U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
U.S. Department of the Army
Camp Arifjan, Kuwait
Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
03/31/2025
Date
The claimant is a Federal civilian employee of the Department of the Army, assigned to Headquarters, 401st U.S. Army Field Support Brigade at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. He requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reconsider the agency’s denial of involuntary separate maintenance allowance (ISMA). We received the claim on February 15, 2024, and the agency administrative report (AAR) on September 17, 2024. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
The claimant is currently assigned to a Supervisory Logistics Management Specialist, GS-0346-14, position with the 401st Army Field Support Brigade at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, effective March 26, 2023. The claimant previously held a position at the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. On April 2, 2023, the claimant arrived in Kuwait. On April 7, 2023, the claimant submitted a Standard Form 1190, to the agency designating his home address as Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. On May 24, 2023, the claimant’s spouse designated her address as Natchitoches, Louisiana. Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, is a post, where accompanying family members are not authorized. Consequently, the claimant requested ISMA for his spouse who could not accompany him on this restricted foreign post of assignment. The agency denied the claimant’s request for ISMA on the basis that his current assignment was not the reason for his separation. Prior to his arrival at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, the claimant was physically separated and maintained a separate residence from his spouse while working at Dugway Proving Ground.
The Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR) set forth basic eligibility criteria for the granting of separate maintenance allowance (SMA) in section 260. Section 261.1 Definitions, states in pertinent part:
- Separate maintenance allowance (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. There are three types of SMA: Involuntary (ISMA), Voluntary (VSMA), and Transitional (TSMA):
(1) "Involuntary separate maintenance allowance" (ISMA) 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. (See 262.1.)
DSSR section 261.2 Scope provides:
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]
Section 263.1 Member of Family Not Normally Residing with Employee, provides:
[W]hen a member of family would not normally reside with the employee, this individual does not meet the definition of member of family.
Section 040 m. of the DSSR defines “Family or family member” as one or more of the individuals listed in that section including a spouse “residing in the same quarters as the employee at his/her post or would normally reside at the post except for the existence of circumstances cited in section 262 warranting the grant of a separate maintenance allowance.” “Post” means the place designated as the official station of the employee. The regulations make clear that SMA may be granted only in those instances where the employee would otherwise be compelled to maintain a separate household for a family or family members and thus be burdened with assuming the additional expenses associated therewith.
Based on the facts surrounding the claim, the claimant was found eligible for LQA under the provisions of the DSSR section 031.1. As a result, the claimant was eligible to receive additional allowances under the provisions of the DSSR section 031.2. As Camp Arifjan, Kuwait is a post where family members are not authorized, the claimant was eligible to receive ISMA under the provisions of the DSSR section 261.1.a(1). However, the record indicates the claimant was normally residing separately from his spouse. According to the claimant, his spouse is the primary caretaker for her elderly parents and spends much of her time in Louisiana as a result. Although the couple met regularly, they maintained two residences and lived separately prior to the claimant’s assignment to Kuwait. Therefore, the claimant is denied ISMA under the provisions of the DSSR section 263.1, because his spouse did not normally reside with him, and it was not the claimant’s current assignment that compelled him to maintain two separate households.
The Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25 V1250 specifies that overseas allowances are not automatic salary supplements, nor are they entitlements. Furthermore, 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.