Leslie Vuncannon, DAB CR6990 (2026)

DECISION

HHS issued a debt letter notifying Petitioner, Leslie Vuncannon, an employee of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), that she owed a gross debt of $812.80 arising from a salary overpayment.  Petitioner timely submitted a request for a hearing, but not before the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) deducted $378.70 from Petitioner’s pay as reflected on her May 22, 2026, Leave and Earnings Statement (LES).  I have reviewed the record and find that Petitioner received a gross salary overpayment of $812.80.  The record further establishes that $653.50 has been collected toward that debt, leaving a remaining balance of $159.30.  Accordingly, I hereby AFFIRM HHS’s determination that Petitioner owes a debt arising from the salary overpayment, subject to the collections reflected in the record. 

Page 2

I.  Background

A Notification of Personnel Action Standard Form 50 (SF-50) was issued showing that Petitioner was promoted to GS-9, step 8, with an effective date of December 29, 2024. Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 9a at 1; see CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1d at 11.  On December 28, 2025, an SF-50 was processed to give Petitioner a within-grade increase from GS-9, step 8 to step 9.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9a at 2.  Once the error was discovered two corrective personnel actions were processed on May 6 and May 19, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9a at 5-8; see CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1d at 11.  The corrections resulted in the salary overpayment debt at issue in this proceeding. 

In a letter dated May 30, 2026, DFAS, HHS’s payroll agent, advised Petitioner that she owed a net debt of $434.10.1  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 1.  Petitioner submitted a hearing request dated June 4, 2026, with supporting documentation. CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1b-1d.  Petitioner submitted the following statement: 

Payroll collected $378.70 from my pay during the pay period ending 5/16/26 and it shows on my LES statement received for pay date 5/22/26.  I received no notification of this deduction. My knowledge of this deduction occurred during the review of my LES on 5/20/26.  There is a note on the LES:  “Indebtedness collected from retroactive earnings and / or adjusted deductions.  Retroactive personnel data processed.” 

I am requesting a hearing.  First, an [Human Resources] error caused the debt.  Second, the debt was collected prior to a debt letter being issued which removed my options of requesting a waiver or a payment plan.  Third, the debt that was collected does not match the debt letter leading to more confusion about the actual amount of the debt.  When I contacted payroll, I was informed that I still owe the debt to DFAS for the HR-miscalculated WGI, even after the deduction of $378.70. 

* * *

Page 3

It seems that the debt letter had an amount based on the 5/30/26 pay period, but my step was corrected during the pay period before (5/16/26) which resulted in a lower amount being owed. 

CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  In support of her hearing request, Petitioner submitted a redacted paystub for the pay period ending May 16, 2026, which notes retroactive earnings of $378.70, her HHS 710 form signed and dated June 4, 2026, and an email chain with payroll staff regarding the debt.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1b-1d. 

CRD received Petitioner’s hearing request on July 2, 2026, and assigned it to me for adjudication.  On July 7, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgement, Prehearing Order, and Scheduling of Conference (Prehearing Order) outlining the schedule for the parties to present evidence and arguments in this case.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2.  The Prehearing Order informed the parties of the August 4, 2026, decision deadline, and tentatively scheduled an informal conference or meeting for July 22, 2026, at 1:00 P.M. (Eastern Time), if it was deemed necessary.  Id. ¶¶ 1, 7. 

On July 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Extension of Decision Deadline.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5; see 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(d)(1).  Petitioner requested a 60-day extension of the decision deadline.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5.  On July 13, 2026, I granted Petitioner’s request, extending the deadlines for the parties’ simultaneous prehearing exchanges, responsive briefs and evidentiary objections as well as the decision issuance deadline.2  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8.  The oral hearing or conference was rescheduled to August 5, 2026, at 1:00 P.M. (Eastern Time).  Id. at 2. 

On July 28, 2026, HHS submitted its Prehearing Exchange.  On the same day, HHS also submitted four proposed exhibits and a Notice of Supplemental Evidence.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 9, 9a-9c, 10, 10a. 

On August 3, 2026, Petitioner emailed the attorney assisting me to inquire about submitting additional documentation.  Petitioner stated, “[m]y pay has not been corrected and what has happened across my last two LES is not consistent with the debt letter or what remains owed.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11 at 1-2.  The attorney noted that (1) additional documentation should be submitted if the judge is to consider it, (2) all

Page 4

submission deadlines had elapsed, and (3) if Petitioner decided to file a motion to submit additional documentation, HHS would have five days to respond consistent with the Prehearing Order.  Id. at 1.  Petitioner subsequently submitted her Leave and Earnings Statements for pay periods ending July 11 and July 25, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12. 

On August 4, 2026, I issued an Order Canceling Oral Hearing and Setting Deadline for HHS to Respond to Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Additional Evidence.  On August 5, 2026, HHS filed a Notice of Non-Objection to the additional evidence Petitioner submitted on August 3, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 15. 

