a prehearing exchange.

Neither party stated why an oral hearing is necessary in this case, nor explained why this matter cannot be resolved by a review of the written record.  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1)(ii)(C).  Thus, on August 20, 2026, I determined that an oral hearing was unnecessary to resolve this case and informed the parties that I would make my determination based upon a review of the available written record.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8; see 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(iii).

If I determine a hearing is not necessary, then I may adjudicate the case as a “[p]aper hearing.”  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(iii).  I therefore decide this case based on the available written record, without considering whether the standards for summary judgment are satisfied.5  As noted above, Petitioner did not submit any prehearing exchange or evidence.  SSA’s submitted nine proposed exhibits (SSA Exhibits 1-9).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6a-6i.  I admit all SSA’s exhibits into the administrative record.  The record is now complete and ready for a decision.

II. Issues

I may only decide the following issues in this case:

1. Whether Petitioner owes a debt to the United States government (i.e., whether the debt exists);
2. If so, whether $3,249.92 (net amount of $2,748.42) is the correct amount of the debt owed; and
3. If there is a repayment schedule that is established other than by written agreement (i.e., SSA imposed a repayment schedule), whether the terms of the repayment schedule are appropriate.

Page 4

III. Jurisdiction

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 due to salary overpayment.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 422.810(d) (definition of Hearing Official), (i)(1), 422.810(e)(2)(ii), (f)(1)(vii), (h)(4)(ii).  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 Portia L. Pierce, DAB CR2049 at 5 (2009); Jan Donsbach, DAB CR1536 at 1 n.1 (2006).

IV. Discussion

Petitioner owes SSA a debt in the gross amount of $3,249.92 (net amount of $2,748.42) due to salary overpayment.6

The three issues identified above are the only appealable issues in a salary overpayment matter.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).  The facts relating to the issues here are straightforward.

There is no dispute that Petitioner worked at a duty station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and not at SSA headquarters in Woodlawn, Baltimore, Maryland during the relevant timeframe.  Petitioner’s debt arose because, effective May 28, 2025, Petitioner was incorrectly reassigned to a Woodlawn, Baltimore, Maryland duty station and this error resulted in salary overpayments from pay period 2025-12 to pay period 2026-13.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6a-6i.  When SSA corrected Petitioner’s duty station to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on June 25, 2026 (CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6f-6i), her locality pay was adjusted resulting in an overpayment for the pay periods from May 28, 2025 to June 25, 2026.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a.  As documented in the May 28, 2025 SF-50, Petitioner’s annual salary was set at $83,907, which included a basic pay rate of $62,645 plus a locality adjustment of $21,262 for the locality pay area including Woodlawn, Baltimore.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6a.  At the Philadelphia locality rate in 2025 as a GS-9, step 7 Paralegal Specialist, Petitioner received an annual salary of $80,806, which included a basic pay rate of $62,645 plus a locality adjustment of $18,161 for the Philadelphia locality pay area.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6b, 6g.  Thus, with a lower locality rate applied, Petitioner’s 2025 salary would be reduced from $83,907 to $80,806.  In addition, in 2026 Petitioner’s annual salary was set at $84,751 in the Baltimore locality and with the lower locality rate applied, Petitioner’s 2026 salary would be reduced to $81,618.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6c, 6e.  As evidence, SSA provides a spreadsheet combining information from the applicable salary tables, information from SSA’s Debt Letter, and information from Petitioner’s Leave and Earnings statements.  CRD Dkt.

Page 5

Entry No. 6i; see also CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1a, 6b-6f, 6h.  Specifically, these documents show each pay period covered in the Debt Notice, the amount owed for each pay period and pay/leave category, the hourly rate for the two locality pay areas (Baltimore vs. Philadelphia), the difference between the two locality area pay hourly rates, and the total difference in pay between the two locality pay rates per pay period per pay/leave category.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6i.

