Fair Labor Standards Act Decision 
Under section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code 

Claimant: [name]

Agency Classification:N/A 

Organization: Department of the Army 
ArmyPentagonWashington,DC

Claim: Reopening and reconsideration request; 
“Request for Assistance Denied Quid 
ProQuo”

OPM decision: Denied 

OPM file number: F-0000-00-01R

 /s/ 

 _____________________________ 

 Jeffrey E. Sumberg 

 Deputy Associate Director 

 Center for Merit System Accountability 

 7/9/09 

 _____________________________ 

 Date 


This decision is issued pursuit a request for discretionary review under conditions and time 
limits specified in 5 CFR 551.708(a). The claimant has the right to bring action in the 
appropriate Federal court if dissatisfied with the decision. 

Decision sent to: 

Name and address] 


Introduction 

On June 11, 2009, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Associate Director, 
Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability Division, received a “Request for 
Assistance Denied Quid pro Quo” from [name]. The request was forwarded to OPM’s Center 
for Merit System Accountability which, on May 18, 2009, had previously issued a Fair Labor 
Standards Act (FLSA) claim denial on this matter. Therefore, we are responding to this letter 
as a request for discretionary review under conditions and time limits specified in 
5 CFR 551.708(a). 

Background 

OPM’s May 18, 2009, FLSA claim decision, decided under 29 U.S.C. § 204(f) and 5 CFR part 
551, subpart G, found OPM did not have jurisdiction to settle Mr Smith’s claim since claimant 
failed to show he was an employee covered by OPM’s FLSA claims adjudication process who 
performed work subject to the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA. OPM 
denied the claim based on lack of jurisdiction and lack of standing. OPM also noted, even 
assuming, arguendo, the instant claim was valid, it was time barred. 

Evaluation 

In his June 11, 2009, request the claimant states he is a “long time U.S. Government employee 
who’s [sic] deferred compensation and benefits have not been released.” He states “[T]he 
Office of Personnel Management has defaulted on its Fiduciary [sic] responsibility to issue the 
compensation annually.” The claimant repeats the assertions in his original FLSA claim 
regarding employment “by the U.S. Army/U.S. Department of Defense since 1970” under “an 
employee agreement to be a Medical [sic] Research [sic] participant as a civilian employee for 
a period of 35 years” which ended in 2005 and at which time he was “suppose [sic] to be paid.” 
The claimant states: 

Now I am being told that no one in the Office of Personnel Management can 
find my deferred payroll Compensation [sic]. I understand that OPM is a big 
organization dispensing 42 billion annually. 

The document that I submitted as proof of employment was determined by OPM 
as not being legitimate. That document was submitted to the U.S. Justice 
Department and the F.B.I. for proof of legitimacy [sic] neither organization 
deemed the document as a forgery. The document that’s credibility was in 
question mentioned the U.S. Army, U.S. Department of Defense, and the 
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Army was [sic] my employers as far back as 
1976. 

Therefore, I am asking that OPM do its due diligence and investigate the where 
bouts [sic] of my 39 years of civilian payments. 

Under 5 CFR 551.708(a)), at its discretion OPM may reconsider its FLSA decision when 
material information was not considered or there is a material error of law, regulation, or fact in 
the original decision. The claimant disagrees with OPM’s analysis and conclusion that 


claimant has failed to show he was an employee covered by OPM’s FLSA claims adjudication 
process who performed work subject to the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the 
FLSA. Instead, the claimant relies upon the TransUnion credit report issued January 3, 2008, 
already considered in our initial decision, as showing he was a Federal employee. The claimant 
asserts this document was accepted by the U.S. Department of Justice and a subordinate 
component, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and neither organization deemed it a forgery. 
Our decision, however, did not conclude this document was a forgery. Rather, we concluded it 
provided no probative evidence the claimant was a Federal employee for purposes of the 
FLSA. The claimant has failed to show material information was not considered or there was a 
material error of law, regulation, or fact in the original decision, and has, therefore, failed to 
meet the regulatory requirements for OPM, at its discretion, to reopen and reconsider its 
original FLSA claim decision. 

We also note the claimant misconstrues OPM’s role with regard to Federal employee pay. 
Each Federal agency, directly or through their payroll provider(s), is responsible for paying its 
own employees. OPM’s responsibility in adjudicating FLSA claims is restricted to determining 
whether the claimant has been compensated properly under the FLSA and whether the FLSA 
child labor provisions have been violated. See 551.701(a). OPM’s FLSA responsibilities do 
not include investigating the whereabouts of the claimant’s alleged “deferred payroll 
Compensation [sic].” 

Decision 

The claimant’s request to reopen and reconsider his claim is denied for the foregoing reasons. 
Future correspondence on this matter will be filed without action.