UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

KYLE JASON BELMONT,

Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

PH-0845-18-0430-I-1

DATE: May 22, 2024

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Kyle Jason Belmont, Bow, New Hampshire, pro se.

Michael Shipley, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which

affirmed the final decision by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

finding that the appellant had received an annuity overpayment and was not

entitled to a waiver. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the

following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of

1

 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute

or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the

administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial

decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of

discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and

material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due

diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully

considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not

established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.

Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as expressly MODIFIED to

find the appellant without fault in the creation of the overpayment, to supplement

the analysis regarding financial hardship, and to find that the Board is without

authority to address an adjustment to the repayment schedule, we AFFIRM the

initial decision. 

BACKGROUND

On October 23, 2008, the appellant was awarded disability retirement under

the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). Initial Appeal File (IAF),

Tab 8 at 23-26. On April 7, 2015, OPM notified the appellant that, based on a

computer match between OPM and the earnings files of the Social Security

Administration (SSA), there was a discrepancy between his earned income for the

2013 calendar year and the income he reported to OPM. Id. at 28. The notice

informed the appellant that, based on the amounts reported to OPM from SSA,

his 2013 income exceeded the 80% earnings limit and thus he might no

longer be eligible to receive disability retirement benefits from OPM. Id. On

July 27, 2015, OPM notified the appellant that, after reviewing his W-2s and

Federal income tax returns, it confirmed that he had exceeded the 80% earnings

2
limit and would discontinue his disability annuity, life insurance, and health

benefits. Id. at 27. 

On October 19, 2015, OPM notified the appellant that, because his annuity

was not terminated until July 2015, an overpayment occurred. Id. at 32. After

deducting the life and health insurance premiums already paid by the appellant,

OPM calculated the net total overpayment to be $14,513.59. Id. The appellant

requested reconsideration of OPM’s decision and waiver of the debt. Id. at 50.

His request denoted that he enclosed a Financial Resources Questionnaire (FRQ),

any monthly payment would be an extreme hardship, and, since the disability

payments had stopped, he was unable to meet payments. Id. He further stated

that he included his and his wife’s paystubs and a printout of their bank balances

to show what they wrote was accurate. 2 Id.

On May 24, 2018, OPM responded to his request for waiver. Id. at 20-22.

In addition to setting out the considerations for eligibility for waiver by showing

that he was without fault and that collection is against equity and good

conscience, the notice instructed the appellant to complete an updated FRQ. Id.

According to OPM, the appellant did not respond. Id. at 9. 

On July 11, 2018, OPM issued its final decision that the appellant owed an

overpayment and was not eligible for waiver of the overpayment because (1) he

was not without fault in causing or contributing to the overpayment, and

(2) recovery of the overpayment would not be against equity and good

conscience. IAF, Tab 8 at 15-18. OPM’s decision stated that it had insufficient

evidence to conclude that recovery of the overpayment would cause financial

hardship because the appellant failed to respond to the May 24, 2018 notice

requesting an updated FRQ. Id. at 17.

The appellant appealed this decision to the Board. IAF, Tab 1. In his

appeal, he acknowledged that he exceeded the 80% earnings limit for 2013 by

2

 Although the record contains the appellant’s request for reconsideration and waiver, it

does not contain the FRQ, pay stubs, or bank balances he claims to have attached. 

3
$34. Id. at 4. He claimed that, because he continued to receive payment from

OPM and because he exceeded his earnings limit by so little, he assumed the

matter was resolved. Id. He further claimed that he is in “no financial position to

repay” the overpayment and that “it would cause an enormous hardship.” Id.

Finally, he claimed that he was not aware that his continued receipt of his

disability annuity was an overpayment when he was receiving it. Id. 

On February 7, 2019, the administrative judge issued an initial decision

affirming OPM’s reconsideration decision. IAF, Tab 11, Initial Decision (ID)

at 1. He found that the appellant had exceeded the 80% threshold on earnings

capacity for 2013, and that OPM had proved the existence and amount of the

overpayment. ID at 4-5. He further found that the appellant was not entitled to

waiver of the overpayment because he failed to prove by substantial evidence that

he was without fault and that recovery of the overpayment would be against

equity and good conscience. ID at 5. In so finding, he found that collection of

the overpayment was not unconscionable under the circumstances. Id. Finally,

he found that the appellant was not entitled to an adjustment of the repayment

schedule because he had not requested OPM to adjust the schedule and, in any

event, he had not demonstrated financial hardship. ID at 5-6. 

The appellant has filed a petition for review, and the agency has responded.

Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 1, 4. The appellant asserts that, when he

provided his income to OPM for 2013, it was unknown to him that his earnings

exceeded his limit. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. He again states that, because he only

exceeded the 80% earnings limit by $34, he continued to receive an annuity until

July 2015, and he provided to OPM all the information required regarding his

2013 earnings, he assumed there was no problem or overpayment. Id.; IAF, Tab 1

at 4, Tab 8 at 27. He also states that his child was diagnosed with cancer and he

lives paycheck to paycheck with large amounts of credit card debt, and that he

considers the repayment of the overpayment to be an enormous hardship on him.

