Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Cleveland ARTCC-ZOB
Great Lakes Region
Federal Aviation Administration
Oberlin, Ohio
Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
08/19/2015
Date
The claimant, who occupies a Management and Program Analyst, FV-0343-H, position with the Air Traffic Division, Cleveland ARTCC-ZOB, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), requests “compensation lost as a result of a denial of a performance salary increase” (i.e., Superior Contribution Increase) covering her annual performance appraisal for Fiscal Year 2014. OPM received the claim request on February 3, 2015. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
OPM settles Federal civilian employee compensation and leave claims under the provisions of section 3702(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code (U.S.C.), and part 178 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 178.102(a) of 5 CFR indicates that the claimant’s employing agency must review and issue a written decision on a compensation claim before it is submitted to OPM for adjudication. The claimant is responsible for preserving the claim period by proving the signed, written claim was filed within the applicable statute of limitations. See 5 CFR 178.104. The information provided by the claimant with her request does not show she has filed a signed, written claim with the agency component authorized to issue an agency-level decision or that she has received such a decision. Nevertheless, we may render a decision on her claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The authority in 31 U.S.C section 3702(a)(2) is narrow and limited to the adjudication of compensation and leave claims. Section 3702 does not include the authority to review an agency’s interpretation and application of its performance management regulations and processes which the claimant is attempting to challenge, specifically as they relate to the agency’s assessment of her Fiscal Year 2014 performance. Therefore, OPM does not consider such appeals within the context of the claims adjudication function it performs under section 31 U.S.C. section 3702(a)(2). The claimant’s attempt to seek relief through OPM’s claims adjudication authority is misplaced as OPM’s claims adjudication authority is applicable in determining whether the amount of funds expended incident to an agency’s performance review is appropriate, but does not apply for purposes of determining the validity of the performance review itself. Since the claimant’s request for a performance salary increase is predicated on the agency’s assessment of her performance, the claim is denied for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See OPM file number 11-0002, April 5, 2011.
This settlement is final. No further administrative review is available within OPM. Nothing in this settlement limits the claimant’s right to bring an action in an appropriate United States court.