United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, LOS ANGELES 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Los Angeles, CA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0205

Issued: June 28, 2023

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 28, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 27, 2022 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case.2

ISSUES

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

amount of $13,196.53 for the period November 10, 2009 through March 26, 2022, for which he 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that followingthe October 27, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

was without fault, because of an underwithholding of post-retirement basic life insurance

(PRBLI) premiums; (2) whether OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment; 

and (3) whether OWCP properly required recovery of the overpayment by deducting $150.00 

every 28 days from appellant’s continuing compensation benefits.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 10, 2009 appellant, then a 47-year-old transportation security officer

(screener), filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 5, 2009 he 

experienced pain in his low back, right hand, and “two center fingers” while in the performance 

of duty. In an accompanying memorandum dated August 5, 2009, his supervisor, D.S., noted

that appellant related that on that date he slipped on liquid on the floor and fell onto his left hip 

and lower back and impacted his right hand on a cabinet in a private screening room. OWCP 

accepted appellant’s claim for back contusion; displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc 

without myelopathy; and incisional hernia without obstruction or gangrene. It paid appellant on 

the supplemental rolls as of October 11, 2009, and on the periodic rolls as of December 20, 2009.

In a memorandum to the file dated November 23, 2009, OWCP indicated that appellant 

had optional life insurance Code M5, as well as basic life insurance, and that his optional life 

insurance salary was $39,194.00.

On January 26, 2016 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed OWCP that,

as a compensationer, appellant was eligible to continue Federal Employees’ Group Life 

Insurance (FEGLI) coverage in the form of basic life insurance (BLI), optional life insurance 

(OLI), and PRBLI coverage. The final base salary on which FEGLI was based was $38,243.00. 

OPM requested that OWCP deduct life insurance premiums for code M5 basic option at 75 

percent reduction, Option B times two with full reduction, and Option C times five with full 

reduction. It noted that appellant’s PRBLI election was no reduction and deductions should have

commenced on November 10, 2009. 

In a January 29, 2016 OWCP memorandum to the District Director, the Fiscal Operations 

Branch Chief related that OPM had advised that appellant had optional life insurance coverage 

code M5 and that appellant’s current life insurance deductions should be reviewed. It noted that 

appellant’s final salary was $38,243.00 and that his PRBLI election was no reduction. The 

memorandum also indicated that appellant carried Option B at 2x multiples, full reduction, and 

Option C at 5x multiples, full reduction. It also noted that this coverage was the final life 

insurance determination by OPM for post-retirement coverage, and that appellant’s PRBLI 

coverage should begin on November 10, 2009. (Emphasis in the original.)

In a letter dated April 8, 2022, OWCP notified appellant about his continued entitlement 

to compensation benefits. It advised him that it was making deductions for PRBLI no reduction 

from his continuing compensation payments in the amount of $98.02, effective March 27, 2022.

In an automated compensation payment system (ACPS) form of even date, OWCP noted 

that it had deducted a premium for PRBLI at no reduction from appellant’s continuing 

compensation payment for the period March 27 through April 23, 2022, as instructed by OPM. 

Appellant’s final base salary on which FEGLI was based was $38,243.00.
3

A manual adjustment form dated April 14, 2022 noted that appellant had elected PRBLI 

coverage effective November 10, 2009; however, no action had been taken to deduct his 

premiums until March 27, 2022. The form noted that appellant had received $393,003.16 in net 

compensation from November 10, 2009; however, PRBLI premiums should have been deducted 

in the amount of $13,196.53, therefore appellant should have only received net compensation in 

the amount of $379,806.43. 

In a preliminary overpayment determination dated April 18, 2022, OWCP notified 

appellant that he had received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $13,196.53

because PRBLI premiums had not been properly deducted from his FECA compensation for the 

period November 10, 2009 through March 26, 2022. It provided overpayment calculations, 

which revealed that the overpayment occurred from November 10, 2009 through March 26, 2022 

and included PRBLI overpayment calculations to reach the $13,196.53 total overpayment.

OWCP further advised appellant of its preliminary determination that he was without fault in the 

creation of the overpayment and requested that he complete an overpayment action request form 

and an overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20), and submit documentation 

including tax returns, bank account statements, bills and cancelled checks, pay slips, and other 

records which supported income and expenses listed. Additionally, it advised him that, within 

30 days of the date of the letter, he could request a final decision based on the written evidence 

or a prerecoupment hearing.

On May 1, 2022 appellant requested a prerecoupment hearing by telephone and waiver of 

recovery of the overpayment. In a partially-completed Form OWCP-20 of even date, appellant 

reported that he had no monthly income or assets. He listed monthly expenses totaling

$1,938.00. Appellant submitted financial documentation supporting his reported expenses. 

In a letter dated May 27, 2022, OPM advised OWCP that appellant had requested 

cancellation of his Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) effective June 1, 2022. It

noted that OWCP should deduct for Code B0 and make the cancellation of life insurance 

effective June 1, 2022. 

During a telephonic hearing held on August 12, 2022, appellant testified that recovery of 

the overpayment would cause him undue financial hardship. Following the hearing, he was 

afforded 30 days to complete his Form OWCP-20 and provide supporting financial 

documentation. Appellant thereafter submitted additional financial documentation of his 

expenses. 