PFR File, Tab 1 at 4.

4
On May 7, 2019, the Office of the Clerk of the Board ordered the appellant

to provide an updated financial statement and any other relevant information for

determining whether collection of the overpayment would cause financial

hardship. PFR File, Tab 5 at 4. The order explained how financial hardship is

determined and informed him that, without adequate information, it is not

possible for the Board to make a reasoned determination regarding financial

hardship. Id. at 2-3. The appellant did not respond. 

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

At the outset, OPM bears the burden of proving the existence and amount

of an annuity overpayment by preponderant evidence. 3 Vojas v. Office of

Personnel Management, 115 M.S.P.R. 502, ¶ 10 (2011); 5 C.F.R. § 845.307(a).

Once it does so, the appellant bears the burden of establishing, by substantial

evidence, that he is entitled to a waiver. 4 Spinella v. Office of Personnel

Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 185, ¶ 6 (2008); 5 C.F.R. § 845.307(b). 

The administrative judge properly found that OPM proved the existence and

amount of the overpayment.

The annuity of a disability annuitant who is restored to earning capacity

before becoming 60 years of age terminates 180 days after the end of the calendar

year in which earning capacity is restored. 5 U.S.C. § 8455(a)(2). Earning

capacity is deemed restored if the income of the annuitant equals at least 80% of

the current rate of pay of the position occupied immediately before retirement.

Id. Although proving the existence and amount of an overpayment is OPM’s

burden, the appellant here admitted that he exceeded the 80% earnings limit for

3

 Preponderant the evidence is that degree of relevant evidence a reasonable person,

considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find a contested fact is

more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q). 

4

 Substantial evidence is the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person,

considering the record as a whole, might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,

even though other reasonable persons might disagree. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(p). It is a

lower standard of proof than preponderance of the evidence. Id. 

5
2013 by $34, and does not challenge the amount of the overpayment. IAF, Tab 1

at 4; see Vojas, 115 M.S.P.R. 502, ¶ 10 (setting forth OPM’s burden of proving

the existence and amount of an overpayment); see also Cole v. Department of the

Air Force, 120 M.S.P.R. 640, ¶ 9 (2014) (finding that an appellant’s admission to

a charge can suffice as proof of the charge without additional proof from the

agency). 

Because the appellant exceeded his earning capacity for 2013, his disability

annuity should have terminated on June 30, 2014. See 5 C.F.R. § 844.402(a)

(explaining that a FERS disability retirement annuity terminates on June 30 of the

calendar year after which the annuitant was restored to earning capacity). His

disability annuity was not terminated until July 2015, and thus, he was overpaid.

IAF, Tab 8 at 15, 32. Accordingly, we agree with the administrative judge that

OPM met its burden of proving the existence and amount of the overpayment. ID

at 4-5; IAF, Tab 8 at 32, 38. 

The appellant is without fault in the creation of the overpayment.

An appellant may be granted a waiver of recovery of an overpayment if he

is without fault and recovery would be against equity and good conscience.

Spinella, 109 M.S.P.R. 185, ¶ 6. Pertinent considerations in determining fault are

(1) whether payment resulted from the individual’s incorrect but not necessarily

fraudulent statement, which he should have known to be incorrect; (2) whether

payment resulted from the individual’s failure to disclose material facts in his

possession, which he should have known to be material; or (3) whether he

accepted a payment that he knew or should have known to be erroneous. 5 C.F.R.

§ 845.302(a). 

The administrative judge here found that the appellant failed to prove that

he was without fault. ID at 5. We disagree. The fact that the appellant was

on notice of the 80% earnings limitation does not necessarily mean that

he knew or should have known that his earnings exceeded that limit. See

5 C.F.R. § 844.402(d) (stating that “OPM will determine entitlement to [a]

6
continued [disability retirement] annuity” based on an annuitant’s annual report

of his income); see also Zelenka v. Office of Personnel Management,

107 M.S.P.R. 522, ¶ 8 (2007) (finding that identical language in OPM’s Civil

Service Retirement System (CSRS) regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 831.1209(i) required

OPM to determine an annuitant’s continued entitlement to disability retirement

payments). The Board has held that an annuitant is not required to look up his

current rate of basic pay for his former position, or to perform the calculation of

the 80% limitation and inform OPM that his earnings exceed that limit. See

Zelenka, 107 M.S.P.R. 522, ¶ 8 (finding that, although the appellant could have

located the relevant salary table on the internet and made the requisite

calculations, it was not her responsibility to do so). Under these circumstances,

the Board has held that when an appellant supplies OPM with his income which,

unbeknownst to him, exceeds the 80% earnings limit, he is not at fault in creating

an ensuing overpayment. Id.

