Juliane D. Ramic, ALJ Ruling 2026-11 (HHS CRD February 18, 2026)

DISMISSAL

Petitioner, Juliane D. Ramic, a former United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or agency) employee, requested a hearing to dispute the existence of an alleged debt owed to HHS.  HHS contends that dismissal of the hearing request is appropriate because Petitioner is not presently entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in connection with the alleged debt.  As explained below, I agree with HHS that the relevant debt laws and regulations do not currently entitle Petitioner to an ALJ hearing.  Therefore, I dismiss Petitioner's request for hearing in accordance with the Order below.

I.  Procedural Background

On March 31, 2025, Petitioner received notice that her position was impacted by President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14210, executing a Reduction in Force (RIF).  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Docket (Dkt.) Number (No.) 1d (Original RIF Letter).  The Original RIF Letter indicated that Petitioner would be separated from Federal service effective June 2, 2025.  Id. at 1-2.  The Original RIF Letter provided Petitioner with a preliminary evaluation of the eligible severance pay based on different metrics.  Id.

Page 2

On July 14, 2025, an SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action, was processed confirming Petitioner's separation from the agency.  The SF-50 stated Petitioner was "entitled to $20,792.92 severance pay fund to be paid at the rate of $2,717.70 per week over 7.65 weeks beginning July 15, 2025."  DAB Dkt. No. 1e.

On July 22, 2025, Petitioner received an Amended Notice of Termination of Employment due to RIF, where her date of separation from Federal service was changed to July 14, 2025.  DAB Dkt. No. 1b.  Petitioner's estimate for severance was now listed as $20,741.58.  Id. at 2.

On September 2, 2025, an SF-50 was issued correcting Petitioner's entitled severance pay to $20,314.81 to be paid at the rate of $2,717.70 per week over 7.48 weeks beginning July 15, 2025.  DAB Dkt. No. 1c.

On September 10, 2025, HHS sent a letter to Petitioner with the subject caption "Severance Pay Estimation."  DAB Dkt. No. 1f.  The letter confirmed the changes in the September 2, 2025 corrected SF-50, and provided a detailed computation of Petitioner's estimated severance pay.  Id.

On November 29, 2025, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the payroll servicing agent for HHS, notified Petitioner that she was overpaid during the pay period ending September 6, 2025, through September 6, 2025, due to "Personnel Transaction."  DAB Dkt. No. 1a.  The DFAS notice stated the gross overpayment amount was $478.11 and the net debt owed by Petitioner was $312.10 for this period.  Id. at 1.

On December 14, 2025, Petitioner timely requested a hearing to dispute the alleged debt.  DAB Dkt. Nos. 1, 1a-1g.  On December 22, 2025, HHS transmitted Petitioner's hearing request to the DAB's Civil Remedies Division for adjudication.  DAB Dkt. No. 1g.  On that same date, the case was docketed and assigned to me.

On December 23, 2025, I issued an Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order and Tentative Scheduling of Conference (APHO).  DAB Dkt. No. 3.  The APHO established deadlines for the exchange of evidence and a tentative hearing date for this matter.  Id.  The APHO also directed HHS to state its position on the applicable hearing regulation in its pre-hearing brief.  Id at 2 n.2.

On January 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a prehearing brief (Pet. Br.) with three exhibits.  DAB Dkt. Nos. 5-8.  On January 8, 2025, HHS filed a prehearing exchange (HHS Br.) requesting the case be dismissed, arguing Petitioner is not entitled to a hearing on the debt.  DAB Dkt. No. 9 at 2-4.

Page 3

After reviewing the parties' filings, I issued an Order on January 15, 2026 cancelling the tentative hearing.  DAB Dkt. No. 10.  I explained that after reviewing the parties' filings, I had determined that this case could be resolved based on the written record.  Id.

Petitioner did not file a response to HHS's request for dismissal.

The record is now complete and this case is ripe for a determination.

II.  Issues Addressed

The following issues are addressed in this ruling:

(1) Whether Petitioner is presently entitled to a hearing in this case under the relevant debt laws and regulations; and

(2) Even if Petitioner is entitled to a hearing, whether I have the authority to address the issues raised in Petitioner's request for hearing.

III.  Relevant Fact and Positions

For purposes of deciding whether dismissal is appropriate, I rely on the following facts and statements of the parties:

1. On March 31, 2025, Petitioner received notice that her position was impacted by President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14210, executing a RIF.  DAB Dkt. No. 1d.  The Original RIF Letter indicated that Petitioner would be separated from Federal service effective June 2, 2025.  Id. at 1-2.  The Original RIF Letter provided Petitioner with a preliminary evaluation of the eligible severance pay based on different metrics.  Id.
2. On July 14, 2025, an SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action, was processed confirming Petitioner's separation from the agency.  The SF-50 stated Petitioner was "entitled to $20,792.92 severance pay fund to be paid at the rate of $2,717.70 per week over 7.65 weeks beginning July 15, 2025."  DAB Dkt. No. 1e.
3. On July 22, 2025, HHS issued an Amended Notice of Termination of Employment due to RIF, where Petitioner's date of separation from Federal service was changed to July 14, 2025.  DAB Dkt. No. 1b.  Petitioner's estimate for severance was listed as $20,741.58.  Id. at 2.
4. On September 2, 2025, an SF-50 was issued correcting Petitioner's entitled severance pay to $20,314.81 to be paid at the rate of $2,717.70 per week over 7.48 weeks beginning July 15, 2025.  DAB Dkt. No. 1c.