In total, SSA determined the retroactive correction of Petitioner’s duty station and locality pay resulted in an overpayment to Petitioner in the amount of $3,249.92 for the pay periods ending May 28, 2025 through June 25, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1a, 6a-6i.  Less applicable recoverables, including tax and payroll withholdings, the net salary overpayments received by Petitioner totaled $2,748.42.  Id.

By regulation, an agency must determine an employee’s locality pay based on the employee’s “official worksite.”  5 C.F.R. § 531.604(b)(2).  An employee’s official worksite is “the location of an employee’s position of record where the employee regularly performs his or her duties.”  5 C.F.R. § 531.605(a)(1).  Here, there is no dispute that since at least May 28, 2025, Petitioner performed her work duties at her duty station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  After reviewing the written record in this matter, I find that during the relevant timeframe Petitioner’s official worksite for purposes of calculating locality pay was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Based on my finding that Petitioner’s official worksite was in Philadelphia, I also find that Petitioner’s salary during the pay periods in question should have been calculated based on the Philadelphia locality area rate.  See 5 C.F.R. § 531.604(b)(2); see also https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2025/PHL_h.pdf (last visited September 10, 2026) (Salary Table 2025-PHL, showing the hourly basic and overtime rates for the Locality Pay Area of Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD); https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2026/PHL_h.pdf (last visited September 10, 2026) (Salary Table 2026-PHL, showing the hourly basic and overtime rates for the Locality Pay Area of Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD).  Therefore, I conclude that Petitioner received salary overpayments for the pay periods from May 28, 2025 through June 25, 2026, in which she was incorrectly paid at the Baltimore locality area pay rate.

Petitioner does not dispute that the overpayment was correctly calculated or otherwise raise any arguments concerning the amount of the debt.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  Further, SSA has shown that it correctly calculated the amount of Petitioner’s debt based on the difference between the salary Petitioner received at the Baltimore locality pay rate and the salary Petitioner should have received at the Philadelphia locality pay rate during the relevant pay periods.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1a, 6g-6i.  The Debt Letter includes Exhibit 6, which details the adjustments taken to correct Petitioner’s pay for Pay Periods 202512 through 202613, including the difference in pay that Petitioner received for

Page 6

regular, government shutdown retroactive, restored annual leave and paid leave (annual, sick, holiday, administrative, and credit hours used).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 9-10.  Specifically, SSA correctly determined that the overpayment made to Petitioner totaled $3,249.92 for the pay periods from May 28, 2025 through June 25, 2026.  Less applicable recoverables, including tax and payroll withholdings, the net total owed by Petitioner is $2,748.42.

Although I find Petitioner owes SSA a debt due to salary overpayment, it does appear that the overpayment may have resulted from erroneous payments due to administrative error.  Petitioner is not without recourse as there is a waiver process, which is separate and independent from this proceeding.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(c)(3).  Petitioner may pursue waiver by following the instructions in the Debt Letter.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 7.  For reference, the 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, [she] may request a waiver within 3 years from the date of th[e] letter.”  Id.  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.

Additionally, a federal employee has the right to dispute the “terms of the repayment schedule” of a debt when an agency imposes a repayment schedule other than by a written agreement between the employee and the agency.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).  However, it does not appear that SSA has imposed a repayment schedule in this case and Petitioner has not raised any arguments concerning a repayment schedule.  I urge SSA to try to reach an agreement with Petitioner regarding repayment of the debt rather than impose a repayment schedule.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(C).  I also note that if SSA ultimately imposes a repayment schedule on Petitioner, Petitioner may request a hearing seeking review of the terms by an administrative law judge.

Finally, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii)(B), I find that Petitioner’s request for this review was not baseless, and she did not file it intending to delay collections activity.

Page 7

V. Conclusion

Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government in the gross amount of $3,249.92.  Less applicable recoverables, including tax and payroll withholdings, the net total Petitioner owes SSA is $2,748.42.

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