The record is now complete and ready for decision on the written record. 

II.  Issues

I will decide the following issues in this case: 

1.  Whether Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government arising from a salary overpayment;

2.  If so, whether the gross amount of $812.80, and the resulting balance after amounts already collected, 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., HHS imposed a repayment schedule), whether the terms of the repayment schedule are appropriate. 

5 U.S.C § 5514(a)(2)(D); 45 C.F.R. §§ 33.4(a)(7), 33.6(a)(1). 

III.  Jurisdiction

The statute authorizing these proceedings provides an employee with an opportunity for a hearing concerning an agency’s determination of the existence or amount of an employee’s debt, as well as, where applicable, the terms of a repayment schedule established other than by written agreement between the employee and agency.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).  The statute further provides that the hearing may be conducted by an administrative law judge appointed by the head of the agency.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2). 

The Department’s implementing regulations identify the matters that may be addressed in a hearing concerning salary offset.  See 45 C.F.R. §§ 33.2, 33.7(a)(2).  The scope of this proceeding therefore encompasses the issues necessary to determine whether the debt may properly be collected through salary offset, including the existence and amount of

Page 5

the debt and any applicable defenses to collection.  See 45 C.F.R. §§ 33.2, 33.6(d)(2), 33.7(c).  Accordingly, my jurisdiction in this proceeding extends to determining whether Petitioner owes the alleged debt, the amount of any debt owed, and, if applicable, the terms of any repayment schedule established other than by written agreement.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D); 45 C.F.R. §§ 33.4(a)(7), 33.6(a)(1). 

Petitioner also raises concerns regarding the timing of the collection, the notice she received concerning the debt, and her ability to seek a waiver.  Those matters are addressed below to the extent they bear on the issues within my jurisdiction.  The question of whether Petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the debt is not before me. 

IV.  Admission of Evidence

HHS submitted a brief, four exhibits and a Notice of Supplemental Evidence.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 9, 9a-9c, 10, 10a.  Petitioner submitted a request for hearing and supporting documents but did not submit a brief.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1a-1d.  Petitioner also submitted two LESs labeled 07112026 and 07252026, on August 3, 2026, to which HHS had no objection to.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12; see also CRD Dkt. Entry No. 15.  In the absence of an objection, I admit HHS’s submissions as HHS Exhibits (Exs.) 1-4 (CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 9a-9c and 10a) and admit the LESs Petitioner submitted on August 3, 2026, as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 (CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12) into the written record. 

V.  Decision on the Written Record

The regulations that govern these proceedings instruct me to provide an oral hearing if I determine “that the matter cannot be resolved by review of documentary evidence alone because an issue of credibility or veracity is involved.”  45 C.F.R. § 33.6(c)(2).  In my Prehearing Order, I advised the parties to indicate in their prehearing exchange if they wanted a witness to testify or to make an oral presentation and to explain why such a hearing is necessary.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2 ¶ 7; see also CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8 at 2 (“All other directives set forth in the July 7th Prehearing Order shall remain in effect”). 

Neither party requested an oral hearing nor asserted that this matter could not be resolved by review of the documentary evidence.  See 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(a)(2)(iii).  In fact, HHS asserted in its prehearing brief that a decision can be made based on the written record. CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 5.  Thus, on August 4, 2026, I determined that an oral hearing was unnecessary to resolve this case and informed the parties that I would decide the case based upon a review of the administrative record.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 14; see 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(c)(3). 

Page 6

VI.  Discussion

A.  Petitioner owes a gross debt of $812.80 arising from a salary overpayment.

Under 5 U.S.C. § 5335(a)(3) and 5 C.F.R. § 531.405(a)(1)(iii), an employee in a General Schedule position at a pay rate equal to or greater than step 7 must complete 156 calendar weeks of creditable service before advancing to the next higher step.  On December 29, 2024, Petitioner was promoted to GS-9, step 8.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9a at 1.  Then, on December 28, 2025, an SF-50 was processed for Petitioner’s WGI from step 8 to step 9. CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9a at 2.  HHS argues that the December 28, 2025, WGI was erroneous because only 364 days, or approximately 52 weeks, had elapsed since Petitioner’s promotion to GS 9, step 8, effective December 29, 2024.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 1-2.  Thus, Petitioner had not completed the required 156-week waiting period and was therefore overpaid for nine pay periods and received an additional $99.69 per pay period during this time.  Id. at 3-4. 

