Opinion ID: 1040711
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings Regarding the Recipient’s Fault

Text: We begin by assessing whether Kathryn carried her burden in establishing entitlement to waiver of recovery. As an initial step, we note that the record supports the Administrative Judge’s finding that Kathryn was not at fault. J.A. 55. In particular, OPM paid the survivor annuity funds to Kathryn from May 2004 until February 2007, yet it was not until February 2008 that the Mon- 5 The Board endorses the OPM Overpayment Guidelines as reasonable, proper, and entitled to great deference. See Aguon v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 42 M.S.P.R. 540, 546−47 (1989); Kimsey v. Dep’t of the Interior, 24 M.S.P.R. 528, 532 (1984) (affording deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the applicable statute or regulation). 6 Substantial evidence is defined as the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even though other reasonable persons might disagree. Hunter, 109 M.S.P.R. at 518 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(c)(1)). KING v. OPM 11 tana court ruled on the validity of her marriage to Don. Thus, Kathryn received the survivor annuity funds during a period when she believed she was the widow of Don King. OPM does not contradict the sequence of these events and we conclude that the Administrative Judge was correct in concluding that Kathryn was without fault in causing the overpayment. We next turn to the Board’s determination that recovery of the overpayment from Kathryn would not be “against equity and good conscience.”