Jessie Martin-Solomon, DAB CR7002 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner is a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA or the agency) who was receiving benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) during the pay period ending June 27, 2026.  SSA determined that Petitioner was overpaid a gross amount of $389.04 in holiday pay and must repay a net amount of $324.78 (less applicable recoverables) because her timesheet was not properly coded to reflect her FECA status.  Petitioner filed a request for hearing to dispute the amount of the debt.  For the reasons stated below, I hold that the overpayment debt is valid and accurate.  Therefore, I affirm SSA’s determination.

I. Background and Procedural History

Petitioner is a Claims Specialist employed by SSA.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10 (SSA Br.) at 2.  Petitioner has been unable to work since December 5, 2025, due to a traumatic work-related injury, and has been receiving FECA benefits from the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).  See Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Numbers (Nos.) 1, 7a-7b.  On July 7, 2026, Petitioner received 8 hours of holiday pay from SSA, totaling $389.04,

Page 2

to which she was not entitled because she was concurrently receiving FECA compensation for the same period.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6a (Petitioner’s SSA Earnings and Leave Statement (ELS) for Pay Period 14, ending 06/27/26), 11b (SSA Exhibit (Ex.) 2), 11c (SSA Ex. 3).  Petitioner’s timesheet was later amended to reflect the correct pay code, “162 FECA-OWCP,” for June 19, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11d (SSA Ex. 4).

In a letter dated July 20, 2026, SSA notified Petitioner that she owed a gross debt of $389.04 and a net debt of $324.78 less applicable recoverables due to an overpayment of salary (Debt ID 62021121311).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11a (SSA Ex. 1) at 1, 9.  The letter notified Petitioner to request a hearing no later than 15 days from the date of the letter.  Id. at 8.  Petitioner requested a hearing on August 6, 2026.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  Petitioner also submitted a request for a full waiver of the debt.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b.

On September 1, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment, Order to Show Cause, and Stay of Decision Deadline (Show Cause Order), directing the parties to address the timeliness of Petitioner’s hearing request and related procedural matters and staying the decision deadline.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2.  Both parties timely responded.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 5-8.

On September 17, 2026, I discharged the Show Cause Order, lifted the stay, and issued a Prehearing Order establishing a briefing schedule and tentatively scheduling an oral hearing for October 8, 2026, if necessary to resolve any issue of credibility or veracity. CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9.

SSA timely filed a prehearing brief, exhibit list, four exhibits, and a witness list.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10-12.  Petitioner did not file a prehearing brief or any additional evidence beyond the materials she submitted with her request for hearing or in response to the Show Cause Order, CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6-8.  Neither party requested an oral hearing.

On October 5, 2026, I canceled the scheduled hearing, because I found no issue of credibility or veracity requiring oral testimony, and indicated that I would decide this case on the written record.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13.

I now issue this decision based on the documentary record, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(iii).  The record is complete and ready for a decision.

Page 3

II. Issues

The issues to be decided in this case are:

1. Whether Petitioner owes a salary overpayment debt to the United States government; and
2. If so, whether Petitioner owes a gross debt of $389.04 and, minus applicable recoverables, a net debt of $324.78.

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.  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. Waiver

In addition to her request for hearing, Petitioner submitted a waiver request dated August 9, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b.  As I explained in my September 1, 2026, Show Cause Order, a request for waiver is governed by a separate statutory process, 5 U.S.C. § 5584; see also Petra A. Illig, M.D., DAB CR2559 at 2 (2012) (stating that a request for hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and a request for waiver under 5 U.S.C. § 5584 are “two distinct, but not mutually exclusive methods of seeking relief from the agency’s intended action” to collect a debt from a federal employee.)  My jurisdiction in this proceeding is limited to determining the existence, amount, and/or repayment schedule of an alleged debt.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(d) (definition of Hearing); see also 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(f)(1)(vii).  Decisions on whether to waive an employee’s overpayment debt are determined solely by SSA.  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.    Therefore, I have no jurisdiction over Petitioner’s waiver request.  See Alfred H. Varga, DAB CR342 at 1-3 (1994).

