United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

V.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Shaker Heights, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-157 

Issued: March 16, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 31, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) overpayment decision dated September 16, 2014. Pursuant 

to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

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

Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the 

amount of $586.92 for the period March 9 to July 26, 2014; (2) whether OWCP properly denied 

waiver of recovery of the overpayment; and (3) whether it properly found that the overpayment 

should be recovered by deducting $133.00 monthly from appellant’s continuing compensation 

payments. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on January 11, 2013 appellant, then a 36-year-old mail handler, 

sustained a left ankle sprain and left rupture of the Achilles tendon when he slipped off a piece of 

equipment. He began receiving wage-loss compensation on February 26, 2013 and was placed 

on the periodic rolls effective June 2, 2013. 

By letter dated May 31, 2013, OWCP informed appellant of the weekly pay rate used to 

compute his gross compensation benefits and deductions for his elected benefits of optional life 

insurance (OLI), basic life insurance (BLI), and health insurance. Regular payments for BLI 

were noted as $16.50. No deductions were indicated for post-retirement basic life insurance 

(PRBLI). OWCP utilized appellant’s annual salary of $52,994.00 to calculate the weekly pay 

rate. 

On March 26, 2014 OWCP notified appellant of a proposal to terminate his wage-loss 

compensation benefits because he was not experiencing any residuals or disability connected to 

the employment injury and was capable of returning to full-duty work.2

By letter dated June 24, 2014, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) advised 

OWCP that appellant’s final base salary was $53,670.00 for which the Federal Employees’ 

Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program was based. OPM further noted that appellant had 

elected PRBLI effective March 8, 2014. 

By letter dated August 6, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that, beginning July 27, 2014, 

deductions for the additional life insurance of PRBLI would be made in the amount of $117.08. 

It further noted that $16.80 would be deducted for BLI. 

On August 7, 2014 OWCP made preliminary findings that appellant received an 

overpayment of $586.92 for the period March 9 to July 26, 2014 because no deductions were 

made for PRBLI and BLI should have been deducted at $16.80, up from $16.50. It found that 

appellant was without fault in the creation of the overpayment. The memorandum explained that 

appellant’s PRBLI became effective on March 8, 2014 and his annual salary for life insurance 

purposes was $53,670.00 not the $52,994.00 amount used. As appellant’s annual salary 

increased, the BLI increased to $16.80 as it should have been deducted from the higher salary 

rate. Based on five plates of nondeduction for PRBLI at $117.08 per plate, OWCP calculated an 

overpayment of $585.42.3

 It further noted that the difference of the BLI deductions was .30 

cents per plate ($16.80 - $16.50) which was multiplied by five plates resulting in an overpayment 

of $1.50 for BLI deductions. OWCP then added the $585.42 for PRBLI with $1.50 for BLI 

resulting in an overpayment of $586.92 for the period March 9 to July 26, 2014. 

 2

 The Board notes that no final termination decision has been issued with respect to the proposed termination of 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits. 

3

 OWCP explained that the extra two cents were due to a fraction of a penny actually owed as part of the $117.08 

per plate, which entailed the regular deduction for PRBLI. 
3

As OWCP determined that appellant was without fault in the creation of the 

overpayment, it requested that he submit financial information pursuant to the enclosed 

overpayment recovery questionnaire (OWCP-20) within 30 days if he was requesting waiver of 

the overpayment. It noted that waiver would be denied if appellant failed to furnish the 

information requested on the enclosed OWCP-20 form with supporting documentation within 30 

days. 

In an August 13, 2014 OWCP telephone note, appellant requested a telephone conference 

pertaining to the preliminary overpayment decision. 

A telephone conference was held on August 22, 2014. The senior claims examiner listed 

information provided by appellant pertaining to his income and expenses on an OWCP-20 excel 

sheet and requested copies of bills to support the amounts given. Appellant stated that he was 

separated from his wife, but continued to support her, spending approximately $100.00 to 

$200.00 per month. He further stated that he provided support in the amount of $300.00 per 

month to his son who recently started college. The record was held open for 15 days. 

The August 22, 2014 OWCP-20 form indicated that appellant received a monthly income 

of $2,899.65. Appellant reported monthly household expenses in the amount of $200.00 for 

food, $100.00 for clothing, $1,670.00 for rent/mortgage, $200.00 for electricity, $100.00 for 

water, $150.00 for telephone, $381.00 for car loan payment, $200.00 for gas, $50.00 for car 

maintenance, $50.00 for insurance, $10.00 for medical expenses unreimbursed, $150.00 for 

cable, $15.00 for newspapers, and $80.00 for haircuts totaling $3,356.00. He reported $50.00 in 

cash on hand and $50.00 in his checking account totaling $100.00 in net assets. Taking the total 

net monthly income of $2,899.65 and subtracting the monthly expenses of $3,356.00 resulted in 

a difference of -$456.35. 

By letter dated August 25, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant provide copies of bills 

to support the dollar amounts stated on the OWCP-20 form. 

