United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

American Fork, UT, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1268 

Issued: November 21, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 6, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 1, 2016 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act2

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

the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly issued its April 1, 2016 overpayment decision. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. In a decision dated June 25, 2015, the 

Board set aside a February 5, 2014 decision, finding that appellant received a $1,242.66 

 1

 Appellant submitted new evidence with his appeal. The Board has no jurisdiction to review new evidence on 

appeal as it was not in the record at the time OWCP rendered its final decision; see 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

overpayment of compensation from April 1, 2012 to February 8, 2013 because OWCP failed to 

deduct premiums for postretirement basic life insurance.3

 The Board found that the case was not 

in posture for decision regarding whether he received an overpayment of compensation as the 

record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish that he elected postretirement basic life 

insurance with no reduction. The Board instructed OWCP on remand to obtain the executed 

election form documenting appellant’s election of postretirement basic life insurance. The facts 

and circumstances as set forth in the prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. 

On remand OWCP obtained a May 18, 2004 Federal Employees Group Life Insurance 

(FEGLI) continuation of life insurance coverage form completed by appellant. Appellant elected 

basic life insurance in retirement with no reduction and option B with two multiples and no 

reduction. He did not elect Option C. OWCP also received agency certification of insurance 

status forms, indicating that as of appellant’s retirement on May 7, 2004, he had insurance 

Option A and insurance Option B with five multiples. It also received FEGLI forms completed 

by appellant on December 11, 1973, November 8, 1974, and November 6, 1980. 

By decision dated April 1, 2016, OWCP found that appellant received an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $1,242.66 because it did not deduct premiums for postretirement 

basic life insurance for the period April 1, 2012 through February 8, 2013. It further determined 

that he was not entitled to waiver of recovery of the overpayment and noted that he had repaid 

the debt in full. 

On appeal appellant contends that he did not have life insurance after retirement. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 10.431 of FECA’s implementing regulations provides that, before seeking to 

recover an overpayment or adjust benefits, OWCP will advise the individual in writing that the 

overpayment exists and the amount of the overpayment.4 The written notification must also 

include a preliminary finding regarding whether the individual was at fault in the creation of the 

overpayment.5 Additionally, OWCP is obliged to advise the individual of his right to inspect and 

copy the government records relating to the overpayment.6 Finally, the preliminary notice must 

inform the individual of his right to challenge the fact or amount of the overpayment, the right to 

contest the preliminary finding of fault in the creation of the overpayment, if applicable, and the 

right to request a waiver of recovery of the overpayment.7

 The recipient of the alleged 

overpayment may present evidence in response to OWCP’s preliminary notice either in writing 

or at a prerecoupment hearing.8 The evidence must be presented or the hearing requested within 

 3

 Docket No. 14-1094 (issued June 25, 2015). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.431(a). 

5 Id. at § 10.431(b). 

6 Id. at § 10.431(c). 

7 Id. at § 10.431(d). 

8 Id. at § 10.432. 
3

30 days of the date of the written notice of overpayment.9 Failure to request the hearing within 

this 30-day time period shall constitute waiver of that right.10 

OWCP procedures provide that, once an overpayment is identified and calculated, it is 

responsible for determining whether the claimant was with fault or without fault, issuing a 

preliminary finding, and unless a hearing is requested, OWCP is responsible for issuing a final 

decision.11 These procedures note that, if the claimant is determined to be with fault, preliminary 

finding notice (Form CA-2201) must be released within 30 days of the date the overpayment is 

identified. Both the reason that the overpayment occurred and the reason for the finding of fault 

must be clearly stated. Form CA-2201 informs the claimant of the right to submit evidence and 

the right to a prerecoupment hearing on the issues of: (a) fact and amount of overpayment; (b) 

fault; and (c) waiver. Along with Form CA-2201, OWCP should provide a clearly written 

statement explaining how the overpayment was calculated.12 

ANALYSIS 

By decision dated June 25, 2015, the Board set aside a February 5, 2014 decision finding 

that appellant received an overpayment of compensation because OWCP failed to deduct 

premiums for postretirement basic life insurance. It instructed OWCP to further develop the 

factual evidence to determine whether he elected postretirement basic life insurance. 

On remand, OWCP issued an April 1, 2016 decision again finding that appellant received 

an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $1,242.66 because it failed to deduct 

postretirement basic life insurance premiums from April 1, 2012 to February 8, 2013. The Board 

finds, however, that OWCP failed to follow its procedures in issuing its April 1, 2016 

overpayment decision. OWCP regulations provide that before seeking to recover an 

overpayment or adjust benefits, it will advise the individual in writing that the overpayment 

exists and the amount of overpayment.13 It must inform the individual of his right to challenge 

the fact or amount of the overpayment, the right to contest any preliminary finding of fault in the 

creation of the overpayment and the right to request a waiver of recovery of the overpayment.14 

OWCP procedures further provide that a preliminary finding of overpayment must be provided 

within 30 days and clearly identify the reason that the overpayment occurred.15

 9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 6 -- Debt Management, Initial Overpayment Actions, Chapter 6.200.4 

(June 2009). 

12 Id. at Chapter 2.600.4(a)(1) (June 2009). 

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.431(a). 

14 Id. at § 10.431(d). 

15 See supra note 11. 
4

Following its development of the factual evidence on remand, OWCP did not issue a new 

preliminary determination notifying appellant of its findings, providing him with the right to 

challenge the fact or amount of overpayment or allowing him to submit new information 

regarding waiver of recovery of the overpayment. Consequently, it did not comply with the 

procedural rights afforded to appellant under its regulations.16 The Board, therefore, finds that 

the case must be remanded for OWCP. On remand OWCP shall issue a preliminary 

determination to appellant regarding any overpayment, in accordance with its procedures, prior 

to making any final overpayment determination. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds the case not in posture for decision. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 1, 2016 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: November 21, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 16 Id. at §§ 10.431, 10.432; see also M.V., Docket No. 14-1131 (issued November 14, 2014); K.H., Docket No. 

11-603 (issued September 27, 2011).