In May 2026, NIH processed personnel actions to correct the December 28, 2025, WGI. The corrective personnel actions were processed on May 6 and May 19, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9a at 5-8.  These corrections affected the WGI, the annual adjustment in employee pay, a change in position title, and a change in tenure.  Id.  In total, HHS determined that the retroactive corrections resulted in an overpayment to Petitioner in the gross amount of $812.80 and a net debt of $434.10 after offsets.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a. In accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 33.3(d)(2), DFAS deducted $378.70 on Petitioner’s May 22, 2026, LES.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1c, 9b.  This amount represented the sum of the amounts from the four pay periods immediately preceding the pay period in which the step was corrected and the salary adjustment made.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10a.  After this deduction, $434.10 remained outstanding based upon the $812.80 gross debt. 

The $378.70 deduction was made before Petitioner received the May 30, 2026, debt letter.  Section 5514(a)(3) provides an exception to the notice and hearing requirements of section 5514(a)(2) for certain routine intra-agency adjustments attributable to clerical or administrative errors or delays in processing pay documents that occurred within the four pay periods preceding the adjustment, provided that the employee is given written notice of the nature and amount of the adjustment and a point of contact for contesting the adjustment at the time of the adjustment or as soon thereafter as practicable.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(3); 45 C.F.R. § 33.3(d)(2). 

The record also reflects that the $378.70 deduction was identified on Petitioner’s May 16, 2026, LES and was attributed to “retroactive personnel data processing.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1c.  Thus, the record establishes the amount and occurrence of the $378.70 collection.  Petitioner’s concerns regarding the timing and notice associated with that

Page 7

collection do not alter the existence or gross amount of the underlying salary overpayment. 

The filing of the properly filed petition for a hearing will stay the commencement of the collection proceedings.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 33.4(a)(11).  However, HHS, subsequent to Petitioner’s filing, deducted an additional $274.80 from Petitioner’s pay for the pay period ending July 11, 2026.  The LES states in the remarks:  “$274.80 collected this pay period for a $812.80 (less amt applied leaves a remaining balance $159.30) personnel correction debt.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12.  Thus, the record reflects total collections of $653.50 ($378.70 plus $274.80), leaving a balance of $159.30 on the $812.80 gross debt. 

Petitioner’s evidence concerning her subsequent LESs does not establish that HHS’s accounting of the debt resulted in collection in excess of the gross amount owed.  Rather, the evidence establishes that $653.50 was collected toward the $812.80 debt, leaving $159.30 outstanding.  Accordingly, I find that Petitioner owes a gross debt of $812.80 arising from the salary overpayment, with $653.50 already collected and $159.30 remaining outstanding. 

The parties do not dispute that the December 28, 2025, SF-50 for the step 9 WGI was erroneous.  Petitioner does not dispute that the WGI was erroneous or the underlying calculation of the gross overpayment, but she does raise concerns regarding the way in which the overpayments were collected and whether the amount collected was accurately reflected as deductions from any remaining balance after those deductions.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1 at 1, 1d at 1-2, 11 at 1-2, 13 at 1. 

The record does not establish that HHS imposed a repayment schedule in this proceeding before the collection reflected on Petitioner’s May 22, 2026, LES.  A federal employee has the right to dispute the “terms of the repayment schedule” of a debt when an agency establishes a repayment schedule other than by a written agreement between the employee and the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).  Therefore, I do not reach the terms of any repayment schedule here.  If HHS subsequently establishes a repayment schedule other than by written agreement, Petitioner may request a hearing to challenge the terms of the schedule.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D). 

B.  Petitioner may seek a waiver of the salary overpayment.

HHS Form 710 instructs employees to “select only one” option when electing to request either a hearing to dispute the debt, a waiver of the debt, or a waiver of only administrative charges.  Here, Petitioner requested a hearing to dispute the debt, CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 2.  Petitioner, however, also asserts that “an HR error caused the

Page 8

debt,” and “the debt was collected prior to a debt letter being issued,” preventing her from requesting a waiver or payment plan.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1. 

Petitioner is not precluded from seeking a waiver of the debt.  The salary-offset regulations expressly provide that Part 33 does not preclude an employee from requesting waiver of the collection of a debt under any other statutory authority.  See 45 C.F.R. § 33.1(c)(3).  Whether Petitioner is entitled to a waiver is not before me. Accordingly, I do not decide whether the debt should be waived. 

VII.  Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I hereby AFFIRM HHS’s determination that Petitioner owes a gross debt to the United States Government in the amount of $812.80.  The record reflects that that $378.70 was collected from Petitioner’s pay for the pay period ending May 16, 2026, and an additional $274.80 was collected for the pay period ending July 11, 2026.  Thus, a total of $653.50 has been collected, leaving a remaining balance of $159.30 owed by Petitioner.  Because the record establishes a remaining balance rather than an amount collected in excess of the $812.80 debt, I do not find that DFAS collected funds in excess of the debt. 

Finally, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(d)(2)(ii), I find that Petitioner’s request for this review was not baseless, and she did not file it intending to delay collections activity. 

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