Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03052/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy L. Maye
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JIMMY L. MAYE,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3052

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0845-14-0616-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2015

______________________ 

JIMMY L. MAYE, Kinston, NC, pro se. 

RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D.

AUSTIN.

______________________ 

Case: 15-3052 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2015
2 MAYE v. OPM

Before DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Maye appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) affirming a decision 

of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) affirming 

OPM’s calculation of an annuity overpayment and denying him a waiver of collection of the overpayment. We 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Maye is a former employee of the United States 

Postal Service. In 2010, Mr. Maye was approved for 

disability retirement, and he began receiving interim 

payments on a monthly basis as a stop-gap until his 

application for disability retirements could be completely 

processed and the actual amount of his benefit could be 

determined. Mr. Maye was required to apply for Social 

Security disability benefits and inform the OPM of any 

Social Security benefit that he was awarded. If Mr. Maye 

was awarded Social Security benefits, OPM would then 

reduce Mr. Maye’s federal employee disability retirement 

payments by the amount of Social Security benefit he 

received pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8452. 

Mr. Maye applied for Social Security Disability and 

began receiving Social Security disability benefit payments in July of 2010. However, OPM was never informed of those payments, and the necessary reductions 

were never made. Mr. Maye continued collecting both his 

Social Security disability payments and his federal employee retirement benefits through March of 2012. On 

April 21, 2012, OPM sent Mr. Maye a “Special Notice” 

notifying him that he had been overpaid by $28,605.44 

and that OPM would begin withholding $246.41 from 

each future monthly benefit payment until the overpayment was paid back. 

Case: 15-3052 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2015
MAYE v. OPM 3

In May, after the first repayment had been withheld 

from his check, Mr. Maye challenged OPM’s calculation of 

the overpayment and requested a waiver of the collection 

of overpayments pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8470(b). Ultimately, OPM determined that the calculations were 

correct and denied Mr. Maye’s request for a waiver. OPM

did lengthen the schedule for Mr. Maye’s repayment of 

the overpayment so that the repayments were spread over 

190 months rather than 116. 

Mr. Maye appealed to the Board pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8461(e)(1), and his appeal was heard by an Administrative Judge (“AJ”) in July of 2014. The AJ found that OPM 

had met its burden of proving the existence and amount 

of an overpayment. In addition, the AJ found that Mr. 

Maye had failed to establish his entitlement to a waiver of 

repayment of the overpayment. Mr. Maye then petitioned 

the full Board for review, which the Board denied, affirming the AJ’s decision. Mr. Maye now petitions for review 

of the Board’s decision.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). This court’s authority to review a decision of 

the Board is prescribed by statute. Specifically, we must 

affirm unless the Board’s decision is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required 

by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) 

unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Maye challenges OPM’s calculation of the amount 

of overpayment. In cases involving the overpayment of a 

retirement annuity, OPM must establish the existence 

and amount of an overpayment by a preponderance of the 

evidence. 5 C.F.R. § 845.307. The AJ found, as a matter 

of fact, that “OPM has proven the existence and amount 

of the overpayment,” App. 34, a decision which the full 

Case: 15-3052 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2015
4 MAYE v. OPM

Board affirmed. We find these determinations to be 

supported by substantial evidence.

Mr. Maye also challenges the decision denying him a 

waiver of the collection of the overpayment. Under 

5 U.S.C. § 8470(b), recovery of overpayments “may not be 

made from an individual when, in the judgment of the 

[OPM], the individual is without fault and recovery would 

be against equity and good conscience.” The individual 

has the burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that he or she is eligible for a waiver. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 845.307. The AJ found that Mr. Maye had failed to 

meet this burden of proof, a decision again affirmed by the 

whole Board. 

In the first prong of the waiver determination, the AJ 

determined that Mr. Maye was not at fault for the overpayment.1 But the AJ found that Mr. Maye had failed to 

provide evidence to satisfy this second prong of the test. 

We find this factual determination to be supported by 

substantial evidence. Under the second prong, an individual demonstrates that recovery would be against 

equity and good conscience when: “(a) It would cause 

financial hardship to the person from whom it is sought; 

(b) The recipient of the overpayment can show (regardless 

of his or her financial circumstances) that due to the 

notice that such payment would be made or because of the 

incorrect payment he or she either has relinquished a 

valuable right or has changed positions for the worse; or 

1 The OPM letter to Mr. Maye in April stated that 

that “we find you are not without fault in causing or 

contributing to the overpayment.” App. 28. However, it is 

clear from the context that this is a typographical error 

and was meant to read “you are not at fault.” In any case, 

the AJ found that Mr. Maye was not at fault. 

 

Case: 15-3052 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/09/2015
MAYE v. OPM 5

(c) Recovery would be unconscionable under the circumstances.” 5 C.F.R. § 845.303. 

Mr. Maye’s own responses to OPM’s financial resources questionnaire show that he had a monthly income 

that exceeded his expenses by $500, and Mr. Maye has 

not provided any additional evidence as to why repayment 

would cause a financial hardship. In addition, Mr. Maye 

has not provided any evidence as to how he changed 

position in reliance on the overpayment to his detriment, 

and in any case Mr. Maye had adequate notice of potential overpayments in the letter notifying him of his federal 

employee disability award and was told not to cash his 

Social Security checks until his application for benefits 

was processed by OPM. Lastly, Mr. Maye has not provided any evidence demonstrating unconscionability. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No Costs.

Case: 15-3052 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/09/2015