V. Admission of Evidence

SSA submitted an exhibit list and four proposed exhibits (SSA Exhibit 1 through SSA Exhibit 4) with its prehearing brief.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10, 11, 11a-d.  SSA also submitted a witness list containing one proposed witness.  Petitioner did not object to any

Page 4

of SSA’s proposed exhibits or witnesses.  Therefore, I admit SSA Exhibits 1 through 4 into the administrative record.  As explained above, I determined that a hearing was not necessary, and, therefore, no witness testimony has been received.

Petitioner did not submit an exhibit list, witness list, proposed exhibits, a prehearing brief or a responsive brief to SSA’s prehearing brief.  However, Petitioner submitted six attachments with her response to my Show Cause Order, which I will regard as Petitioner’s proposed exhibits.1   CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 6a-b, 7, 7a-b, 8.  SSA did not object to any of Petitioner’s exhibits.  Therefore, I admit Petitioner’s six exhibits into the administrative record.

VI. Analysis, Factual Findings, and Conclusions of Law

If SSA determines that a current SSA employee is indebted to the United States government, SSA may offset the debt from that employee’s salary.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(a).  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.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(f)(1).  Among others, the employee has the right to request a hearing before an administrative law judge to dispute the existence of the debt, the amount of the debt, and/or the repayment schedule established by the agency.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1)(i).

1. Petitioner owes a debt to the United States government due to a salary overpayment while receiving FECA compensation.

FECA provides a variety of workers’ compensation benefits, including lost wages and loss of wage-earning capacity, to federal employees for injuries sustained while performing official duties.  5 U.S.C. § 8101, et. seq.  The Department of Labor’s OWCP administers the FECA program for all branches of the federal government, which includes the initial processing of claims and the payment of benefits and compensation from the Employees’ Compensation Fund.  5 U.S.C. §§ 8145, 8147.  An individual receiving FECA compensation “may not receive salary, pay, or remuneration of any type

Page 5

from the United States, except . . . in return for service actually performed” or in other, limited circumstances that do not apply to this case.  5 U.S.C. § 8116(a)(1).  Consistent with this rule, an employee receiving FECA compensation is not separately entitled to receive holiday pay from SSA, unless she actually worked on that day.2

The underlying facts giving rise to the debt are undisputed.  Petitioner has not worked at SSA since December 5, 2025, the date of her injury.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1, 7a-7b, 11c.  Petitioner was receiving FECA compensation during the relevant pay period ending June 27, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. SSA Exs. 2-3.   Her SSA timekeeper did not change the default timesheet coding from holiday pay to FECA on Petitioner’s original timesheet.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  Thus, Petitioner’s timesheet for pay period 2026-14 was submitted using pay code “050 Holiday Not Worked” for the June 19, 2026, holiday, rather than the correct FECA-related code.  SSA Ex. 2.  As a result of the coding error, Petitioner received 8 hours of holiday pay for June 19, 2026, from SSA that she was not entitled to receive.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6a.  Petitioner’s timesheet was amended later to reflect the correct pay code, “162 FECA-OWCP,” for June 19, 2026.  SSA Ex. 4.  This amendment to Petitioner’s timesheet generated the overpayment at issue in this case.  Petitioner herself has acknowledged that this payment should not have been made.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 (Petitioner’s request for hearing stating “There should not have been a payment made by SSA . . . I was not at work nor have I been since 12/05/25 . . . my OS did not change the default setting of holiday to the proper worker’s compensation coding which caused this issue.”).  Rather, Petitioner’s sole reason for disputing the existence of the debt is because “I am not at fault in causing this overpayment.”  Id.  As explained above, fault and other equitable considerations are not factors that I may consider in this proceeding.  Therefore, I conclude by a preponderance of evidence in the administrative record that Petitioner was overpaid for holiday pay not worked and owes a valid debt.

2. Petitioner owes a gross debt of $389.04 and, after subtracting applicable recoverables, must repay a net debt of $324.78.

