Washington, D.C.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
U.S. Department of the Air Force
Ramstein, Germany
Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
08/21/2025
Date
The claimant is a Federal civilian employee of the U.S. Department of the Air Force (hereafter referred to as “agency” or “Air Force”), assigned to the U.S. Air Force – Surgeon General in Ramstein, Germany. He requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reconsider the agency’s denial of living quarters allowance (LQA). We received the claim on April 21, 2025, and the agency administrative report on June 10, 2025. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
The claimant is currently assigned to a Budget Analyst, GS-0560-12, with the U.S. Air Force – Surgeon General in Ramstein, Germany. Prior to appointment, the claimant was employed with the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) in Grafenwöhr, Germany. The Army did not issue the claimant permanent change of station (PCS) orders, and subsequently, the claimant paid for his transportation to Grafenwöhr, Germany. When onboarding the claimant at Air Force, the agency contacted both the claimant and Army regarding his arrival to Germany and his LQA eligibility. During these communications, the Army stated that the claimant was LQA eligible, but they did not issue him PCS orders for his travel to Germany, nor did they provide him with return transportation back to the United States. On April 11, 2024, the agency formally determined the claimant ineligible to receive LQA. On April 21, 2025, the claimant filed a compensation claim with OPM, stating that “the denial of [his] LQA was based on [his] lack of a transportation agreement at the time of accepting the position” but “since [having been] placed on a transportation agreement” this decision is “moot.”
The Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR) set forth basic eligibility criteria for the granting of LQA. The DSSR contains the governing regulations for allowances, differentials, and defraying of official residence expenses in foreign areas. Under DSSR section 031.11, LQA may be granted to employees recruited in the United States. It states in part:
Quarters allowances prescribed in Chapter 100 may be granted to employees who were recruited by the employing government agency in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the possessions of the United States.
According to the record, the claimant applied for the Budget Analyst, GS-0560-12, position outside of the United States. Therefore, the claimant did not meet section 031.11 of the DSSR at the time of his selection and was ineligible for LQA as a stateside hire.
The agency also determined the claimant did not meet the basic requirements of a non-stateside hire under DSSR section 031.12, which states:
Quarters allowances prescribed in Chapter 100 may be granted to employees recruited outside the United States, provided that:
a. the employee’s actual place of residence in the place to which the quarters allowance applies at the time of receipt thereof shall be fairly attributable to his/her employment by the United States Government; and
b. prior to appointment, the employee was recruited in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the former Canal Zone, or a possession of the United States, by:
1. the United States Government, including its Armed Forces;
2. a United States firm, organization, or interest;
3. an international organization in which the United States Government participates; or
4. a foreign government
and had been in substantially continuous employment by such employer under conditions which provided for his/her return transportation to the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the former Canal Zone, or a possession of the United States.
The claimant meets DSSR 031.12a in that his presence in Germany is fairly attributable to his current employment as a Budget Analyst, GS-0560-12, in Ramstein, Germany.
However, under DSSR section 031.12b, an employee recruited outside the United States must, immediately prior to appointment, have been recruited in the United States by one of the enumerated entities which provided return transportation rights back to the United States. Although the claimant was previously recruited in the United States by the U.S. Department of the Army, they had not provided the claimant return transportation rights back to the United States. Therefore, the agency determined the claimant ineligible to receive LQA, as he never held return transportation rights as stipulated in DSSR section 031.12b.
Nevertheless, the claimant contends that his newly acquired transportation agreement from the Air Force renders this LQA determination “moot.” However, DSSR section 031.12b states that prior to appointment, the employee was hired by one of the enumerated entities which provided return transportation rights back to the United States. In this case, the enumerated entity would be Army, not Air Force. Therefore, the claimant could not be considered to have been in substantially continuous employment, because Army failed to provide the claimant return transportation rights back to the United States. As a result, DSSR section 031.12b is not met, and OPM must deny the claimant’s request.
Furthermore, the Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25 V1250 specifies that overseas allowances are not automatic salary supplements, nor are they entitlements. The statutory and regulatory languages are permissive and give agency heads considerable discretion in determining whether to grant LQA to agency employees. Thus, an agency may deny LQA 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 on 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.