DATE: December 8, 1997

CASE NO: 96-DCA-2

In the Matter of:

ROBERT S. PALMER
    Claimant.

   This case arises under Section 5 of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, (Pub. L. 97-365), 5 U.S.C. 5514 (The "DCA"), and the implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 20.74 et seq. The DCA authorizes agency heads to deduct amounts from an employee's pay to satisfy a debt owing to the United States.

   On November 14, 1995, Claimant filed a request for a hearing with this Office in the above-captioned matter. Claimant contended that the issue in this case is the "threatened seizure" of $3027.19 for an alleged overpayment. According to the Claimant, such overpayment was "assessed for coverage' by health insurance during a period of disability resulting from a compensable occupational disease." Specifically, in his request for a hearing, Claimant stated that he is being "charged for back insurance coverage: (1) dating back to (1990) an arbitrary date, and (2) for periods during which he is barred from filing claims for covered medical expenses." See Claimant's Letter (Nov. 7, 1995).

   It appears from Claimant's letter that the OWCP issued a mandate charging Claimant with payments for coverage from 1990 through 1994. Allegedly, Claimant has been charged for services "which cannot possibly be available to him." See Claimant's Letter (Nov. 7, 1995).

   On September 17, 1997, this Office sent out an Order requiring the Claimant in the above-captioned case to submit a statement within thirty days of his intent to pursue this matter. Claimant has thus far failed to comply with such order.

   On November 3, 1997, this Office issued an Order requiring the Claimant to Show Cause within ten days this matter should not be dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.6(d)(2)(v) for failing to comply with the Order dated September 17, 1997. To date, Claimant has failed to respond to this Order.

   Title 29 C.F.R. § 18.6(d)(2)(v) provides where a party fails to comply with any order of the administrative law judge, the judge may:

[r]ule that a pleading, or a part of a pleading, or a motion or other submission by the non-complying party, concerning which the order or subpoena was issued, be stricken, or that a decision of the proceeding be rendered against the non-complying party, or both.

   Accordingly, after reviewing the record and considering Claimant's failure to participate further in this matter, I hereby ORDER that Respondent's request for a hearing in this matter is DISMISSED and JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT is entered against him.

   SO ORDERED.

      JOHN M. VITTONE
      Chief Administrative Law Judge

JMV/pmb