On September 15, 2014 appellant submitted various bills in support of his request for 

waiver of recovery. He submitted an itemized transaction history for his checking account for 

the period July 7 to August 12, 2014 which indicated a total balance of $70.41. The transaction 

history showed numerous payments for bills and miscellaneous items during this time frame. 

Appellant further provided a Bank of America Home Loan Bill for $1,672.79 in monthly 

mortgage payments, an August 5, 2014 Sherman Residential Rental Agreement which indicated 

various monthly charges, an August 20, 2014 water bill in the amount of $94.10, and an 

August 7, 2014 electric bill in the amount of $337.11. He also submitted an August 18, 2014 

college enrollment verification form for his son. 

By decision dated September 16, 2014, OWCP finalized the preliminary determination 

finding that appellant was overpaid in the amount of $586.92 for the period March 9 to July 26, 

2014 because no deductions were made for PRBLI and an incorrect amount was used for BLI 

deductions. It found that he was without fault in the creation of the overpayment but denied 

waiver of recovery because he failed to submit the requested and required copies of 

documentation to verify his expenses and bank balance. OWCP determined that appellant could 

repay the overpayment by deducting $133.00 from continuing compensation every 28 days. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Section 8102(a) of FECA provides that the United States shall pay compensation for the 

disability or death of an employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the 

performance of his duty.4 Section 8129(a) of FECA provides, in pertinent part: When an 

overpayment has been made to an individual under this subchapter because of an error of fact or 

law, adjustment shall be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor by 

decreasing later payments to which an individual is entitled.5

Section 8116(a) of FECA provides that while an employee is receiving compensation or 

if he or she has been paid a lump sum in commutation of installment payments until the 

expiration of the period during which the installment payments would have continued, the 

employee may not receive salary, pay or remuneration of any type from the United States, except 

in limited specified instances.6

Under the FEGLI program, most civilian employees of the Federal Government are 

eligible to participate in BLI and one or more of the options.7

 The coverage for basic life is 

effective unless waived8

 and premiums for basic and optional life coverages are withheld from 

the employee’s pay.9 

FECA and its implementing regulations provide that an employee entitled to disability 

compensation benefits may continue BLI coverage without cost under certain circumstances10

and may also retain the OLI.11 At separation from the employing establishment, FEGLI 

insurance will either terminate or be continued under compensationer status.12 If the 

compensationer chooses to continue BLI and OLI insurance coverage, the schedule of 

deductions made while the compensationer was an employee will be used to withhold premiums 

from his or her compensation payments.13 Thus, while receiving disability compensation in lieu 

of retirement benefits, the former employee is responsible for all insurance premiums.14

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

5 Id. at § 8129(a). 

6 Id. at § 8116(a). 

7

 5 C.F.R. § 870.201. 

8 Id. at § 870.204(a). 

9 Id. at § 870.401(a). 

10 Id. at § 870.701, subpart G. 

11 Id. at § 871.201, subpart B; 8702.201, subpart B; 873.203, subpart B. 

12 Id. at § 870.501. 

13 Id. at § 872.410, subpart D. 

14 Scherri L. Stanley, 53 ECAB 433 (2002). 
5

A final decision of OWCP shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons.15 

With respect to overpayment decisions, OWCP must provide clear statements showing how the 

overpayment was calculated.16 Its 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, right to submit evidence challenging the 

fact, amount or finding of fault, and the right to request waiver of the overpayment.17 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant received an overpayment 

of compensation in the amount of $586.92 for the period March 9 to July 26, 2014. 

The record shows that the overpayment occurred because no deductions were made for 

PRBLI and an incorrect amount was used for BLI deductions from March 9 to July 27, 2014. 

OPM informed OWCP that appellant’s PRBLI became effective on March 8, 2014 and his 

annual salary for life insurance purposes was $53,670.00, not $52,994.00. With the increased 

salary, deductions for BLI increased to $16.80 from $16.50. 

The August 7, 2014 OWCP memorandum explained that an overpayment of $585.42 

occurred from March 9 to July 27, 2014 based on five plates of nondeduction for PRBLI at 

$117.08 per plate. An additional .30 cents should have been deducted per plate for BLI 

deductions which amounted to $1.50 for five plates.18 After adding $585.42 for PRBLI to $1.50 

for BLI, OWCP properly calculated a total overpayment of $586.92 for the period March 9 to 

July 26, 2014.19

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

The waiver or refusal to waive an overpayment of compensation by OWCP is a matter 

that rests within OWCP’s discretion pursuant to statutory guidelines.20 These statutory 

guidelines are found in section 8129(b) of FECA which states: Adjustment or recovery of an 

overpayment by the United States may not be made when incorrect payment has been made to an 

individual who is without fault and when adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose of 

this subchapter or would be against equity and good conscience.21 If OWCP finds a claimant to 

 15 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. 

16 James Tackett, 54 ECAB 611 (2003); Sandra K. Neil, 40 ECAB 924 (1989). 

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.431. 

