April 7, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by SHON C. HOGANS 4430 Overland Avenue #4 at Culver City, CA 90230-4138 DCA 00-17 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Omar M. Gonzales 6317 Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90003-1025 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: James C. Andrews, Jr. Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 5800 W. Century Blvd. Room 247A Los Angeles, CA 90009-8901
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Shon C. Hogans, filed this Petition after receiving an invoice dated December 22, 1999, and a letter of indebtedness dated December 30, 1999. These documents stated that Petitioner owes the Postal Service $2,081.69 for the unpaid employee's share of premiums under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions. Both parties filed additional evidence and arguments, beyond what was included with the Petition and the Answer. Respondent's submission includes statements from two Postal Service Human Resources officials, Mr. Turner and Ms. Willis. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner was formerly married to another Postal Service employee. When they separated (date unknown), part of their separation agreement was that her former husband would continue to pay the premiums for their family health insurance. On or about May 13, 1996, Petitioner's health care provider informed her that her former husband no longer worked for the Postal Service and that no premiums were being paid. (Hogans statement).
2. On or about May 14, 1996, Petitioner talked to Eric Turner in her local personnel office. Mr. Turner, after verifying the former husband's employment and date of termination of employment, assisted Petitioner in completing an OPM Form 2809, Health Benefits Registration Form, in order to reinstate Petitioner's health insurance. This form was completed and signed by Petitioner on May 15, 1996, with an effective date of February 17, 1996. (Hogans statement; Turner statement; Willis statement).
3. For reasons unknown, the action necessary to start health benefits premium deductions from Petitioner's salary was not completed. After receiving some sort of notice of termination in June 1998, Petitioner met with human resources specialists again regarding termination and reinstatement of her health benefits. (Hogans statement; Willis statement).
4. For reasons unknown, despite various communications between Petitioner, her local personnel office and the Postal Service Accounting Center in Minneapolis, it was not until December 1999 that deductions for health benefits premiums began to be taken from Petitioner's salary. (Hogans statement; Turner statement; Invoice, December 22, 1999). During this entire period, however, the Postal Service continued to pay its portion of the premiums, and Petitioner's health benefits plan was in effect. Both she and her dependent son used the services of her health care provider. (Turner statement; Willis statement).
5. On January 26, 2000, Petitioner submitted a PS Form 3074, requesting that one-half of the alleged indebtedness be waived. The Accounting Service Center returned the waiver request to Petitioner on February 2, 2000, because it was incomplete. It is unclear whether Petitioner has completed and re-submitted this waiver request. (Petitioner's submission, Exs. I and J).
6. Regulations governing the FEHBP are found in 5 C.F.R. Part 890. Under 5 C.F.R. §890.502(a), an employee is deemed to incur an indebtedness to the United States in any pay period during which enrollment in the FEHBP continues but a deduction for, or direct payment of, the employee's share of the premium is not made.
DECISION
Petitioner does not dispute the fact that her health benefits plan was in effect during the period in issue, February 1996-December 1999, or the fact that no deductions for premiums were taken from her salary for that period. She does not deny the assertions made by Respondent's witnesses that she and her son used FEHBP services often from 1996-1999. Her argument is that Respondent bears some responsibility for the "ordeal" she has gone through and the administrative problems she encountered in trying to clear up the uncertainty over the status of her health benefits plan. Because of this, Petitioner argues that she should not have to repay the entire amount. This argument might carry some weight in her request for partial waiver,(1) but it is not a basis for relieving her of the debt under Debt Collection Act procedures. The rule cited in Finding of Fact #6 is clear. She was enrolled in the FEHBP and she did not pay the premiums. Therefore, she incurred a debt. Administrative errors made by Respondent in implementing a health benefits plan do not relieve an employee of the obligation to pay the premiums.
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $2,081.69 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge