B-246653.2, August 20, 1992

B-246653.2: Aug 20, 1992

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Denying waiver of an overpayment of salary to an employee who was erroneously paid the full 100 percent pay comparability increase (instead of 50 percent) for approximately 8 months. In light of the agency's revised determination that the employee was not at fault in accepting the erroneous payments. The agency is advised that this Office has no objection to its granting of waiver of the overpayment of pay. The facts and circumstances involved in the claim were fully stated in our recent decision. Will. Young's request for waiver since the facts then presented to us showed that he should have been aware of the error and collection of the indebtedness would not be against equity and good conscience.

B-246653.2, August 20, 1992

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Compensation Overpayments Error detection Debt collection Waiver Agency requests reconsideration of our decision, Richard A. Young, B-246653, May 8, l992, denying waiver of an overpayment of salary to an employee who was erroneously paid the full 100 percent pay comparability increase (instead of 50 percent) for approximately 8 months. The agency plans to reverse its earlier position denying waiver and approve waiver of collection of the overpayment of $756. In light of the agency's revised determination that the employee was not at fault in accepting the erroneous payments, the agency is advised that this Office has no objection to its granting of waiver of the overpayment of pay. See Pub. L. 102-190, title 6, Sec. 657(a), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1393, and 4 C.F.R. Sec. 91.4(c)(1) (1992).

Mr. Norm Phelps Director, Office of Personnel and Training Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, DC 20410-3000

Dear Mr. Phelps:

We refer to you letter of June 8, 1992, with enclosure, concerning the claim of Mr. Richard A. Young, an employee of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for waiver of overpayments of salary totalling $756.

The facts and circumstances involved in the claim were fully stated in our recent decision, Richard A. Young, B-246653, May 8, 1992, and will, therefore, not be repeated here. In that decision, we denied Mr. Young's request for waiver since the facts then presented to us showed that he should have been aware of the error and collection of the indebtedness would not be against equity and good conscience.

You state that you have completed a further review of the circumstances involved in the overpayment and have determined that Mr. Young's request for waiver should be approved. You point out that being downgraded from a GM-14 to a GS-12 position was a traumatic experience for Mr. Young. You believe that it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Young became wary in his dealings with the Personnel Office concerning administrative matters, was desirous of keeping such contacts to an absolute minimum, and was reluctant to even ask questions out of fear that he would again be affected adversely.

Further, you have determined that Mr. Young was never advised by the Personnel Office of the meaning of indefinite pay retention and that, without this information, he could not have known that he was only entitled to 50 percent of annual pay comparability increases while on pay retention.

Based upon these circumstances, you have reconsidered your earlier position and now believe that it was not reasonable to expect Mr. Young to have been aware of the erroneous payments of salary or to have questioned the accuracy of his salary in January 1990 when the overpayment commenced. Accordingly, you do not believe that Mr. Young should be considered at fault in accepting the erroneous payments. Since all other conditions for granting waiver have been met, your Office plans to reverse its earlier position and approve waiver of collection of the overpayment of $756 under your authority to approve waivers up to $1,500. You ask whether this Office has any objections or concerns about your planned cause of action.

In light of your revised determination that Mr. Young was not at fault in accepting the erroneous payments, we have no objection to your granting of waiver of collection of the overpayment of $756 made to Mr. Young under the new authority of Pub. L. 102-190, title 6, Sec. 657(a), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1393, and 4 C.F.R. Sec. 91.4(c)(1) (1992), to grant waiver in whole or in part of a claim of the United States in an amount aggregating not more than $1,500.

Date: To:Director, Claims Group - GGD - Sharon S. Green From:General Counsel - James F. Hinchman

Subject:Waiver of Overpayment of Salary - Richard A. Young - B-246653.2- O.M.

We are forwarding a copy of our letter, B-246653.2, of today in which we have informed the Director, Office of Personnel and Training, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), that we have no objection to the agency granting waiver of collection of the overpayment of salary of $756 made to Mr. Richard A. Young, an employee of HUD.

As you recall, by settlement action dated August 30, 1991, the Claims Group sustained the denial by HUD of waiver of Mr. Young's claim for waiver. By decision, Richard A. Young, B-246653, May 8, 1992, we denied Mr. Young's appeal of your settlement action.

In light of the revised determination by the agency that Mr. Young was not at fault in accepting the erroneous payments, and since the head of an agency may now grant waiver for amounts not aggregating not more than $1,500, we have offered no objection to HUD's granting of waiver of collection of the overpayment of salary of $756 made to Mr. Young.

A copy of the June 8, 1992, letter from the Director, Office of Personnel and Training, HUD, is also attached for informational purposes.

Attachments - 2 B-246653.2

Jan 14, 2021

Jan 13, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here