United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.F., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, SEQUOIA & 

KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK, 

Three Rivers, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0217

Issued: March 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 7, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 23, 2019 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 over the merits of this case.2 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the September 23, 2019 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 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. 
2

ISSUES

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

amount of $423.49 for the periods March 17, 2015 through September 1, 2017 and July 1 

through 20, 2019, for which he was without fault, because basic life insurance (BLI) premiums 

were not properly deducted from his FECA wage-loss compensation; and (2) whether OWCP 

properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 14, 2014 appellant, then a 57-year-old animal caretaker, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he experienced stress due to a previous work-related 

injury. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment indicated that he

stopped work on September 8, 2014. OWCP accepted the claim for dysthymic disorder and 

unspecified post-traumatic stress disorder. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the 

supplemental rolls as of September 8, 2014 and on the periodic rolls as of November 12, 2017.

The employing establishment terminated his employment on March 17, 2015. 

A March 1, 2016 OWCP pay rate memorandum indicated that appellant had BLI based on

a $49,420.16 salary. 

In a March 8, 2016 letter, OWCP notified appellant that it was deducting BLI from his 

gross FECA compensation payments for the period September 8, 2014 through March 16, 2015.

Supplemental rolls payment reports reflected that BLI premiums were deducted from 

appellant’s FECA compensation from September 8, 2014 through March 16, 2015. 

Supplemental rolls payment reports from March 17, 2015 through July 20, 2019 reflected 

that BLI premiums were not deducted from appellant’s FECA compensation. 

A July 17, 2019 unsigned form letter from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

indicated that appellant elected to receive FECA benefits. The form noted that his final salary was 

$40,967.81. 

An August 8, 2019 OWCP manual adjustment form indicated that it should have deducted 

BLI premiums from appellant’s compensation after he separated from the employing 

establishment. It calculated that it should have deducted $731.25 from his total entitlement from 

March 17, 2015 through July 20, 2019. 

An August 6, 2019 letter from OPM indicated that appellant had elected to receive FECA 

compensation benefits and had been dropped from OPM rolls. It noted that he had received dual 

benefits from September 2, 2017 through June 30, 2019. OPM noted that any applicable 

deductions for life insurance benefits would have covered the same time period. 

An August 21, 2019 OWCP manual adjustment form indicated that from September 2, 

2017 through June 30, 2019 OPM made BLI premium deductions for appellant. It recalculated 

that OWCP should have deducted $423.49 from histotal entitlement from March 17, 2015 through 

September 1, 2017 and July 1 through 20, 2019. 
3

In an August 21, 2019 letter, OWCP advised appellant of its preliminary determination that 

he had received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $423.49because BLI premiums 

were not deducted from his wage-loss compensation for the periods March 17, 2015 through 

September 1, 2017 and July 1 through 20, 2019. It also made a preliminary finding that he was 

without fault in the creation of the overpayment. OWCP requested that appellant complete an 

enclosed overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and submit supporting financial 

documentation including copies of income tax returns, bank account statements, bills and canceled 

checks, pay slips, and any other records supporting his reported income and expenses. 

Additionally, it notified him that, within 30 days of the date of the letter, he could request a final 

decision based on the written record or a prerecoupment hearing. No response from appellant was 

received.

By decision dated September 23, 2019, OWCP finalized its preliminary determination that 

a $423.49 overpayment was created because BLI premiums were not deducted from appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation for the periods March 17, 2015 through September 1, 2017 and July 1 

through 20, 2019. It found that he was without fault in the creation of the overpayment, but denied 

waiver of recovery. OWCP required appellant to pay the lump-sum amount of $423.49 within 30 

days. 

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 his or her 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 forms of OLI. 5 The coverage for BLI is effective 

unless waived,6 and premiums for BLI and OLI 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 cove rage, 

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 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

4

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.434-10.437; J.L., Docket No. 18-0212 (issued June 8, 2018).

5

5 U.S.C § 8702(a); see also I.J., Docket No. 19-1672 (issued March 10, 2020).

6

Id. at § 8702(b).

7

Id. at § 8707.

8

Id. at § 8706.

9

Id. at § 8707(b)(2).
4

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) provides that an eligible employee has 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 two 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 one 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

Each employee must elect or waive Option A, Option B, and Option C coverage, in a 

manner designated by OPM, within 60 days after becoming eligible unless, during earlier 

employment, he or she filed an election or waiver that remains in effect. 12 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.13

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

deemed an overpayment of compensation because OWCP must pay the f ull premium to OPM upon 

discovery of the error.14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

of compensation in the amount of $423.49 for the periods March 17, 2015 through September 1, 

2017 and July 1 through 20, 2019, for which he was without fault, because BLI premiums were 

not properly deducted from his FECA wage-loss compensation. 

