Washington, D.C
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
U.S. Africa Command
U.S. Department of the Army
Stuttgart, Germany
Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
04/23/2025
Date
The claimant was a Federal civilian employee of the U.S. Department of the Army (Army), assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany during the claim period. She requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reconsider Army’s denial of living quarters allowance (LQA). We received the claim on July 19, 2024, and the agency administrative report (AAR) on January 17, 2025. For the reasons herein, the claim is denied.
The claimant was reassigned to a Joint Fires and Effects Specialist, GS-0301-13, position with the U.S. Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany, effective August 11, 2024. The claimant previously held an Assistant BMDS Watch Officer, NH-0301-III, position with the Missile Defense Agency in El Paso, Colorado. On February 13, 2024, the claimant applied and was selected for the Joint Fires and Effects Specialist, GS-0301-13, position with Army. On March 19, 2024, the claimant received a tentative job offer from the agency. She accepted the same day. On March 21, 2024, the claimant submitted an LQA questionnaire. On March 28, 2024, the claimant arrived in Wiesbaden, Germany on her spouse’s military orders “as an authorized dependent traveler.” Although the claimant had anticipated receiving LQA, the agency found her ineligible to receive the allowance due to her early arrival in Germany on her spouse’s military orders, which is prohibited under Army in Europe Regulation (AER) 690-500.592, paragraph 7a(5), dated September 6, 2018.
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.
According to the record, there is no dispute that the claimant “applied and was selected for the position with [the U.S. Africa Command] as an employee in her own right, i.e., not as a dependent family member with no competitive career status.” Nor is there a dispute that the claimant resided permanently in the U.S. during the entire recruitment period. Therefore, the claimant met section 031.11 of the DSSR at the time of her selection and was eligible for LQA as a U.S. Hire. However, the claimant arrived in Germany several months before she was to be officially appointed to the position under her military spouse’s official reassignment orders.
After learning of the claimant’s arrival as an authorized dependent traveler under her spouse’s military orders, the agency determined the claimant ineligible citing AER 690-500.592, paragraph 7a(5), which states:
LQA may not be granted to employees recruited in the United States who arrive in the overseas area under their spouse’s or domestic partner’s (military or civilian member) Government-funded travel orders. [Department of Defense] waiver criteria may, however, apply in cases of unusual circumstances.
Based on the facts surrounding the claim, it is clear the claimant was initially found eligible for LQA under the provisions of the DSSR section 03.11. However, the record indicates that the claimant traveled from her home in Colorado with her spouse several months prior to her official reassignment (appointment) to the position with the U.S. Africa Command, which was set to begin on August 11, 2024. In addition, the claimant chose to forgo government-funded travel orders that would have assisted with her move overseas. Despite not having been hired as a military spouse, but receiving benefits in her own right, the claimant chose to travel under her spouse’s military orders. Under AER 690-500.592, paragraph 7a(5), LQA may not be granted to employees recruited in the U.S. who travel under their spouse’s or domestic partner’s government-funded travel orders. Therefore, the claimant is denied LQA consistent with the provisions found in AER 690-500.592.
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 LQA to agency employees. Thus, an agency may deny LQA 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.