Petitioner’s ELS for pay period 2026-14 reflects a gross pay of $389.04, which represents 8 hours of holiday pay at her regular hourly rate of $48.63.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6a.  The gross pay on her ELS is consistent with the gross amount listed in the debt letter, and Petitioner does not challenge the calculation of her gross debt.  Instead, Petitioner contests the net amount of her overpayment debt.  According to Petitioner, “[t]he amount I am being asked to repay is not the amount I was paid based on the pay statement which shows a net amount totally different . . .”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  However, Petitioner’s argument conflates the term “Net Pay” in her ELS with the net amount she must repay in

Page 6

the debt letter.  Compare CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6a and SSA Ex. 1 at 9.  Those terms have different meanings.  According to Petitioner’s ELS for the pay period 2026-14, Petitioner received a Net Pay of $204.31 after $184.73 in Total Deductions, which are itemized in the Deductions section of her ELS.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6a.

However, the “Net to be Paid by Employee” stated in the debt letter is calculated by subtracting “any amount that can be recovered from another entity (such as Medicare),” which are referred to as “recoverables.”  SSA Ex. 1 at 9.  As explained and itemized in the debt letter, only certain deductions from Petitioner’s ELS can be recovered by SSA, including federal, state, and local tax withholdings, Medicare, OASDI, retirement, state transit tax, and TSP, resulting in a net debt of $324.78.  Id.  Further, SSA explained in its prehearing brief that “[t]he agency is not able to ‘recover’ Petitioner’s Federal Employee Group Life Insurance [(FEGLI)] premium, her Federal Employee Health Benefit premium [(FEHB)], or the union dues Petitioner paid” to third parties (known as “non-recoverables”).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10 (SSA Br.) at 5.  Thus, there is a difference of $120.47 between Petitioner’s net overpayment debt of $324.78 and Petitioner’s net pay of $204.31.

SSA’s prehearing brief included two charts showing its calculations - one explaining the “Difference between Net Pay ($204.31) and Net Debt ($324.78) = $120.47” and a second chart calculating the amount of the agency’s “Recoverables vs. Non-Recoverables.”  Id. at 6.  For the most part, the recoverables match the deductions shown on Petitioner’s ELS.  For example, the recoverables deducted from Petitioner’s gross debt for her FEGLI premium ($16.64), FEHB premium ($93.89), and union dues ($20) are the same amounts listed on her ELS.  Compare CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6a and SSA Ex. 1 at 9.  However, SSA explained that there is a $2.88 difference in Petitioner’s state tax deduction (i.e., $11.94 versus $9.06) “because she received a tax credit on her health insurance premium and when the debt is created, the tax credits are based on the gross amount of the debt, not health insurance premium credit.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10 at 5.  Fortunately, this difference works out in Petitioner’s favor by reducing the gross debt by more than the amount shown on her ELS for the same deduction (i.e., $11.94 recoverable for state tax withholding versus $9.06 deducted on Petitioner’s ELS).3  Compare CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6a and SSA Ex. 1 at 9.

In short, SSA has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the recoverables and resulting net debt that Petitioner must repay are accurate.  Because SSA cannot claw back the insurance premiums or union dues it already remitted on Petitioner’s behalf, those “non-recoverable” amounts remain part of what Petitioner owes, even though they never

Page 7

reached her personally as net pay.  Petitioner has offered no evidence beyond pointing to the facial discrepancy between her ELS and the debt letter to rebut SSA’s explanation or to show that the calculation is otherwise incorrect.  On this record, I conclude that Petitioner owes a net debt of $324.78.

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 she dispute the debt with the intention of delaying SSA’s collection activity.  Petitioner raised a legitimate concern about the computation of the debt.  Further, any delay in these proceedings, if any, may be the result of some ambiguity over whether a hearing request must be submitted within 15 business or calendar days.  SSA, in its response to my Show Cause Order, stated that Petitioner’s hearing request was timely and that any delay in uploading her hearing request was an oversight.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5 at 2.  There is no indication that Petitioner sought to delay payment of the debt but undertook efforts to understand the nature and computation of the debt.

VII. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I AFFIRM SSA’s determination that Petitioner owes a gross debt of $389.04 and a net debt of $324.78.  SSA may proceed with the collection of this debt, including through salary offset, consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and 20 C.F.R. § 422.810.  This is the final agency decision pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).