Peter Baran, DAB CR7010 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Peter Baran, is a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA, Agency 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.  As discussed below, I agree with SSA that Debt ID No. 62021855045 for a gross amount of $483.99 and a net amount of $393.70, is valid.  Accordingly, I AFFIRM SSA’s determination that the overpayment debt is valid and accurate, and the amount owed by Petitioner is correct.

I.  Background and Procedural History

Petitioner is a Claims Specialist employed by SSA at Field Office 108 in Rochester, New York.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1; see also CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8c at 1.  In February 2026, Petitioner submitted a request for 16 hours of advanced annual leave for a previously scheduled trip, consisting of 8 hours on June 18, 2026, and 8 hours on June 26, 2026 (3 hours of credit leave and 5 hours of advanced leave).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1b at 11, 8c at 1, 3, 10 at 1-2.  On March 3, 2026, Petitioner’s local management approved his leave request.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 1, 6-11.

Page 2

On June 12, 2026, Petitioner was informed about the status of his leave in a conversation with his operations supervisor that was subsequently summarized in an email communication.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8a.  The email updated Petitioner on his leave balances and notified him that he did not have sufficient leave to input for advance annual leave for June 18, 2026, and June 26 through July 2, 2026.  Id. at 1.

On June 16, 2026, SSA’s Chief Human Capital Officer revised the delegation authority for advanced leave, removing the authority from the Tier 2 Executive Level to redelegate those duties and invalidated any prior internal redelegations as unenforceable.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8b.  On June 30, 2026, Petitioner’s local management submitted an Advanced Leave Request Form to the appropriate approving authority, who denied the request citing the “[e]mployee’s absence will result in an undue interference with the work of the Administration.”1  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8c at 1, 3.

Petitioner states that he was informed of the denial on July 1, 2026, after he had already taken the leave on both June 18 and June 26, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1 and 1b at 15.  When the delegated official denied the requests, the agency timekeeper changed the 13 hours in question from advanced annual leave to leave without pay (LWOP).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1; see also CRD Dkt. Entry No. 7 at 2.  This change resulted in the overpayment debt at issue.

On July 20, 2026, SSA issued Petitioner a debt letter identifying an alleged overpayment under Debt ID number 62021855045.  The letter stated that the overpayment totaled $483.99 gross and $393.70 net and advised Petitioner of his related due process rights.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a.

On July 24, 2026, SSA’s Chief Human Capital Officer issued an agency-wide notice indefinitely suspending advanced annual and sick leave.  SSA Ex. 5.  The notice states that, “[a]s of today, July 24, 2026, we will no longer accept any requests for advanced annual or sick leave.  All pending requests will be denied.  Existing advanced leave balances already granted are not affected by this suspension . . . .”  Id.

On July 31, 2026, Petitioner filed a timely request for a hearing, disputing “the administrative determination of the existence of the debt” and requesting that the advanced leave be restored and the overpayment and associated LWOP be deleted.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  Petitioner’s hearing request was received by CRD on August 4, 2026.

Page 3

On August 7, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order, and Notice of Oral Hearing or Paper Hearing, establishing a briefing schedule and tentatively setting an informal conference or hearing for September 9, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2 ¶ 7.  On August 24, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Briefs, which I granted on August 27, 2026, extending the decision deadline to October 29, 2026, and resetting the prehearing exchange deadline to September 8, 2026, and the responsive brief deadline to September 15, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 4, 5.

On September 9, 2026, SSA filed a Pre-Hearing Brief in Support of Salary Offset Proceedings and Motion for Summary Judgment, an exhibit list, five exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-5), and a witness list identifying one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 8a-8e, 9.

On September 16, 2026, Petitioner, now represented by a non-attorney union representative, filed a Brief in Support of Request for Hearing, or in the Alternative, for an Order Directing the Agency to Amend Time and Attendance Records, together with one exhibit.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10, 11.

On September 18, 2026, I issued an Order Canceling Oral Hearing, finding that the dispute presented a factual question rather than one of credibility or veracity, and that the matter could be resolved on the written record.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 14.  The oral hearing scheduled for September 23, 2026, was vacated.  Id. at 3.

