Wanda Yates, ALJ Ruling 2026-22 (HHS CRD May 11, 2026)

DISMISSAL

Petitioner, Wanda Yates, requested a hearing in connection with two debt notification letters issued by her employer, the Social Security Administration (SSA or the agency).  As explained below, I find that Petitioner waived her right to a hearing by failing to timely request a hearing and, therefore, Petitioner’s request for hearing is DISMISSED.

I. Background

On January 21, 2026, SSA sent Petitioner, an SSA employee, two debt notification letters stating she owes debts to the agency in the amount of $303.61 and $31.141 for alleged overpayments related to Petitioner’s health benefits for pay period 2025-22 and overtime payment in pay period 2025-24.  See Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Nos. 1a at 9; 4 at 9.  The letters stated that if Petitioner failed to repay the debts voluntarily, the debts would be collected through salary deductions.  See., e.g., DAB Dkt. Entry Nos. 1a at 1; 4 at 1.

Page 2

The debt letters outlined Petitioner’s due process rights in connection with the alleged debts.  Among other provisions, the letters stated that if Petitioner wished to challenge the “existence or amount of the debt,” she had 15 days to request a hearing.  See, e.g., DAB Dkt. Entry Nos. 1aat 8; 4 at 8.  Each letter also stated that if Petitioner does not dispute the validity of the debt but believes “collection of the debt would be against equity and good conscience or not in the best of the United States,” she could request a waiver of the alleged debt.  See id. at 7

On March 18, 2026, SSA electronically filed Petitioner’s request for a hearing dated “February 201, 2026.”2  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1 (Hearing Request).  Petitioner’s request for a hearing was filed with various attachments, including the cover page of the debt letter for the debt totaling $303.61, and Exhibit 6 for the other debt letter for the debt totaling $31.14.  Id. at 1.  In the letter, Petitioner requested a hearing of the alleged debts and explains the debt in the amount of $31.14 occurred when she “neglected to check the meal box on [her] time sheet.”  Id.  Petitioner’s request for hearing did not address the issue of timeliness.

On March 20, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment, Order to Show Cause, and Stay of Decision Deadline (Show Cause Order).  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 2.  The Show Cause Order directed SSA to address certain preliminary issues.  Id. at 2-3.  Specifically, SSA was directed to brief (1) whether Petitioner’s hearing request was timely, (2) whether the delay was the result of circumstances beyond Petitioner’s control or due to the fact that Petitioner did not receive actual notice of the filing deadline, (3) SSA’s position on the 60-day statutory limitation, (4) the current collection status of Petitioner’s alleged debt, and (5) provide a complete copy of the Debt Letter for the alleged debt in the amount of $303.61.  Id.  A copy of the Show Cause Order was mailed to the address listed on Petitioner’s Debt Letter: [redacted].  Id. at 4.

On March 23, 2026, SSA electronically filed the debt letter for the alleged debt for $303.61.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 4.  On March 25, 2026, SSA filed a Response to the Show Cause Order.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 5.  SSA argued Petitioner’s Hearing Request was untimely and not excused; that the 60-day time limitation commenced on March 3, 2026; that the $303.61 debt was collected before Petitioner filed her hearing request, and the Petitioner paid off the other debt for $31.14.  Id. at 2-3.

On April 22, 2026, the DAB received the Show Cause Order sent to Petitioner via U.S. mail as undelivered.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 6.

Page 3

On April 28, 2026, the assigned attorney advisor contacted SSA to request Petitioner’s email address.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 7.  Once the email address was obtained, the attorney advisor contacted Petitioner and asked them to confirm their mailing address.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 7a.  Petitioner responded acknowledging receipt of the email and clarifying that their hearing request only concerned the “debt collection related to Health Benefits.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 7a at 1.  Petitioner also verified her current mailing address as “6604 Deer Park Road, Reisterstown, Maryland 21136.”  Id. (emphasis added).  On April 29, 2026, I issued an order directing Petitioner to file a written statement on the timeliness of her hearing request.  DAB Dkt. Entry Nos. 8 and 9.

On April 30, 2026, Petitioner sent an email to the attorney advisor submitting “written feedback regarding the Health Benefit debt [she] incurred.”  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 10.  Petitioner also attached a written statement to her email which states she is “writing in response to the notice regarding the Health Benefits debt in the amount of $303.61, incurred on or about November 14, 2025, because of a thirty-minute overpayment when I inadvertently failed to check my meal box on the timesheet.”  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 10a at 1.  On timeliness, Petitioner states that “[o]n January 27, 2026, following the debt notice dated January 21, 2026, I contacted Robyn Stieduhar O’Brien for clarification, and she advised me to reach out to my payroll department.”  Id.  Petitioner then lists her concerns and “respectfully request a detailed explanation regarding the calculation of the Health Benefits debt, the discrepancy between the overpayment and the collection total, and reimbursement of any difference paid.”  Id.

II. Discussion and Analysis

A. Petitioner waived her right to a hearing by failing to submit a timely request for hearing.

Pursuant to the salary offset statute and regulations, an SSA employee has 15 days from receiving a notice of salary offset to request a hearing.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(1)(D); 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1)(i).3  Generally, if the employee fails to request a hearing within the 15-day period, the right to a hearing is waived.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(2)(ii)(A).  The regulations, however, provide that an untimely request for hearing may be accepted if the employee establishes “either that the delay was the result of circumstances beyond the employee’s control or that the employee failed to receive actual notice of the filing deadline.”  Id. at§ 422.810(h)(2)(i).

Page 4

Here, Petitioner’s request for hearing is dated “February 201, 2026,” and includes an envelope from Petitioner that is stamped received by SSA, with a handwritten date of “March 3, 2026.”   DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 1, 4.  March 3, 2026, is 41 days after the notice date of January 21, 2026.  Petitioner’s response to my April 28, 2026, Order, did not “confirm what date she sent her hearing request” nor did it “provide evidence that her hearing request was sent on that date” as directed by the order.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 2.  Instead, in her response, she stated that on “January 27, 2026, following the debt notice dated January 21, 2026,” she “immediately” contacted SSA.  CRD Dkt. Entry 10a at 1.  Thus, I infer that Petitioner received the debt letter on or before January 27, 2026, and without an explanation for a delay, I can infer from SSA’s handwritten stamp that Petitioner’s request for hearing was sent after the 15-day regulatory deadline expired.

Upon review of the record, I agree with SSA’s arguments that Petitioner’s Hearing Request was untimely and although Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to supplement the record and justify the delay of the request for hearing, she failed to do so.

Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that her untimely hearing request was a result of anything other than her delay and, therefore, has waived her right to a hearing.  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(2)(ii)(A).

III. Order

For all the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s request for hearing is DISMISSED and this matter is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.