C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 845—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM—DEBT COLLECTION › Subpart C—Standards for Waiver of Overpayments

5 C.F.R. § 845.302

Fault

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A recipient of an overpayment is without fault if he or she performed no act of commission or omission that resulted in the overpayment. The fact that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or another agency may have been at fault in initiating an overpayment will not necessarily relieve the individual from liability.

(a) Considerations. Pertinent considerations in finding fault are—

(1) Whether payment resulted from the individual's incorrect but not necessarily fraudulent statement, which he or she should have known to be incorrect;

(2) Whether payment resulted from the individual's failure to disclose material facts in his or her possession, which he or she should have known to be material; or

(3) Whether he or she accepted a payment that he or she knew or should have known to be erroneous.

(b) Mitigation factors. The individual's age, physical and mental condition or the nature of the information supplied to him or her by OPM or a Federal agency may mitigate against finding fault if one or more of these factors contributed to his or her submission of an incorrect statement, a statement that did not disclose material facts in his or her possession, or his or her acceptance of an erroneous overpayment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Chara Cordova v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chara Cordova v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 3× “353 , ¶ 6; 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 (a). The recipient of an overpayment is deemed to be without fault if the individual “performed no act of commission or omission which resulted in the overpayment.”
Raul Rodriguez v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2024). · cites it 3× “439 , ¶ 7 (2009); 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 (a). The 5 The regulatory standards for waiver of overpayments under FERS are substantially similar, and indeed almost identical, to those under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).”
Nancy C. Warrender v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 . Here, the administrative judge found that, because OPM notified the appellant of the consequences of SSA’s approval of her application for disability benefits, she failed to establish that she was without fault with respect to the overpayment.”
Nancy C. Warrender v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 . Here, the administrative judge found that, because OPM notified the appellant of the consequences of SSA’s approval of her application for disability benefits, she failed to establish that she was without fault with respect to the overpayment.”
Christine Stawniczy v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 845.302 . One of the pertinent considerations when considering whether the recipient of an overpayment is at fault is whether “she accepted a payment that .”
Ronald Wylan Gross v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). “” 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 . Generally, recovery is against equity and good conscience when it would cause financial hardship from whom it is sought, the recipient can show that, because of the overpayment, he relinquished a valuable right or changed positions for the worse, or…”
Pamela A. Hewitt v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). “at 42 ; 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 (b). ¶9 The appellant argues on review that the administrative judge improperly cited Vojas v.”
Pamela A. Hewitt v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). “at 42 ; 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 (b). ¶9 The appellant argues on review that the administrative judge improperly cited Vojas v.”
Audrey D. Mccadney v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). “502 , ¶ 18 (2011); 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 . The pertinent considerations in finding fault are as follows: (1) whether payment resulted from the individual’s incorrect, but not necessarily fraudulent statement, which she should have known to be incorrect; (2) whether payment resulted…”
Audrey D. Mccadney v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). “502 , ¶ 18 (2011); 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 . The pertinent considerations in finding fault are as follows: (1) whether payment resulted from the individual’s incorrect, but not necessarily fraudulent statement, which she should have known to be incorrect; (2) whether payment resulted…”
Alday v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (D.D.C. 2021). “See 5 C.F.R. § 845.302 (a)(1) (“Pertinent considerations in finding fault are .”
Kyle Belmont v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2024). “5 C.F.R. § 845.302 (a). The administrative judge here found that the appellant failed to prove that he was without fault.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.