Washington, D.C.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code

---

Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance

05/08/2025

---

Date

The claimant is a current Federal civilian employee of the U.S. Department of the Air Force (hereafter referred to as “agency” and “Air Force”), assigned to the U.S. Pacific Air Forces at Misawa Air Force Base (AFB), Japan. She requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reconsider her agency’s denial of living quarters allowance (LQA). We received the claim on December 6, 2024, and the agency administrative report on January 13, 2025. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.

The claimant is currently assigned to a position as an Administrative Support Specialist, GS-0318-06, at the Misawa AFB, Japan, effective October 22, 2023. The claimant previously held a position as an Administrative Support Specialist, GS-0301-09, with the U.S. Department of the Army at Scott AFB, Illinois. On September 6, 2023, the claimant received a tentative job offer from the Air Force for a Secretary, GS-0318-06, position at Misawa AFB, Japan. The claimant applied for the overseas position as a result of her spouse accepting an assignment in Japan. On October 2, 2023, the claimant arrived in the overseas area “as a dependent on her sponsor [spouse’s] orders.” While residing in Japan, the claimant applied and was selected for a Community Programs Specialist, GS-0301-11, position at Yokota AFB, Japan on November 14, 2024. Prior to appointment, the agency determined the claimant ineligible for LQA, because she did not meet the eligibility requirements as either a stateside or non-stateside hire. The claimant declined the position at Yokota AFB, Japan on December 13, 2024, as a result of the agency’s LQA determination.

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 for the Community Program Specialist, GS-0301-11, position while residing in Japan. Therefore, the claimant did not meet section 031.11 of the DSSR at the time of her selection and was ineligible for LQA as a stateside hire.

There is also no dispute that the claimant resided in Japan throughout the entire recruitment process. However, the agency determined the claimant did not meet the basic requirements of a non-stateside hire under DSSR section 031.12, which states:

Quarters allowances prescribed in Chapter 100 may be granted to employees recruited outside the United States, provided that:

a. the employee’s actual place of residence in the place to which the quarters allowance applies at the time of receipt thereof shall be fairly attributable to his/her employment by the United States Government; and

b. prior to appointment, the employee was recruited in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the former Canal Zone, or a possession of the United States, by:

1. the United States Government, including its Armed Forces;

2. a United States firm, organization, or interest;

3. an international organization in which the United States Government participates; or

4. a foreign government

and had been in substantially continuous employment by such employer under conditions which provided for his/her return transportation to the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the former Canal Zone, or a possession of the United States.

The record shows that the claimant accompanied her spouse overseas because of his employment. Nevertheless, the claimant did apply and was selected for a position with the Air Force at Misawa AFB, Japan, prior to her relocation overseas. Her presence overseas can be attributed to her employment with the Air Force. Therefore, the claimant’s actual place of residence at the time of her appointment can be fairly attributed to her employment by the United States Government, and she thus meets DSSR section 031.12a.

DSSR section 031.12b stipulates that an employee recruited outside the United States must, immediately prior to appointment, have been recruited in the United States by one of the enumerated entities which provided return transportation back to the United States. On November 19, 2024, the claimant filled out an Overseas Benefits Determination questionnaire. In it, she states that she did not hold a transportation agreement for her position as a Secretary, GS-0318-06. Therefore, although the claimant had been recruited in the United States immediately prior to her appointment with the Air Force at Yokota AFB, she was not provided return transportation rights back to the United States. Thus, she cannot be considered to have been recruited outside the United States for the purposes of DSSR section 031.12b as she does not meet the employment conditions as described. Accordingly, the claim for LQA is denied.

In addition, the claimant requests that, if allowed, she and her spouse receive LQA under the Married Couples Rate found in DSSR 134.13(a). It states:

a. if both are civilian employees of the United States Government eligible for a quarters allowance (Sections 031.11 and 031.12) and have members of family (Section 040m), one employee at their option may receive the basic "with family" allowance rate plus increments for additional family members. The other employee may receive the "without family" rate. In determining the increment for additional family members both employees should be excluded. Where the couple has no additional members of family each employee may be granted the “without family” rate.

Along with the claimant’s request that the agency reconsider its denial of LQA, she asked whether she and her spouse may receive the “without family rate” for LQA under DSSR 134.13(a). However, as stated in the regulation, both civilian employees of the United States Government must be eligible to receive quarter allowance under either section 031.11 or 031.12. Although we do not know the claimant’s spouse’s eligibility for LQA, the claimant does not meet eligibility requirements under either section 031.11 or 031.12, and therefore, is ineligible to receive the “without family rate” under DSSR 134.13(a).

Furthermore, the Department of Defense Instruction 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 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.

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.

Back to Top