The record is now complete and ready for 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 $483.99 and a total net debt of $393.70.

III.  Jurisdiction

The issues identified above are the issues within the scope of this salary-offset proceeding: the existence and amount of the debt and, where applicable, the repayment schedule.  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

Page 4

cases.  See Portia L. Pierce, DAB CR2049 at 5 (2009); Jan Donsbach, DAB CR1536 at 1 n.1 (2006).

I do not have jurisdiction to decide the propriety of SSA’s June 16, 2026, redelegation of advanced-leave approval authority, or the merits of any ongoing grievance or institutional challenge to that policy change.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8b.  Those questions are the subject of a separate, pending grievance process.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1b at 14-19; 10 at 3 (describing Petitioner’s individual grievance and the AFGE General Committee’s institutional grievance).  My review here is confined to the existence and amount of the overpayment debt.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(e)(2)(ii).

IV.  Admission of Evidence

Petitioner submitted supporting documents with his hearing request.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 1b.  He also submitted his brief with one exhibit consisting of the July 24, 2026, Human Resources Internal Communications notice regarding the suspension of advanced leave (P. Ex. 1).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10, 11.  I consider this Petitioner’s sole exhibit submitted with his brief.

SSA’s complete exchange includes a brief, five proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-5), and one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 8a-8e, 9.

Given that neither party has objected to the other party’s exhibits, I admit all exhibits into the administrative record.  Because I have determined that no issue of credibility or veracity is presented, and the written record is sufficient to resolve the factual dispute, I decide this case on the documentary record without an oral hearing.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(ii)-(iii).

V.  Applicable Law

Before an agency may collect a debt through salary offset, it must provide the employee a minimum of thirty days’ written notice of the nature and amount of the indebtedness, its intention to collect through salary deductions, and an explanation of the employee’s rights, including the right to a hearing.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(A), (D).  Debt collection procedures applicable to SSA employees are further set forth at 5 C.F.R. Part 550, Subpart K, and 20 C.F.R. § 422.810.

An employee who timely petitions for a hearing is entitled to review by an impartial hearing official of the existence and amount of the debt, or of any proposed repayment schedule.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1), (h)(2)(ii)(A).  Where the hearing official determines that an oral hearing is not necessary to resolve an issue of credibility or veracity, the matter may be decided on the written record.  Id. § 422.810(h)(2)(ii)(A), (h)(3)(ii).  I must evaluate the evidence supporting the origin, nature, and amount of the

Page 5

alleged debt rather than treating the agency’s debt determination as conclusive.  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii)(A)-(B).

SSA’s internal Personnel Policy Manual  provision governing advanced annual leave provides that delegated officials have discretion to approve requests for advanced annual leave, that such approval may be denied for job-related reasons such as undue interference with the work of the organization, and that delegated officials must ensure employees understand the conditions of repayment, including that if an employee overdraws a leave account, the advance is carried over and charged against future leave accruals or may be repaid through leave without pay.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8d §§ 3.4, 4.7.

The applicable collective bargaining agreement, Article 31, Section 2.C, defines advanced annual leave as “leave time requested by the employee, approved by the delegated authority, and taken but not yet earned by the employee.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 12.2   Article 31 further provides that an employee may be advanced the lesser of 80 hours of annual leave or the amount the employee would accrue during the remainder of the leave year.  Id. at 13.

VI.  Analysis and Conclusions of Law

1. SSA made an adequate showing of notice and process.

The record establishes that SSA provided Petitioner written notice of the alleged debt on July 20, 2026, including the amount, the general basis for the debt, and notice of Petitioner’s right to request a hearing within 15 days.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 1, 8-9.  Petitioner’s hearing request, dated July 31, 2026, was timely.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1; see 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1)(i).  SSA suspended collection of the debt pending this proceeding.  See e.g., CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2 ¶ 10; 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1)(iii).  SSA has satisfied the procedural prerequisites to salary offset under 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(A), (D).  The record therefore establishes that Petitioner received notice and timely invoked the hearing procedures.

