Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Molesworth, United Kingdom
Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
01/09/2018
Date
The claimant is a Federal civilian employee of the Department of the Army (DA), with duty station in Molesworth, United Kingdom (UK). He requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reconsider his agency’s decision to retroactively deny his post allowance (PA) for his duty station at Molesworth, UK, which he received from February 2014 (pay period ending March 8, 2014) until December 2015 (pay period ending November 28, 2015). He asks that OPM intervene with his agency on his behalf to ensure that he is treated equally as other Federal civilian employees who work for other Federal agencies at Molesworth but receive the higher PA for Huntingdon, UK. We received the claim on September 20, 2016, and the agency administrative report (AAR) on January 13, 2017. While the agency has determined the claimant is eligible for PA, for the reasons discussed herein the claim is denied.
The claimant was appointed to a Federal service position effective December 30, 2012, as an Information Technology (IT) Specialist (Customer Support), GS-2210-12, with the 39th Signal Battalion, 128th Signal Company, Operations Center-Schinnen, in Chievres, Belgium. However, his duty station was and is now at Molesworth, UK. Since Molesworth was not specifically listed in the Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR), Section 920, the percentage granted for his PA was determined by reference to the category of “Other” in the respective table of allowances as required by the provisions of DSSR Section 061(3) which states “If the post is not listed individually in Section 920, the classification shown for “Other” for that country shall be applicable.”
On February 23, 2014, the Office of Allowances of the Department of State (DOS) added a new post allowance specifically for Huntingdon, United Kingdom, which is approximately ten miles from Molesworth. After review, the agency’s Civilian Human Resources Agency (CHRA), NE/Europe, Overseas Entitlements Division, advised that the change should be effected which resulted in the claimant receiving a significant increase in PA even though his duty station was in Molesworth. However, in December 2015 the agency noted that “the issue concerning the coding to the proper classification in the table of allowances for employees assigned to Molesworth arose again.” Upon inquiring with the DOS, which promulgates the DSSR, the agency was advised that coding should be based on the employee’s actual travel authorization, and if that location is not listed in the DSSR Section 920, the default “Other” should be used as coding for purposes of determining PA. Consequently, because Molesworth is not specifically listed in Section 920 (only Huntingdon) in the updated table of allowances, the agency took action to correct the PA coding for the claimant to revert to the previous coding of “Other” resulting in significant monetary indebtedness of the claimant to his agency.
While agencies are authorized under DSSR Section 013 to grant or disallow PAs and publish implementing regulations regarding employee eligibility (i.e., Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V1250, Paragraph 3(a), neither the granting agency nor OPM have the authority to change or amend the designation of specific posts of duty published by the DOS in DSSR Section 920. The DOS publishes the governing regulations and has not delegated to agencies the authority to designate posts-of-duty for purposes of granting PAs. The claimant states that other Federal employees working for different agencies in Molesworth are receiving the higher PA for nearby Huntingdon. However, our decision solely addresses the claimant’s circumstances and we have no authority to assess the PA eligibility of other Federal employees based solely on consideration of equity. Therefore, the claimant’s assertion he has not been treated equitably is not applicable to our claim settlement determination. Since the agency made its decision in accordance with established regulations, we do not consider it to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and there is no basis upon which to reverse the decision.
This settlement is final. No further administrative review is available within the OPM. Nothing in this settlement limits the claimant’s right to bring an action in an appropriate United States court.