Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Federal Bureau of Prisons
U.S. Department of Justice
Marianna, Florida
Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
09/16/2021
Date
The claimant was a Federal civilian employee for the Federal Corrections Institution (FCI), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Florida during the claim period. She requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) grant her waivers for debt incurred in connection with a recruitment incentive and a physician comparability allowance. We received the claim dated May 18, 2021, on June 21, 2021. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
On March 22, 2015, the claimant was appointed to the position of Medical Officer (General Practitioner), GS-0602-15 at the FCI in Tallahassee, Florida. Prior to her appointment, she executed a Recruitment Service Agreement, agreeing to remain in service with the BOP for a minimum period of 24 months beginning March 22, 2015 and ending on March 18, 2017. Under this agreement, the claimant was paid a recruitment incentive in the amount of $30,153 at the beginning of her service period. The claimant also executed a Physician Comparability Allowance Agreement, agreeing to serve as a physician for the BOP for two years, under which she was paid in biweekly payments totaling the sum of $14,000 per year. Effective May 29, 2016, the claimant was reassigned to the position of Supervisory Medical Officer (General Practitioner), GS-0602-15 at the FCI in Marianna, Florida. However, on September 3, 2016, the claimant resigned from her position, and subsequently received a “Demand Notice for Payment” dated October 16, 2016, from the USDA, National Finance Center, in the amount of $6,339.21 for “prorated retention incentive service term,” and another in the amount of $7,120.41 for “unfulfilled service agreement [claimant] was indebted for at the time of [her] separation PCAP agreement.” Subsequently, on February 15, 2017, the claimant’s unpaid debt was reported to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) for immediate collection of funds. The claimant disputed the debt with the BFS, however by letter dated March 24, 2017, she was informed by the BFS that “per the agency the debt is valid and collections should continue.”
Thereafter, in a letter dated August 29, 2017, to DOJ, Debt Collections, the claimant requested that her agency “waive the alleged debts.” The record contains no response from DOJ, Debt Collections. Further, in a letter dated January 16, 2018, to DOJ, United States Attorney’s Office, Financial Litigation Unit, the claimant requested “a final decision on her Request for Waiver of Debt filed by [her firm on her behalf] on August 29, 2017.” In response to this request, by letter dated January 24, 2018, the claimant was advised that neither their office nor the Assistant U.S. Attorney had control or responsibility over the matter, recommending she contact the Office of General Counsel of the agency handling the matter. Although, the claimant states in her claim to OPM that she filed a “Request for Waiver of Debt with the BOP Office of General Counsel,” the record does not contain a request or response to such request. Instead, the record contains a letter dated February 28, 2018 to BOP’s “Legal Department” requesting a waiver of debt but no response to that request. Additionally, the record contains a letter dated February 7, 2019, from the warden at the FCI Marianna, stating she “recommend[s] the denial for the compromise of claim” in reference to the recruitment incentive, and a second letter also dated February 7, 2019, “denying the compromise of claim” in reference to the physician comparability allowance. [1] Thus, from the record, there is no evidence that the claimant ever submitted a request for waiver of debt to the appropriate DOJ office authorized to grant waivers for the aforementioned debts. Regardless, based on information submitted into the record, we may render a decision on the claim based on lack of jurisdiction.
The claimant requests that OPM “waive the alleged debts through a timely decision on the merits.” This request involves the collection of funds which constitutes an established debt to the Government. As a result of legislative and executive action, the authority to waive overpayments of pay and allowances now resides with the heads of agencies. See the General Accounting Office Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-316, 110 Stat. 3826, approved October 19, 1996, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Determination Order dated December 17, 1996, and 5 U.S.C. 5584. Neither Pub. L. No 104-316 nor OMB's Determination Order of December 17, 1996, authorizes OPM to make or to review waiver determinations involving erroneous payments of pay or allowances. Under 5 CFR 575.111(h), an authorized agency official may waive the requirement for an employee to repay recruitment incentive payments attributable to uncompleted service when, in the judgement of the official, collection of the excess payments from the employee would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States. Therefore, OPM does not have jurisdiction to consider, or issue a decision on, the request for a waiver of indebtedness to the United States. Accordingly, the claim must be denied for lack of jurisdiction.
This settlement is final. No further administrative review is available within OPM. Nothing in this settlement limits the claimant’s right to bring an action in an appropriate United States court.
[1] In previous claim requests submitted by the claimant to OPM, we advised the claimant the letter from the warden of the FCI did not constitute a final agency-level decision as required by section 178.102(a)(3) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) before a pay claim is submitted to OPM for adjudication. With respect to the present claim request, we also note that neither letter from the warden responds to the claimant’s request for waivers of indebtedness.