Washington, D.C.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code

---

Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance

08/19/2025

---

Date

The claimant is a Federal civilian employee of the U.S. Department of the Army (hereafter referred to as “agency” and “Army”), assigned to the U.S. Army Field Battalion-Poland, 405th U.S. Army Field Support Brigade, U.S. Army Sustainment Command in Powidz, Poland. He requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reconsider the agency’s denial of involuntary separate maintenance allowance (ISMA). We received the claim on December 11, 2024, and the agency administrative report (AAR) on March 26, 2025. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.

The claimant is currently assigned to a Supervisory Quality Assurance Specialist, GS-1910-13, position with Army, effective March 26, 2024. The claimant previously held a stateside assignment with the U.S. Tank Automotive and Armaments Command, U.S. Department of the Army at Camp Shelby, Mississippi. On June 4, 2024, the claimant signed a Standard Form (SF) 1190, designating his family’s home address as Richmond Hill, Georgia. However, prior to the submission of his SF-1190, the claimant submitted a Request/Authorization for DoD Civilian Permanent Duty or Temporary Change of Station Travel form designating Brooklynn, Mississippi as his home address. Powidz, Poland is a post where accompanying family members are not authorized. Consequently, the claimant requested ISMA for his spouse and child who could not accompany him on this restricted post of assignment. Army denied the claimant’s request for ISMA on the basis that his current assignment was not the reason for his family’s separation. Prior to his arrival at Powidz, Poland, the claimant was physically separated and maintained a separate residence from his spouse and child while working at Camp Shelby, Mississippi.

The Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR) set forth basic eligibility criteria for the granting of separate maintenance allowance (SMA) in section 260. Section 261.1 Definitions, states in pertinent part:

a. Separate maintenance allowance (SMA) is an allowance to assist an employee to meet the additional expenses of maintaining members of family elsewhere than at the employee’s foreign post of assignment. There are three types of SMA: Involuntary (ISMA), Voluntary (VSMA), and Transitional (TSMA):

(1) "Involuntary separate maintenance allowance" (ISMA) may be granted because of dangerous, notably unhealthful, or excessively adverse living conditions at the employee's post of assignment in a foreign area, or for the convenience of the Government. (See 262.1.)

DSSR section 261.2 Scope provides:

SMA is intended to assist in offsetting the additional expenses incurred by an employee who is compelled by the circumstances described below [in section 262, to maintain a separate household for the family or a member of the family. [italics added]

Section 263.1 Member of Family Not Normally Residing with Employee, provides:

[W]hen a member of family would not normally reside with the employee, this individual does not meet the definition of member of family.

Section 040 m. of the DSSR defines “Family or family member” as one or more of the individuals listed in that section including a spouse and/or child “residing in the same quarters as the employee at his/her post or would normally reside at the post except for the existence of circumstances cited in section 262 warranting the grant of a separate maintenance allowance.” “Post” means the place designated as the official station of the employee. The regulations make clear that SMA may be granted only in those instances where the employee would otherwise be compelled to maintain a separate household for a family or family members and thus be burdened with assuming the additional expenses associated therewith.

As Powidz, Poland is a post where family members are not authorized, the claimant was eligible to receive ISMA under the provisions of the DSSR section 261.1.a (1). However, the record indicates the claimant was normally residing separately from his family prior to his relocation overseas. Yet, according to the claimant, his spouse did reside with him at his residence in Brooklynn, Mississippi, while he was duty stationed at Camp Shelby. His daughter was living separately from the claimant at their home in Richmond Hill, Georgia. In their AAR, the agency states that based on the documents provided by the claimant, he and his family maintained two residences and lived separately immediately prior to the claimant’s assignment to Powidz, Poland. Moreover, in their claim to OPM, the claimant failed to provide documentation that would definitively establish whether his family normally resided with him at the home in Brooklynn, Mississippi. Therefore, the claimant is denied ISMA under the provisions of the DSSR section 263.1, because his family did not normally reside with him, and it was not the claimant’s current assignment that compelled him to maintain two separate households.

The Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25 V1250 specifies that overseas allowances are not automatic salary supplements, nor are they entitlements. Furthermore, the statutory and regulatory languages are permissive and give agency heads considerable discretion in determining whether to grant ISMA to agency employees. Thus, an agency may deny ISMA payments when it finds that the circumstances justify such action, and the agency’s action will not be questioned unless it is determined that the agency’s action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Under section 178.105, of title 5 Code of Federal Regulations, the burden is upon the claimant to establish the liability of the United States and the claimant’s right to payment. Joseph P. Carrigan, 60 Comp. Gen. 243, 247 (1981); Wesley L. Goecker, 58 Comp. Gen. 738 (1979). In this case, the claimant failed to do so. Since an agency decision made in accordance with established regulations and within its discretionary authority as is evident in the present case cannot be considered arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, there is no basis upon which to reverse the agency’s decision, and the claim is therefore denied.

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.

Back to Top