Page 4

5. On September 10, 2025, HHS sent a letter to Petitioner with the subject caption "Severance Pay Estimation."  DAB Dkt. No. 1f.  The letter confirmed the changes in the September 2, 2025 corrected SF-50, provided a detailed computation of Petitioner's estimated severance pay.  Id. at 1-2.
6. On November 29, 2025, DFAS, the payroll servicing agent for HHS, notified Petitioner that she was overpaid during the pay period ending September 6, 2025, through September 6, 2025, due to "Personnel Transaction."  DAB Dkt. No. 1a.  The DFAS notice stated the gross overpayment amount was $478.11 and the net debt owed by Petitioner was $312.10 for this period.  Id. at 1.
7. On December 14, 2025, Petitioner completed and submitted HHS Form 710, requesting a hearing to dispute the validity of the alleged debt.  DAB Dkt. No. 1.
8. In support of the hearing request, Petitioner argues that the debt is inconsistent with agency documentation and that timely notice of revisions to the severance calculation were not communicated.  Pet. Br. at 1.
9. In her prehearing brief, filed on January 6, 2026, Petitioner raised the following arguments: (a) that the alleged overpayment resulted from agency error and inconsistent record-keeping; (b) due process and notice was denied to Petitioner; and (c) waiver is appropriate based on equity and good conscience.  Pet. Br. at 2.
10. In its prehearing brief, filed on January 8, 2026, HHS argued Petitioner is not entitled to a hearing on the debt and that I should dismiss the request for hearing.  Specifically, HHS contended Petitioner is not a current employee and the agency has not proposed garnishing non-federal wages of Petitioner, a former employee, and therefore is not entitled to a hearing.  HHS Br. at 2, 4.

IV.  Legal Authority and Analysis

As an ALJ, I may only hold a hearing or decide an issue when the law gives me the power to do so.1  Thus, before I can address the merits of Petitioner's case, I must first find that a statute, regulation, or other relevant legal authority both gives Petitioner a right to a hearing and gives me the authority to conduct that hearing.  If I determine that no such provision exists, then I must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.  Cf. Arbaugh v.

Page 5

Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (explaining that if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case, it "must dismiss the complaint in its entirety").

I am authorized by law to hear and decide certain disputes involving debts owed to HHS.  The relevant laws and regulations, however, only authorize me to hear and decide a narrow set of issues after the agency has taken specific steps in connection with a disputed debt.  The laws and regulations authorizing me to conduct HHS debt hearings include: (a) the statute codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and the implementing HHS regulations located at 45 C.F.R. Part 33; (b) the HHS regulations located at 45 C.F.R. Part 32; and (c) potentially, the HHS regulations located at 45 C.F.R. Part 30.

Here, HHS contends Petitioner is not entitled to an ALJ hearing under any of the relevant laws or regulations because she is not a current federal employee, and the agency has not initiated a collection action against her via a notice of administrative wage garnishment or administrative offset.  HHS Br. at 2.  As explained below, I agree with HHS and conclude that I am not authorized to provide Petitioner with a hearing under the present circumstances of this case.  Absent express authority to proceed, I must dismiss Petitioner's request for hearing.

1. Petitioner is not entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and 45 C.F.R. Part 33

The procedures federal agencies must follow prior to collecting a debt from a federal employee via salary offset (i.e. deductions from the employee's regular pay) are outlined in 5 U.S.C. § 5514.  Pursuant to the statute, the agency must provide the employee with at least 30 days' notice of its intent to initiate salary offset and give the employee the opportunity to request a hearing to dispute the existence or amount of the debt, and/or the terms of a repayment schedule established other than by written agreement.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2).

The HHS regulations implementing 5 U.S.C. § 5514, which are located at 45 C.F.R. Part 33, authorize employee salary offset hearings to be held by ALJs and outline the procedures governing such hearings.  See 45 C.F.R. §§ 33.6, 33.7(a)(2).  However, the regulations specifically define "employee" as "any individual currently employed by [a federal] agency."  45 C.F.R. § 33.2 (Emphasis added).  Here, the record shows Petitioner is no longer employed by HHS.  DAB Dkt. Nos. 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f, 8.  Moreover, there is no indication that HHS is seeking to initiate salary offset against Petitioner as a former employee.  Therefore, I find that Petitioner is not entitled to an ALJ hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and 45 C.F.R. Part 33.

Page 6

2. Petitioner is not presently entitled to a hearing under 45 C.F.R. Part 32

The regulations located at 45 C.F.R. Part 32 were promulgated to implement the administrative wage garnishment provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.  See 68 Fed. Reg. 15,092-15,096 (March 28, 2003).  According to the drafters, the purpose of the rule is to allow HHS "to garnish the disposable pay of non-Federal employees to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed to the United States without first obtaining a court order."  Id. at 15,092 (Emphasis added).  Accordingly, 45 C.F.R. Part 32 authorizes the HHS Secretary to issue orders to employers to withhold up to 15% of a debtor's disposable pay.  45 C.F.R. §§ 32.6, 32.8.

