The Federal Government will Become America's Model Employer for the 21st Century.
Recruit, Retain and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People.
Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.
OPM Contact: Jo-Ann Chabot
Two federal employees claim that they were entitled to receive a
25 % cost of living allowance (COLA) for employees whose posts of
duty are in nonforeign areas from the day that their transfer to
[state] became effective, rather than from the day that they
actually reported for duty in [state]. Their claim is denied for
the reasons stated below.
Under 5 U.S.C. 5941 and Executive Order 10000, as amended,
certain federal employees in nonforeign areas outside the 48
contiguous states are eligible for COLAs when local living costs
are substantially higher than those in the Washington, D.C., area.
Nonforeign area COLAs are paid in Alaska, as well as in Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands. The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) regulation that was in effect when the claims arose, 5 C.F.R.
591.210(f) (1996 ed.), provided that payment of a COLA would begin
"as of the date of arrival on regular assignment or transfer, or on
the date of entrance on duty in the case of local recruitment."
These regulations, at 5 C.F.R. 591.201 (1996 ed.)
defined "date of arrival" as "the employee's first day in a pay
status in the allowance or differential area,." and "allowance
area" as "a geographic area for which an allowance has been
Before issuing that version of section 591.201 as a final rule,
OPM received a recommendation that payment of the differential
should begin at the start of the employee's first pay period in a
duty status in the allowance or differential area. 55 Federal Register 1370, 1371
(January 16, 1990). OPM did not accept the recommendation on the
basis that it would not be appropriate to authorize payment of an
allowance for any part of a pay period preceding an employee's
arrival in the nonforeign area. Id. OPM noted in this regard
that it had revised the definition of "date of arrival" to
correspond with the first day that the employee is in a pay status
in the allowance area. Id.
OPM also noted that "[t]he information needed to determine an
employee's date of arrival . . . should be readily available in the
agency's records." Id.
Thus, according to the OPM regulations that were in effect when
this claim arose, an employee became entitled to payment of the
COLA on the first day that he or she reported to work in the
allowance area, rather than on the day that the employee's transfer
to that area became effective. The pertinent agency regulation
(Order 3550.10, Chapter 7, Section 413d) reflected this
interpretation in providing that an agency employee is entitled to
payment of allowances "when the employee arrives at the post of
duty and starts work on his regular assignment, or on the date of
entrance on duty when the employee is recruited locally."
The claimants accepted a transfer from a position in [state] to
another position with the same federal agency in [state] Their
transfer became effective September 29, 1996, with an estimated
reporting date of November 1, 1996. However, on October 2, 1996,
the claimants' new supervisor in [state] asked them whether they
would be willing to attend training classes in [state]. Based on
information he received from the agency's regional human resource
management specialist, the supervisor advised claimants that as
long as they were attending training classes subject to the
[state's] region's travel and training orders, they would be
entitled to receive the COLA.
The claimants arrived in [state] for training on October 6,
1996. Although their pay checks of October 22, 1996 reflected they
had received a 25% COLA, their paychecks of November 5, 1996 did
not include the COLA and reflected as well that the COLA they had
received during the previous pay period had been deducted from
their pay. The claimants left [state] when their training concluded
and reported for work in [state] on December 17, 1996.
Under the regulations that were in effect at the time this claim
arose, the claimants became entitled to receive a COLA when they
arrived at their duty post. In view of this, their claim of
entitlement to a COLA from the date that their transfer became
effective is denied.
The inaccurate information that the claimants' supervisor
allegedly provided does not constitute a basis for approval of
their claim. Payments of money from the Federal Treasury are
limited to those authorized by law, and erroneous advice or
information provided by a government employee cannot bar the
government from denying benefits that are not otherwise permitted
by law. Office of Personnel
Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 110 S. Ct. 2465, rehearing denied, 497 U.S. 1046,
111 S. Ct. 5 (1990). Under the regulations that were in effect at
the time this claim arose, the claimants were not entitled to
payment of a COLA until they reported for duty at their duty
station in Alaska.