2. The record establishes that the advanced leave requests were denied by the official holding approval authority before the leave was taken.

The record establishes that Petitioner’s request for 16 hours of advanced annual leave for use on June 18 and June 26, 2026, was approved.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 6, 8, 10-11; see also CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8c at 1, 3.  Although Petitioner’s request was initially approved, Petitioner was subsequently advised by email on June 12, 2026, that he did not

Page 6

have sufficient time to offset his existing advance leave before year end to support the additional advanced annual leave request.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8a.

On June 16, 2026, SSA revised its existing delegation of authority to approve advanced leave, vesting that authority at the Tier 2 Executive Level and rendering prior component-level redelegations “invalid and unenforceable.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8b.  Petitioner used his leave on June 18 and June 26, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No.10 at 2.

On June 30, 2026, Petitioner’s local management forwarded the previously approved requests to the Field Operations Chief who subsequently denied the request.3   CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8c.  On July 1,2026, after Petitioner had already taken leave, he was informed by management that the leave dates had been denied by the redelegated approval authority.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  Following the denial, the agency timekeeper changed the 13 hours at issue from advanced annual leave to LWOP, which produced the overpayment at issue.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10 at 2, 1a at 1.

Petitioner argues that the 16 hours of advanced annual leave were validly approved under the negotiated agreement on March 3, 2026, and that no subsequent Agency action authorized management to retroactively revoke that approval after the leave had been used.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10 at 4.  He further contends that the June 16, 2026, redelegation of approval authority applied prospectively and that the July 24, 2026, suspension notice expressly preserved existing advanced leave balances.  Id. at 2.  Petitioner maintains that the Agency improperly changed his timecard to LWOP, creating an overpayment that would not exist if the original leave approval were honored.  Id.  He seeks correction of his time and attendance records to eliminate the resulting debt.  Id. at 5.  Finally, he argues that the abeyance of his individual grievance pending resolution of a related national grievance does not preclude him from pursuing individual relief in this proceeding.  Id.

As to authority, the June 16, 2026, redelegation notice establishes that, effective immediately on that date, authority over advanced leave approvals was elevated to the Tier 2 Executive Level, and that “all prior component internal redelegations are now invalid and unenforceable.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8b at 1.  Petitioner’s argument that his initial approval, by the now invalid delegate, controls, is not persuasive in light of this intervening, agency-wide revocation of delegated approval authority, which took effect before either leave date.  The forms in SSA Exhibit 3 are consistent with this sequence: local management’s role is reflected only as a “Recommendation,” not a final approval,

Page 7

and the only recorded final decision on each form is the Chief’s denial.4   CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8c at 1, 3.

These documents support a finding that, when the Field Operations Chief acted on the requests, local management no longer possessed the delegated authority to grant advanced annual leave, and the official holding that authority denied the requests.  The record thus supports SSA’s position that the requests were not finally approved by the official authorized to approve them under the June 16th delegation.

3. The July 24, 2026, suspension notice does not assist Petitioner.

Petitioner argues that the July 24, 2026, suspension notice states “[e]xisting advanced leave balances already granted are not affected by this suspension” which protects his 16 hours.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10 at 2-4; see CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8e.  I have considered this language.  The notice establishes that SSA’s suspension of advanced leave took effect on July 24, 2026, and expressly distinguishes pending requests from existing advanced leave balances already granted.  However, the notice was issued after the Chief of Field Operations denied Petitioner’s requests on June 30, 2026.  It does not expressly reinstate requests that had previously been denied.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.

Accordingly, I do not find that the July 24th notice independently establishes that Petitioner’s requests remained approved or that the SSA was required to reverse the subsequent LWOP entries.  Nor do I interpret the notice as authorizing the retroactive cancellation of previously approved leave.  The notice does not change my determination based on the evidence concerning the prior denial and resulting payroll adjustment.

I therefore find that the July 24th notice does not independently establish that Petitioner held an approved advanced leave balance for the hours at issue.  I have considered the notice as part of the overall record, but it does not alter the distinction between the earlier local management action, the subsequent denial by the official holding approval authority, and the payroll adjustment that followed.