By decision dated October 27, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative finalized the 

April 18, 2022 preliminary overpayment determination, finding that appellant received an 

overpayment of compensation in the amount of $13,196.53 for the period November 10, 2009 

through March 26, 2022, due to underdeduction of PRBLI premiums. The hearing representative 

further found that appellant was without fault in the creation of the overpayment but, denied 

waiver of recovery of the overpayment. The hearing representative required recovery of the 

overpayment by deducting $150.00 from appellant’s continuing compensation payments every 

28 days.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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 duty. 3 

When an overpayment has been made to an individual 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 the individual is entitled.4

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

eligible to participate in BLI and one or more of the options.5 The coverage for BLI is effective 

unless waived,6 and premiums for basic and optional life coverage are withheld from the 

employee’s pay.7 Upon retirement or upon separation from the employing establishment or 

being placed on the FECA periodic compensation rolls, an employee may choose to continue 

BLI and OLI coverage in which case the schedule of deductions made will be used to withhold 

premiums from his or her annuity or compensation payments.8 BLI coverage shall be continued 

without cost to an employee who retired or began receiving compensation on or before 

December 31, 1989;9 however, the employee is responsible for payment of premiums for OLI 

coverage which is accomplished by authorizing withholdings from his or her compensation.10

A 1980 amendment of 5 U.S.C. § 8706(b)(2) provided that an employee receiving 

compensation under FECA could elect continuous withholdings from his or her compensation, 

so that his or her life insurance coverage could be continued without reduction. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 870.701 (December 5, 1980) provided that an eligible employee had the option of choosing no 

life insurance; Option A -- basic coverage (at no additional cost) subject to continuous 

withholdings from compensation payments that would be reduced by 2 percent a month after age 

65 with a maximum reduction of 75 percent; Option B -- basic coverage (at an additional 

premium) subject to continuous withholdings from compensation payments that would be 

reduced by 1 percent a month after age 65 with a maximum reduction of 50 percent; or Option C 

-- basic coverage subject to continuous withholdings from compensation payments with no 

reductions after age 65 (at a greater premium).11

3

Id. at § 8102(a).

4

Id. at § 8129(a).

5

5 U.S.C. § 8702(a).

6

Id. at § 8702(b).

7

Id. at § 8707.

8

Id. at § 8706.

9

Id. at § 8707(b)(2).

10 Id. at § 8706(b)(3)(B). See B.B., Docket No. 17-1733 (issued March 26, 2018).

11 See E.R., Docket No. 21-1046 (issued April15, 2022); I.J., Docket No. 19-1672 (issued March 10, 2020); C.A., 

Docket No. 18-1284 (issued April 15, 2019); James J. Conway, Docket No. 04-2047 (issued May 20, 2005).
5

Any employee who does not file a life insurance election with his or her employing 

office, in a manner designated by OPM, specifically electing any type of optional insurance, is 

considered to have waived it and does not have that type of optional insurance. 12

When an underwithholding of life insurance premiums occurs, the entire amount is 

deemed an overpayment of compensation because OWCP must pay the full premium to OPM 

upon discovery of the error.13

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP improperly determined that appellant received an

overpayment of compensation in the amount of $13,196.53, for the period November 10, 2009 

through March 26, 2022.

The record contains OPM’s letter dated January 26, 2016 notifying OWCP that appellant 

had BLI, OLI, and PRBLI coverage, for which it should have deducted premiums effective 

November 10, 2009. OWCP thereafter, on April 8, 2022, reviewed the fiscal record and 

determined that PRBLI premiums had not been deducted.

The Board finds, however, that OWCP failed to adequately support its determination that 

appellant received a $13,196.53 overpayment due to its failure to properly deduct premiums for

PRBLI. While the record includes communications from OPM regarding appellant’s PRBLI 

coverage, the record does not contain evidence that the employee affirmatively signed a 

document electing PRBLI coverage. The record does not contain a signed election form

showing which coverage he selected or if he actually selected coverage. The Board has 

previously found that OWCP must document whether and when a claimant elected life insurance 

coverage in order to establish the fact of overpayment of compensation. 14 As OWCP has not 

factually established the employee’s election of PRBLI on the relevant dates, it has not met its 

burden of proof to establish that a $13,196.53 overpayment was created between November 10, 

2009 through March 26, 2022, as alleged.15

The Board therefore finds that OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that 

an overpayment of compensation occurred.16

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP improperly determined that appellant received an 

overpayment of compensation in the amount of $13,196.53 for the period November 10, 2009 

through March 26, 2022.

12 20 C.F.R. § 870.504(b).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8707(d).

14 J.P., Docket No. 18-1194 (issued April 28, 2020); P.K., Docket No. 18-0913 (issued March 5, 2020);

C.P.,Docket No. 19-0317 (issued July 1, 2019); R.F., Docket No. 18-0739 (issued January 2, 2019); D.T., Docket 

No. 17-0901 (issued January 29, 2018).

15 J.P., id.; R.F., id.

16 In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issues 2 and 3 are rendered moot. 
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 27, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: June 28, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board