OWCP found that an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $423.49 was created 

because it failed to deduct BLI premiums from appellant’swage-loss compensation for the periods

March 17, 2015 through September 1, 2017 and July 1 through 20, 2019. The record includes a

July 17, 2019 letter from OPM indicating that he elected to receive FECA benefits. The form 

10 Id. at § 8706(b)(3)(B). See B.B.,Docket No. 17-1733 (issued March 26, 2018); S.B.,Docket No. 16-1795 (issued 

March 2, 2017).

11 G.C., Docket No. 18-1451, (issued May 5, 2020);G.L., Docket No. 19-0297 (issued October 23, 2019); James J. 

Conway,Docket No. 04-2047 (issued May 20, 2005).

12 5 C.F.R. § 870.504(a)(1).

13 Id. at § 870.504(b).

14 Id. at § 8707(d);see also G.C., supra note 11.
5

noted that appellant’s final salary was $40,967.81. Supplemental rolls payment reports from 

March 17, 2015 through July 20, 2019 reflected that BLI premiums were not deducted from his

FECA compensation. An August 21, 2019 OWCP manual adjustment form indicated that from 

September 2, 2017 through June 30, 2019 OPM made BLI premium deductions for appellant. It

properly determined that OWCP should have deducted BLI premiums from his compensation for 

the periods March 17, 2015 through September 1, 2017 and July 1 through 20, 2019. The Board 

thus finds that OWCP has established fact of overpayment. 

OWCP calculated the amount of the resulting overpayment as $423.49. As noted, when 

an under withholding 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.15 The record contains the compensation payment record, as well as an overpayment 

worksheet explaining the overpayment calculation and how the overpayment occurred. The 

Board, thus, finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant received an overp ayment of 

compensation in the amount of $423.49 for the periods March 17, 2015 through September 1, 2017 

and July 1 through 20, 2019, as BLI premiums were not properly deducted. 16

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8129 of FECA provides that an individual who is without fault in creating or 

accepting an overpayment is still subject to recovery of the overpayment unless adjustment or 

recovery would defeat the purpose of FECA or would be against equity and good conscience. 17 

Thus, a finding that appellant was without fault does not automatically result in waiver of the 

overpayment, OWCP must then exercise its discretion to determine whether recovery of the 

overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or would be against equity and good conscience.18

Section 10.437 of OWCP’s implementing regulations provides that 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. 19

Section 10.438 of the implementing regulations provide that the individual who received 

the overpayment is responsible for providing information about income, expenses, and assets as 

specified by OWCP. This information is needed to determine whether or not recovery of an 

overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or be against equity and good conscience. The 

15 5 U.S.C. § 8102.

16 See E.R., Docket No. 21-1046 (issued April15, 2022); I.J., Docket No. 19-1672 (issued March 10, 2020); D.H., 

Docket No. 19-0384 (issued August12, 2019); R.W., Docket No. 19-0451 (issued August 7, 2019).

17 5 U.S.C. § 8129(a)-(b).

18 L.S., 59 ECAB 350 (2008).

19 20 C.F.R. § 10.437; E.H., Docket No. 18-1009 (issued January 29, 2019).
6

information is also used to determine the repayment schedule, if necessary. 20 Failure to submit 

the requested information within 30 days of the request shall result in denial of waiver. 21

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

As OWCP found appellant without fault in the creation of the overpayment, waiver must 

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. 22

In its preliminary overpayment determination dated August 21, 2019, OWCP provided a 

Form OWCP-20 and requested that appellant provide supporting financial documentation, 

including copies of income tax returns, bank account statements, bills, pay slips, and any other 

records to support income, expenses and assets. However, no response from appellant was 

received. As a result, OWCP did not have the information required under section 10.438 of 

OWCP’s regulations, which was necessary to determine whether waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment would defeat the purpose of FECA or would be against equity and good conscience. 23 

It was, therefore, required to deny waiver of recovery of the overpayment.24

CONCLUSION

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

of compensation in the amount of $423.49 for the periods March 17, 2015 through September 1, 

2017 and July 1 through 20, 2019, for which he was without fault, because BLI premiums were 

not properly deducted from his FECA wage-loss compensation. The Board further finds that 

OWCP properly denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment. 

20 Id. at § 10.438(a).

21 Id. at § 10.438.

22 Id. at § 10.436.

23 Supra note 20 See also D.C., Docket No. 19-0118 (issued January 15, 2020); E.M., Docket No. 19-0857 (issued 

December 31, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 16-1795 (issued March 2, 2017).

24 Supra note 21.
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 23, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board