4. SSA has established the amount of the alleged debt.

SSA asserts that the conversion of eight hours for June 18, 2026, and five hours for June 26, 2026, from advanced annual leave to LWOP resulted in an overpayment of $483.99 gross and $393.70 net.  The debt notice includes the calculation for the 13 hours of pay

Page 8

attributable to the relevant pay period.  I have reviewed the calculation and the supporting documentation identifying the 13 hours as the basis for the debt.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a.  Petitioner has not identified a specific error in the Agency’s arithmetic or provided an alternative calculation.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.

Petitioner does not dispute that the 13 hours were in fact converted to LWOP, nor does Petitioner dispute the calculation of the resulting overpayment.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 18 at 2 (“Petitioner does not dispute the existence or amount of the debt.”).  Instead, Petitioner argues that the underlying timekeeping change was not authorized because (1) the March 3, 2026, approval predated both the June 16, 2026, redelegation and the July 24, 2026, suspension notice, and (2) the July 24, 2026, notice expressly states that “[e]xisting advanced leave balances already granted are not affected by this suspension.”  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10 at 3-4, 11.

The evidence establishes that SSA changed 13 hours of leave from advanced annual leave to LWOP and calculated a resulting overpayment in the amount of $483.99 gross and $393.70 net.  The debt notice and supporting payroll documentation identify the hours at issue and provide the calculation on which SSA relies.  Petitioner has not identified a specific mathematical error or submitted an alternative calculation.  His principal challenge concerns whether SSA properly reclassified the leave, rather than the arithmetic used to calculate the resulting overpayment.

I have nevertheless considered that challenge because the existence of a debt cannot be established solely by showing that a timekeeping entry was changed.  The relevant evidence includes the March 3rd local-management approval, the June 16th change in delegated authority, the Chief’s subsequent denial, the July 24th suspension notice, and the records documenting the 13 hour LWOP adjustment.  Taken together, these documents support SSA’s position that the requests were denied by the official holding the applicable approval authority and that the payroll adjustment followed that denial.

5. Petitioner’s Separate Grievance

Petitioner has filed an individual grievance challenging the reversal of his advanced annual leave.  The Agency has held that grievance in abeyance pending the resolution of a national grievance challenging the redelegation of authority.  The existence of that grievance does not require me to decide the legality of SSA’s internal policy changes in this proceeding.  Nor does this decision determine the merits of Petitioner’s contractual arguments.  Those matters are distinct from the limited determination of the debt’s existence and amount.  Petitioner may continue to pursue any available grievance or other administrative remedies concerning the Agency’s approval procedures and its reversal of the leave entries.  My decision is limited to the salary overpayment debt presented for my review.

Page 9

VII.  Waiver

The record does not reflect that Petitioner has submitted a request for waiver of the debt pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 422.810 and the debt letter’s Exhibit 4.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 7 (Exhibit 4, Right to Waiver).  The debt letter advises that overpayments 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,” and that such a request may be submitted within three years of the date of the letter.  Id.  Petitioner’s hearing request and briefing dispute the existence of the debt rather than request waiver on equitable grounds.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1, 10.  I therefore do not reach the question of waiver in this decision.  Petitioner may pursue a waiver request separately and directly with his Servicing Personnel Office, consistent with Exhibit 4 to the debt letter, but I note that waiver is a process separate and distinct from this review of the validity of the debt.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 7.

VIII.  Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government in the amount of $483.99 gross and after offsets, $393.70 net.  This amount is for the conversion of 13 hours of advanced annual leave to LWOP for leave taken on June 18, and June 26, 2026.  In accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii)(B), I further conclude that Petitioner’s hearing request was not baseless and did not result from an intent to delay SSA’s collection activity.

This decision does not address, and does not resolve, Petitioner’s pending grievance concerning the propriety of SSA’s reclassification of his leave or the underlying redelegation of advanced-leave approval authority.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10 at 3, 5.  Those matters remain subject to resolution through the applicable negotiated grievance procedure.

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