Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
U.S. Army Garrison
Rheinland-Pfalz, Sub-community Bulgaria
Novo-Selo Training Area, Bulgaria
Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
04/01/2025
Date
The claimant was a Federal civilian employee of the U.S. Department of the Army (Army), assigned to the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, U.S. Army Garrison, Rheinland-Pfalz, Sub-Community Bulgaria at the Novo Selo Training Area, Bulgaria. He requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reconsider Army’s denial of involuntary separate maintenance allowance (ISMA). We received the claim on November 2, 2023, and the agency administrative report on October 7, 2024. For the reasons herein, the claim is denied.
The claimant was reassigned as a General Engineer, GS-0801-11, with the U.S. Army Installation Management Command at Novo Selo Training Area, Bulgaria, effective August 1, 2021. The claimant previously held a position as an Electrical Engineer, GS-0850-12, step 6, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in Portland, Oregon. On August 4, 2021, the claimant arrived at his new post of assignment at Novo Selo Training Area, Bulgaria. Novo Selo Training Area, Bulgaria, is a post where accompanying family members are not authorized. Therefore, on August 4, 2021, the claimant signed a Standard Form (SF) 1190, requesting ISMA for his wife and child. At the time of the original submission, his family resided in Camas, Washington. On or around this time, the claimant purchased a home and parcel of land in Pomorie, Bulgaria. On October 21, 2021, the claimant was granted living quarters allowance (LQA) for his personally owned quarters (POQ) in Pomorie, Bulgaria. The LQA was given exclusively for the home, not the land. In June 2022, the claimant submitted an updated SF-1190, requesting ISMA for his family. The new SF-1190 included a new Romanian address rather than their stateside home in Washington. The agency denied his request for ISMA citing their belief that the request was “unsubstantiated and should not be allowed.” The claimant’s family decision to move overseas from the U.S. brought them in “closer proximity” to the claimant’s duty assignment in Bulgaria. This proximity made it “difficult” for the agency to approve the allowance.
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.
There is no dispute the claimant met section 031.11 of the DSSR at the time of his appointment. Thus, the claimant was eligible for LQA as a U.S. Hire. Therefore, the claimant requested and was granted full LQA (rental and utilities portion) for his POQ under DSSR section 136(a), which states:
When quarters occupied by an employee are owned by the employee or the spouse, or both, an amount up to 10 percent of original purchase price (converted to U.S. dollars at original exchange rate) of such quarters shall be considered the annual rate of his/her estimated expenses for rent. Only the expenses for heat, light, fuel (including gas and electricity), water, garbage, and trash disposal and in rare cases land rent, may be added to determine the amount of the employee’s quarters allowance in accordance with Section 134. The amount of the rental portion of the allowance (up to 10 percent of purchase price) is limited to a period not to exceed ten years at which time the employee will be entitled only to above utility expenses, garbage, and trash disposal, plus land rent.
In addition to LQA for POQ, an employee eligible under the DSSR section 031.11, may also be eligible to receive additional allowances under DSSR section 031.2.
Other cost-of-living allowances (foreign transfer allowance, home service transfer allowance, separate maintenance allowances, education allowances, and educational travel), and difficult to staff incentive differential, prescribed in subchapters 240, 250, 260, 270, 280, and 1000, respectively, may be granted subject to exceptions contained in the foregoing chapters, only to those employees who are eligible for quarters allowances under Section 031.1.
Separate maintenance allowances (SMA) are available to employees under the provisions of the DSSR section 261.1.a, which state:
SMA is an allowance to assist an employee to meet the additional expenses of maintaining members of family elsewhere than at the employee’s foreign post of assignment. [italics added]
ISMA is a type of SMA which, under DSSR section 261.1.a(1), may be granted because of dangerous, notably unhealthful, or excessively adverse living conditions at the employee’s post of assignment in a foreign area, or for the convenience of the Government.
DSSR section 261.2 further emphasizes that:
SMA is intended to assist in offsetting the additional expenses incurred by an employee who is compelled by the circumstances described below [in section 262, to maintain a separate household for the family or a member of the family. [italics added]
However, the Department of Defense Instructions (DODI), 1400.25 V1250, dated February 23, 2012, gives agency heads discretion in granting allowances to eligible employees. It states in part:
Overseas allowances and differentials are not automatic salary supplements, nor are they entitlements. They are specifically intended to be recruitment incentives for U.S. citizen civilian employees living in the United States to accept Federal employment in a foreign area. If a person is already living in the foreign area, that inducement is normally unnecessary. Individuals shall not automatically be granted these benefits simply because they meet eligibility requirements. [italics added]
Based on the facts surrounding the claim, it is clear the claimant was eligible for LQA in April 2021, under the provisions of the DSSR section 031.11. As a result, the claimant was eligible to receive additional allowances under the provisions of the DSSR section 031.2. As the Novo Selo Training Center, Bulgaria is a post where accompanying family members are not authorized, the claimant was eligible to receive ISMA under the provisions of the DSSR section 261.1a(1). However, the record indicates that the claimant’s family lived relatively close to his overseas duty station. The claimant visited his family by driving several hours to see them in Romania. Although ISMA is typically granted to eligible employees on unaccompanied tours similar to the claimant’s, the close proximity of the claimant’s family may lessen the burdens often faced by those employees who may be separated from their families by thousands of miles. In addition, it is noted that despite holding a temporary position at the Novo Selo Training Center, Bulgaria, the claimant chose to purchase a POQ, rather than temporary quarters. As a result, OPM must similarly conclude that the granting of ISMA is difficult in this case, and we affirm the agency’s decision.
Furthermore, the DODI 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 SMA to agency employees. Thus, an agency may deny SMA payments 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 upon 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.