18 Coverage for basic life is effective unless waived and premiums for basic and optional life coverages are 

withheld from the employee’s pay. 5 C.F.R. § 870.204(a) and § 870.401(a). Thus, appellant is responsible for 

payment of the premiums and the premiums must be deducted from his compensation payments. W.J., Docket No. 

12-672 (issued August 24, 2012). 

19 S.W., Docket No. 11-895 (issued December 5, 2011). 

20 See Robert Atchison, 41 ECAB 83, 87 (1989). 

21 5 U.S.C. § 8129(b). 
6

be without fault in the matter of an overpayment, then, in accordance with section 8129(b), it 

may only recover the overpayment if it determined that recovery of the overpayment would 

neither defeat the purpose of FECA nor be against equity and good conscience. 

According to 20 C.F.R. § 10.436, recovery of an overpayment would defeat the purpose 

of FECA if recovery would cause hardship because the beneficiary needs substantially all of his 

or her income (including compensation benefits) to meet current ordinary and necessary living 

expenses and also, if the beneficiary’s assets do not exceed a specified amount as determined by 

OWCP from data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.22 According to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.437, recovery of an overpayment is considered to be against equity and good conscience 

when an individual who received an overpayment would experience severe financial hardship 

attempting to repay the debt and when an individual, in reliance on such payments or on notice 

that such payments would be made, gives up a valuable right or changes his or her position for 

the worse.23 To establish that a valuable right has been relinquished, it must be shown that the 

right was in fact valuable, that it cannot be regained and that the action was based chiefly or 

solely in reliance on the payments or on the notice of payment.24

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

As appellant was found to be without fault in the creation of the overpayment in 

compensation, waiver must therefore be considered, and repayment is still required unless 

adjustment or recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or be against 

equity, and good conscience. The Board finds that the case is not in posture for a decision 

regarding waiver of recovery of the overpayment.25

On September 16, 2014 OWCP denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment because 

appellant did not submit the requested and required copies of documentation to verify his 

expenses and bank balance. A review of the record, however, reveals that OWCP received on 

September 15, 2014 an itemized checking account transaction history dated July 7 to August 12, 

2014 with a total balance of $70.41, a Bank of America Home Loan Bill for monthly mortgage 

payments of $1,672.79, an August 5, 2014 Sherman Residential Rental Agreement which 

indicated various monthly charges, an August 20, 2014 water bill in the amount of $94.10, and 

an August 7, 2014 electric bill in the amount of $337.11. Appellant also submitted an 

August 18, 2014 college enrollment verification form for his son. 

 22 20 C.F.R. § 10.436. An individual is deemed to need substantially all of his or her monthly income to meet 

current and ordinary living expenses if monthly income does not exceed monthly expenses by more than $50.00. 

Desiderio Martinez, 55 ECAB 245 (2004). OWCP procedures provide that assets must not exceed a resource base 

of $4,800.00 for an individual or $8,000.00 for an individual with a spouse or dependent plus $960.00 for each 

additional dependent. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 6 -- Debt Management, Initial Overpayment Actions, 

Chapter 6.200.6(a) (June 2009). 

23 Id. at § 10.437(a), (b). 

24 Id. at § 10.437(b)(1). 

25 J.L., Docket No. 12-924 (issued November 6, 2012). 
7

Board precedent holds that OWCP must review all the evidence submitted by a claimant 

and received by OWCP prior to the issuance of a final decision.26 As the Board’s jurisdiction is 

final as to the subject matter, it is crucial that OWCP accomplish this.27

Because OWCP found that appellant failed to submit supporting financial documentation, 

it is clear that it did not consider the factual evidence submitted by him on September 15, 2014 in 

reaching its overpayment decision and denying waiver of recovery.28 Whether OWCP receives 

relevant evidence on the date of the decision or several days prior, such evidence must be 

considered.29 As OWCP failed to address all of the relevant evidence of record at the time it 

issued its September 16, 2014 decision, the Board will set aside the September 16, 2014 decision 

on the issue of waiver and recovery and remand for consideration and review of all the evidence. 

Following such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue an appropriate 

decision on whether overpayment should be waived.30 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant received a $586.92 

overpayment of compensation for the period March 9 to July 26, 2014 and was not at fault for 

the overpayment. Consequently, the case must be remanded to OWCP to determine his 

eligibility for waiver of recovery of the overpayment.31

 26 See M.B., Docket No. 09-17 (issued September 23, 2009); Yvette N. Davis, 55 ECAB 475 (2004); Linda 

Johnson, 45 ECAB 439 (1994) (evidence received the same day as the issuance of OWCP’s decision); William A. 

Couch, 41 ECAB 548 (1990); 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(c). 

27 Id. 

28 R.L., Docket No. 14-1006 (issued January 26, 2015). 

29 Willard McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999). 

30 J.B., Docket No. 11-2005 (issued July 23, 2012). 

31 In view of the Board’s finding that the case must be remanded for OWCP to consider waiver of the 

overpayment, it is premature to address the amount of recovery of the overpayment. 
8

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 16, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed in part with regard to the fact and amount of 

overpayment. The decision is set aside with regard to waiver of recovery and the case is 

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: March 16, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board