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.
OPM’s Human Resources Solutions organization can help your agency answer this critically important question.
Developing senior leaders in the U.S. Government through Leadership for a Democratic Society, Custom Programs and Interagency Courses.
Visit this federal site to search for our regulatory notices, proposed and final rules.
See the latest tweets on our Twitter feed, like our Facebook pages, watch our YouTube videos, and page through our Flickr photos.
The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.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: Murray M. Meeker
In March 1998, the claimant, an employee with the [xxx], in [xxx], requested information concerning her entitlement to a Separate Maintenance Allowance (SMA) for her husband, a civilian federal employee then stationed at the [xxx] in [xxx]. The claimant was erroneously advised that she was not entitled to an SMA because her husband was not residing in the United States.
On November 30, 1998, the claimant's husband transferred to [xxx]in [xxx], and in February 1999, the claimant attended a Regional Meeting where she was advised to pursue her SMA request. The claimant subsequently applied for an SMA which was granted effective March 25, 1999, the date when the claimant's application was received. The claimant now seeks SMA retroactive to March 1998. The agency has denied the claimant's request for retroactive SMA and we concur. The fact that the claimant received misinformation does not result in her entitle-ment to retroactive benefits. See Richmond v. OPM, 496 U.S. 414, 425-426 (1990); Falso v. OPM, 116 F.3d 459 (Fed. Cir. 1997); and 60 Comp. Gen. 417 (1981).
Accordingly, the claim is denied. This settlement is final. No further administrative review is available within OPM. Nothing in this settlement limits the employee's right to bring an action in an appropriate United States Court.