United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Charlotte, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0525 

Issued: July 20, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 7, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 17, 2014 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Because more than 180 

days has elapsed from the most recent merit decision dated August 14, 2013, pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a prerecoupment 

hearing as untimely. 

On appeal, appellant contends that he sent a timely request for a prerecoupment hearing 

on September 13, 2014 and OWCP filed it on September 18, 2014. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 3, 2012 OWCP accepted that appellant, a 58-year-old rural carrier, sustained 

right wrist tendinitis due to factors of his federal employment, including repetitive mail casing. 

Appellant underwent authorized surgery on December 10, 2012 and was placed on the periodic 

rolls.2

By a preliminary determination dated September 5, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that 

he received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $1,084.95 because basic life 

insurance premiums were not properly deducted from his compensation payments for the period 

December 14, 2013 through August 23, 2014. It found that he was without fault in the creation 

of the overpayment. OWCP requested that appellant complete an enclosed overpayment 

recovery questionnaire and submit supporting financial documents. Additionally, it notified him 

that, within 30 days of the date of the letter, he could request a telephone conference, a final 

decision based on the written evidence, or a prerecoupment hearing.

Appellant submitted a request for a prerecoupment hearing dated September 13, 2014, 

which OWCP scanned into the case file as received on September 18, 2014. OWCP later 

received a second copy of the request on October 10, 2014. The postmark on the attached 

envelope was October 7, 2014. 

By decision dated December 17, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a 

prerecoupment hearing as untimely as the request was postmarked on October 7, 2014 and thus, 

was not made within 30 days of the September 5, 2014 preliminary determination.3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s regulations on the recovery of overpayments provide that, before collecting the 

overpayment, it must provide the claimant with written notice of the fact and amount of the 

overpayment, the finding of fault, the right to submit evidence challenging the fact, amount or 

finding of fault, and the right to request waiver of the overpayment.4 The regulations further 

provide that a claimant may request a prerecoupment hearing with respect to an overpayment.5 

Failure to request the prerecoupment hearing within 30 days shall constitute a waiver of the right 

 2

 By decision dated May 16, 2013, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits. Appellant 

requested reconsideration and in an August 14, 2013 decision, OWCP vacated its prior decision and reinstated 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits effective May 17, 2013. 

3

 By decision dated March 25, 2015, OWCP found that appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the 

amount of $861.43, for which he was without fault, because he received wage-loss compensation after returning to 

work. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.431; see also A.G., 58 ECAB 625 (2007). 

5 Id. at § 10.432. 
3

to a hearing.6 The only right to a review of a final overpayment decision is to the Board.7 The 

hearing provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b) do not apply to a final overpayment decision.8

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP improperly denied appellant’s request for a prerecoupment 

hearing as untimely. 

On appeal, appellant contends that he sent a timely request for a prerecoupment hearing 

on September 13, 2014 and OWCP filed it on September 18, 2014. The Board notes that section 

10.432 of OWCP regulations provide that, in response to a preliminary notice of an 

overpayment, a claimant may request a prerecoupment hearing within 30 days of the written 

notice of overpayment.9

 Failure to request the hearing within this 30-day time period shall 

constitute a waiver of that right.10 OWCP regulations provide that the timeliness of the request is 

determined by its postmark or other carrier’s date marking.11 The 30-day period for determining 

the timeliness of appellant’s request for a prerecoupment hearing commenced on September 6, 

2014, the date following the issuance of the September 5, 2014 preliminary overpayment 

determination. Appellant’s request for a prerecoupment hearing was dated September 13, 2014 

and scanned into the record by OWCP as received on September 18, 2014. OWCP later received 

a second copy of the request with an October 7, 2014 postmark on the attached envelope. In 

light of the evidence establishing that OWCP first received appellant’s request on 

September 18, 2014, the Board finds that it erred in using the October 7, 2014 postmark date to 

determine the timeliness of the request. As appellant’s request for a prerecoupment hearing was 

received within 30 days of OWCP’s September 5, 2014 preliminary overpayment determination 

as required by 20 C.F.R. § 10.432, it is considered timely.12

On remand, OWCP shall conduct a prerecoupment hearing on the issues of fault and 

waiver of recovery of appellant’s overpayment of compensation. 

 6 Id.; see also L.C., 59 ECAB 569 (2008); Willie C. Howard, 55 ECAB 564 (2004). 

7 Id. at § 10.440(b). 

8 Id.; see also Philip G. Feland, 48 ECAB 485 (1997). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.432; see Willie C. Howard, supra note 6. 

10 See Afegalai L. Boone, 53 ECAB 533 (2002); John B. Montoya, 43 ECAB 1148 (1992). 

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). OWCP has administratively decided that the test used in 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a) for 

determining the timeliness of hearing requests should apply to requests for prerecoupment hearings. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.439. Accordingly, timeliness is determined by the postmark of the envelope, if available. Otherwise, the date 

of the letter itself should be used. See James B. Moses, 52 ECAB 465 (2001); William J. Kapfhammer, 42 ECAB 

271 (1990). 

12 Id. See also S.E., Docket No. 11-1632 (issued April 12, 2012). 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP improperly denied appellant’s request for a prerecoupment 

hearing as untimely. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 17, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: July 20, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board