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The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.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: Murray M. Meeker
The claimant, a civilian employee at the [agency] states that he has been denied "equity" relating to pay retention. While the claimant apparently accepts the fact that he is not legally entitled to pay retention as a result of his voluntary acceptance of a change to a lower grade, he believes that he should receive retained pay for equitable reasons, including his having made a critical career decision based on misinformation which he received concerning his entitlement to pay retention. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
The claims jurisdiction of this office is limited to consideration of legal liability, the Office of Personnel Management has no authority to authorize payment based solely on equitable considerations. 63 Comp. Gen. 50 (1983). Detrimental reliance is not a legal basis for the payment of appropriated funds. 56 Comp. Gen. 943 (1977). It is also well established that a claim may not be granted based on misinformation that may have been provided by federal employees. 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).
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.