P.S. Docket No. DCA 22-70

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

The Postal Service seeks to collect a debt of $582.88 from Brian Jacques. The debt is based on Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) insurance premiums that the Postal Service paid on Mr. Jacques’ behalf while he was in a nonpay status. Mr. Jacques filed a Petition for Hearing on February 20, 2022, and I conducted a video hearing on September 7, 2022. For the reasons explained below, I find Mr. Jacques is liable for the debt.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Jacques worked for the Postal Service at all times relevant to this dispute. From June 7, 2021 to December 3, 2021, Mr. Jacques was in leave without pay (LWOP) status pending the outcome of a case before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (Resp. Exh. 4).
2. Because Mr. Jacques remained enrolled in the FEHB program while in LWOP status, the Postal Service paid the employee’s share of the premiums for his insurance coverage (Resp. Exh. 5). 
3. On September 15, 2021, the Postal Service issued Invoice No. 703230926 to recoup $945.85 for FEHB premiums in pay periods 14/21, 15/21, 16/21, 17/21, and 18/21 (Pet. Exh. 7 at 37). Over the course of several pay periods (26/21, 1/22, and 2/22), the entirety of this invoice was repaid via involuntary administrative salary offset (Tr. 17-18, Resp. Exh. 5 at 79-81).
4. On November 24, 2021, the Postal Service issued another invoice to Mr. Jacques, No. 703249754, to recoup more FEHB premiums paid on his behalf during pay periods 19/21, 20/21, 21/21, 22/21, and 23/21 (Pet. Exh. 7 at 38). A portion of this invoice was also paid via involuntary administrative salary offset, in pay period 4/22, leaving the current balance of $583.88 (Tr. 9). This Petition followed.

DECISION

Under the Debt Collection Act, the Postal Service has the initial burden to establish that a debt exists for which an employee is liable. Young v. United States Postal Service, AO 13-327, 2018 WL 1606047 (I.D. March 29, 2018). In a case involving FEHB premiums, the Postal Service must establish that the employee was enrolled in the FEHB program during the period in which it seeks the overdue premiums and that it failed to collect those premiums from the employee for the same coverage period. See Willis v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-258, 2017 WL 5516578 (July 18, 2017).
At the hearing, an employee from the Postal Service’s Accounting Service Center testified that the payroll system automatically generates an invoice after an employee has five consecutive pay periods in a nonpay status (Tr. at 14). The Postal Service submitted pay journals from five pay periods, 19/21, 20/21, 21/21, 22/21, and 23/21, which show Mr. Jacques’ work hours were coded solely as “60,” or LWOP (Resp. Exh. 5 at 72-77; Tr. at 20). These pay journals also reflect Mr. Jacques’ continued enrollment in the FEHB program despite being in an LWOP status, which is denoted as “113 HB Pretax” deductions. Id. According to the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM)
§ 525.21:
While an employee is in nonpay status, the [FEHB] enrollment of the employee continues for up to and including 365 consecutive days if the employee elects to continue enrollment. Further, [i]f an employee is in a nonpay status for an entire pay period, [. . .] the employee is responsible for payment of the amount that would have been withheld.
Once enrollment and failure to collect the employee’s portion of the FEHB premiums are established, a rebuttable presumption exists that the Postal Service paid the employee’s portion of the FEHB premiums during the coverage period. Holly v. United States Postal Service, AO 14-404, 2015 WL 13647624 (May 11, 2015). I find that the presumption was not rebutted by Petitioner. Accordingly, I conclude that the Postal Service has met its burden of proof.
Throughout the litigation of this case, Mr. Jacques challenged the validity of the debt based on a MSPB settlement agreement between him and the Postal Service—an assertion that he reiterated at the hearing. More specifically, he testified that a clause in the settlement agreement wherein 110 hours of annual leave were restored to him would serve to “erase the FEHB indebtedness” (Tr. 29; Resp. Exh. 4 at 62-63). The Postal Service signed the MSPB settlement agreement, which, in fact, does not reflect any clause to support Mr. Jacques’ argument. Indeed, the settlement agreement is wholly absent of any reference to FEHB premiums or the repayment of them (Resp. Exh. 4). The Postal Service restored the 110 hours of annual leave, but did not apply them to any particular pay period. Thus, absent any evidence that the restoration of annual leave hours would be applied to the pay periods at issue, this argument lacks merit.
Notwithstanding his argument based on the MSPB settlement agreement, Mr. Jacques also challenges the debt based on ELM § 525.222(a), which holds, in pertinent part:
As soon as the Postal Service determines that an employee will be in a nonpay status, HRSSC notifies the employee of the option to continue or terminate Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) coverage. HRSSC uses PS Form 3111, Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Coverage or Termination While in Leave Without Pay (LWOP) Status.
Mr. Jacques asserts that the Postal Service did not notify him of his option to continue or terminate FEHB benefits while in LWOP, and consequentially, he was deprived of a right to due process (Tr. 27-28). This argument is unpersuasive. We have consistently held “a debt created by administrative error, even without the knowledge of the debtor, is collectible under the Debt Collection Act.”Nancy L. Petitti, DCA 09-449, 2010 WL 11570303 (April 30, 2010). See also Kelly v. United States Postal Service, DCA 19-203, 2020 WL 2198024 (April 29, 2020); Sharek v. Internal Revenue Service, IRS 20-66, 2021 WL 1390581 (March 4, 2021). Thus, even if Mr. Jacques did not receive a PS Form 3111 from HRSSC in conformity with ELM § 525.22, he is not entitled to any relief from the debt on that basis. In fact, FEHB program guidelines indicate that a PS Form 3111 does not originate exclusively from the Postal Service, but also may be initiated by an employee, if they wish to avoid an invoice for their share of unpaid premiums while in  LWOP status: “The Postal Service will invoice you for your share of the premium unless you complete and submit to the Human Resources Shared Service Center PS Form 3111 [. . .] to terminate coverage.” (Handbook EL-521,Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Guideat 20). The ELM also places responsibility squarely on an employee to make changes to their enrollment in FEHB after a qualifying life event, one of which includes the beginning of nonpay status: “employees are required to provide the HRSSC with sufficient evidence to justify a request to enroll or change enrollment under the Program.” ELM § 524.51. See also Table of Permissible Changes in FEHB Enrollment and Pre-Tax/After-Tax Premium Payment.¹ By virtue of his choice to enroll in the FEHB program, Mr. Jacques assumed responsibility for being informed about his health benefits, including how premiums would be handled in the event of LWOP. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Jacques was unaware of his pay status changing to LWOP, and consistent with postal policy, he enjoyed the benefit of continued FEHB coverage, which ultimately must be repaid. Nonetheless, nothing in this decision prohibits Mr. Jacques from filing a PS Form 3111 of his own volition or requesting the retroactive use of annual leave hours to replace LWOP hours during the period at issue for consideration by the Postal Service, which, to be clear, has no effect on the outcome of my decision here.