Before HHS can initiate garnishment proceedings against a debtor under Part 32, the agency must provide at least 30 days' written notice of its intent to initiate such proceedings.   45 C.F.R. § 32.4(a).  Among other requirements, the notice must also provide the debtor with an opportunity for a hearing before an ALJ or other qualified individual, "in accordance with § 32.5, concerning the existence or the amount of the debt or the terms of the proposed repayment schedule under the garnishment order. . . ." See id. §§ 32.4(a)(3)(iii), 32.5.  In other words, a debtor is not entitled to a hearing under the administrative wage garnishment provisions unless and until HHS provides the required notice of its intent to garnish the debtor's non-federal wages.

Here, HHS has not provided any written notice to Petitioner stating an intent to initiate administrative wage garnishment proceedings against her.  While the November 29, 2025 debt notification letter "urges" Petitioner to repay the debt "to avoid" interest, penalties, fees, and "enforced collection action," I find that it does not state that HHS intends to garnish Petitioner's wages or take any other specific collection action if she fails to pay.  See DAB Dkt. No. 1a.  Because HHS has not initiated administrative garnishment proceedings by providing the required notice to Petitioner, I find that Petitioner is not presently entitled to a hearing under 45 C.F.R. Part 32.

3. Petitioner is not presently entitled to a hearing under 45 C.F.R. Part 30

The regulations located at 45 C.F.R. Part 30 outline the general procedures HHS follows in claims and debt collection actions.  Potentially relevant here, 45 C.F.R. § 30.12 provides the procedures applicable to administrative offset, which is when the government withholds funds owed to the debtor to satisfy a debt.  See 45 C.F.R. § 30.2 (defining "administrative offset").

Administrative offset "may be initiated only after the debtor has been sent written notice of the type and amount of the debt" and "the intention of the Department to initiate administrative offset to collect the debt."  45 C.F.R. § 30.12(c)(2)(i).  The notice must also provide the debtor with "the opportunity for a review within the Department of the determination of indebtedness."  45 C.F.R. § 30.12(c)(2)(ii)(C).  Thus, similar to the

Page 7

administrative wage garnishment regulations discussed above, a debtor's right to request departmental review does not accrue under this section unless and until HHS provides written notice of its intent to initiate administrative offset.

It is also important to note that while the departmental review process in Part 30 includes the opportunity for an "oral hearing" or a "paper hearing," the provisions specifically state that the review is to be provided by the "Secretary."  45 C.F.R. § 30.12(e).

The regulation defines "Secretary" as "the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary's designee."  45 C.F.R. § 30.2.  Unlike the other debt regulations, there is no language indicating that the review will be provided by an ALJ, nor am I aware of any Secretarial designation authorizing me to conduct any review under this section.  Thus, even when the departmental review provisions are triggered, my authority to conduct a hearing under Part 30 is not entirely clear.

In any event, HHS has not yet issued a notice to Petitioner stating it intends to collect the alleged debt via administrative offset.  Again, the debt notification letter does not state that HHS intends to initiate any specific collection action against Petitioner.  See DAB Dkt. No. 1a.  Because HHS has not initiated administrative offset by providing the required notice to Petitioner, I find that Petitioner is not presently entitled to departmental review under 45 C.F.R. § 30.12.

4. Petitioner has not identified any law or regulation which authorizes me to conduct a hearing in this case

Petitioner claims the alleged overpayment resulted from agency error and inconsistent record-keeping, that due process and notice were denied, and therefore requests a waiver based on equity and good conscience.  Pet. Br. at 2.  While I sympathize with Petitioner, Petitioner's filing is not directly responsive to the jurisdictional issues raised by HHS because it does not address Petitioner's hearing rights under the relevant debt regulations.

Further, Petitioner does not identify any other law or regulation that authorizes me to conduct a hearing in this case.  As discussed in the next section, I have no legal authority to hear or decide any issues involving Petitioner's arguments when she is presently not entitled to a hearing in connection with the alleged debt.

V.  Waiver

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 while also presenting an alternative argument in support of waiver.  DAB Dkt. Nos. 1 at 2; 5 at 2.  Petitioner is not precluded from seeking waiver of the debt, as the Office of General

Page 8

Counsel is authorized to review waiver requests, but will not do so if a hearing request is pending.  See 45 C.F.R. § 33.1(c)(3).  I urge HHS to exercise its discretion to waive the debt considering Petitioner is not at fault for the original miscalculation that resulted in the overpayment.

VI.  Order

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner is not presently entitled to a hearing on the alleged debt and, in any event, has not identified any issues I am legally authorized to decide.  Therefore, I hereby ORDER as follows:

Petitioner's request for hearing is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Petitioner may exercise any available right to a hearing or review regarding the alleged debt if HHS initiates a qualifying collection action in the future2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.