Although the appellant appears to some extent to have erroneously reported

his earned income for 2013, OPM determined that this was not deliberate and that

the appellant provided a plausible explanation for the amount reported. IAF,

Tab 8 at 39.5 The appellant stated, in no unclear terms, that he was “not aware

this was an overpayment when I was receiving it” and that it was “unknown to

us,” presumably referring to him and his wife, that he made $34 more than was

allowed in 2013 until subsequently informed by OPM. IAF, Tab 1 at 5; PFR File,

Tab 1 at 4. The record does not reflect that the appellant knew or should have

known that the income he reported was incorrect or that he received payments

that he knew or should have known to be erroneous. Accordingly, we find that

the appellant has met his low burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that he

was not at fault in the creation of the overpayment. The administrative judge

erred in reaching the opposite conclusion. This error was harmless, however, as

5

 This determination, stated in a document submitted by OPM, contradicts OPM’s

argument that the appellant knowingly withheld his earned income for 2013 in an

attempt to get the benefit of the full annuity. IAF, Tab 8 at 8.

7
the appellant is nonetheless not entitled to a waiver of the overpayment.

See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding

that an adjudicatory error that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights

provides no basis for reversal of the initial decision). 

The appellant has failed to meet his burden of proving that recovery of the

overpayment would be against equity and good conscience.

If an appellant is without fault in creating the overpayment, he may be

entitled to a waiver of that amount if recovery would be against equity and good

conscience. Boone v. Office of Personnel Management, 119 M.S.P.R. 53,

¶ 5 (2012). There are three situations in which recovery of an overpayment is

against equity and good conscience: (1) it would cause financial hardship; (2) the

annuitant can show that because of the overpayment he relinquished a valuable

right or changed positions for the worse; or (3) recovery would be unconscionable

under the circumstances. Id.; 5 C.F.R. § 845.303. While the administrative judge

reached the correct conclusion that the appellant failed to demonstrate financial

hardship, we modify the initial decision to supplement his analysis. 

As relevant here, the administrative judge concluded, without much

analysis, that the appellant failed to demonstrate financial hardship. ID at 6. We

agree, but supplement the administrative judge’s analysis as provided below.

To demonstrate financial hardship, an appellant must prove that he needs

substantially all of his current income and liquid assets to meet his current

expenses and liabilities. Stewart v. Office of Personnel Management,

102 M.S.P.R. 272, ¶ 7 (2006); 5 C.F.R. § 845.304. Here, although the appellant

appears to have originally submitted his financial information, it is not in the

record and is now years old. IAF, Tab 8 at 9, 50. When OPM requested his

updated financial information on May 24, 2018, he did not respond. Id. at 17,

20-21. Moreover, he failed to respond to the Board’s order to show cause

regarding his financial information. PFR File, Tab 5. Without adequate

information, it is not possible for the Board to make a reasoned determination

8
concerning the financial hardship question. See Eaton v. Office of Personnel

Management, 38 M.S.P.R. 216, 218 (1998) (discussing waiver of an overpayment

of a CSRS annuity benefit based on financial hardship). As such, the appellant

has failed to meet his burden of proving that he is entitled to a waiver based on

financial hardship.

The parties do not challenge the administrative judge’s findings regarding

whether the appellant relinquished a valuable right or changed positions for the

worse, or that recovery would be unconscionable under the circumstances.

We see no reason to disturb these findings on review. 

The administrative judge additionally found that the appellant was not

entitled to an adjustment of the repayment schedule. ID at 6. The appellant did

not request an adjustment of the repayment schedule below and has not

challenged this finding on review. Nonetheless, we modify this determination to

find, instead, that the Board is without authority to address a possible adjustment.

Because the appellant no longer receives an annuity from which OPM can deduct

installment payments, his repayment schedule cannot affect any “rights or

interests” under FERS. 5 U.S.C. § 8461(e)(1); see Alexander v. Office of

Personnel Management, 114 M.S.P.R. 122, ¶¶ 9-12 (2010) (explaining the under

similar language in 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1), regarding the Board’s jurisdiction over

CSRS matters, the Board lacks authority to adjust a repayment schedule in the

absence of a CSRS annuity or other administrative payment); 5 C.F.R. § 845.206

(providing that administrative offset may be made from lump sum or annuity

payments or payments made to the debtor by another agency).

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS6

The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the

Board’s final decision in this matter. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. You may obtain

6

 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter. 

9
review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of

your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate

forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following

summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not

provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and

the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule

regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of

this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your

claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file

within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your

chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you

should contact that forum for more information. 

(1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court

within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). 

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular

10
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of

discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination

claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court (not the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems

Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative

receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be

entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any

requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. 

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective

websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

11
Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding

all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision. 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the

address of the EEOC is: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

131 M Street, N.E. 

Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection

Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised

claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in

section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)

(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either

with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of

12
competent jurisdiction.7

 The court of appeals must receive your petition for

review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.

§ 7703(b)(1)(B). 

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the

following address: 

U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case. 

7

 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain

whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on

December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on

July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of

MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.

The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,

132 Stat. 1510. 

13
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their

respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx. 

 

 

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________

Gina K. Grippando

Clerk of the Board

Washington, D.C.

14