In the Matter of JOHN T. BELLAMY

May 31, 2016

CBCA 4899-RELO

In the Matter of JOHN T. BELLAMY

John T. Bellamy, APO, Area Europe, Claimant.

Christian H. Sorenson, Chief, Resources and Overseas Allowances, Department of

the Air Force, Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England, appearing for Department of the Air

Force.

VERGILIO, Board Judge.

The agency properly determined that claimant, who was outside the continental

United States (OCONUS) when applying for and accepting a position, was a

local hire OCONUS who did not satisfy criteria to negotiate an initial service

agreement regarding travel and transportation. After appointment to the

position, the claimant simply disavows the overseas employment agreement

he signed in which he recognized that he was locally appointed and not eligible

to sign a transportation agreement.

The claimant, John T. Bellamy, a civilian employee of the Department of the Air

Force, has requested a review of his eligibility to negotiate an initial service agreement as a

first time civilian employee. The agency determined that the claimant (1) was not recruited

from within the continental United States (CONUS) such that he did not qualify for

transportation benefits for the position OCONUS and (2) failed to meet the requirements to

enter into an initial service agreement if deemed a local hire otherwise eligible to receive

benefits. The claimant’s application for and acceptance of the position within the United

Kingdom occurred after he had fulfilled military deployment obligations, and while he was

in the United Kingdom, where his spouse was employed. A claimant bears the burden of

proof to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief or that the agency acted contrary to

applicable law, regulation, or rules. The regulations in effect on the date the claimant

CBCA 4899-RELO

2

reported for civilian duty in the United Kingdom are applicable; thus, although the claimant

references newer numbered regulations, the Board looks to the applicable regulations with

the old numbering.

The claimant worked for a contractor to the military. While so employed, the claimant

was deployed to Afghanistan under involuntary orders between November 30, 2012, and

November 23, 2013. During this period, the Department of the Air Force authorized the

claimant’s spouse as a non-military individual to perform official business for the

Department of Defense in the United Kingdom for the period from November 1, 2013,

through October 31, 2018, and authorized the claimant to accompany his spouse. On

November 1, 2013, the claimant’s spouse moved to the United Kingdom. On November 16,

2013, the claimant entered the United Kingdom to stay with his spouse, awaiting transfer to

United Kingdom or return to United States after the end of his military leave. During this

time, the claimant maintained a residence in CONUS.

In 2014, after his deployment period had ended, the claimant applied for a position

with the Department of the Air Force with a duty station in the United Kingdom. The

claimant was in the United Kingdom at the time he submitted his application. His

submission states that he was on full time status working for a military contractor “awaiting

project assignment while living in United Kingdom[.]” The claimant’s application and

resume utilize an address in the United Kingdom. The claimant obtained the job. On June 7,

2014, the claimant signed an “Overseas Employment Agreement (Locally Appointed)” with

an effective date of June 30, 2014, which specifies that it is to be signed by an employee or

applicant appointed locally who is not eligible to sign a transportation agreement. This

specifies that the claimant understands and accepts the conditions established in the

agreement. On June 25, 2014, the claimant terminated employment with the contractor,

entering on federal civilian duty shortly thereafter.

Pay records indicate that in 2014 the claimant received pay from his employer (the

contractor to the military) totaling an amount for less than one month of work. The record

reveals that in 2014 the claimant was not in the United Kingdom because of his deployment,

but because his spouse was there as he awaited a project assignment.

Substantively, the record reveals no agency impropriety in its actions or conclusions.

The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) specify that an initial agreement is not an entitlement for

a locally hired person. JTR C5620-A.1. The agency determined that the claimant is

ineligible to negotiate a service or transportation agreement because the claimant failed to

satisfy the requirements set forth in JTR C5620-E.2.a(1) or (2). Parallels now are found in

JTR 5836.

CBCA 4899-RELO

3

The JTR provides that an initial service agreement may be negotiated with an eligible

local hire only if specific requirements are met. The requirements are described for a former

military member and for an employee operating in support of the United States. A former

military member must be (a) separated/retired locally (within the foreign OCONUS country

in which is located the civilian position to which the individual is appointed) while serving

in a foreign OCONUS area, and (b) be appointed before the expiration of that individual’s

authorization for return travel and transportation to a CONUS/non-foreign OCONUS area

accruing from the prior military service. JTR C5620-E.2.a(1). For an employee operating

in support of the United States, an employee of a Government contractor, one requirement

is that the individual was recruited in a CONUS/non-foreign OCONUS area under

employment conditions that provided for return travel and transportation allowances. JTR

C5620-E.2.a(2).

The claimant is a former military member, but has not suggested that he was separated

or retired within the foreign OCONUS or that he was entitled to return travel and

transportation from a prior authorization. Therefore, the claimant has not satisfied C5620E2.a(1). The claimant was an employee of a Government contractor, but was not recruited

in a CONUS/non-foreign OCONUS area under employment conditions that provided for

return travel and transportation allowances. Because a requirement under part a(2) is not

satisfied, the claimant is not eligible for the relief requested. Similarly, the claimant fails to

satisfy the conditions identified in C5620-E2.b, Requirement 2. That is, as a former

employee of a Federal department or agency, the claimant was not separated by reduction in

force, was not on a reemployment priority list, and had not been authorized a delay in return

travel. The claimant also has failed to establish that he had authorization for return

transportation as a dependent of the U.S. Armed Forces or a civilian Government employee

serving under an initial agreement providing for return travel. Thus, the claimant satisfies

neither element of Requirement 2.

The claimant posits a cost-benefit analysis tied to his remaining at the OCONUS

location for longer than he would without the benefits, because he intends to depart with his

spouse absent approval of the requested benefits. Because this analysis is speculative (as the

record reveals no basis to assume that a local hire will be unavailable in the future or that

clearances will need to be obtained for the next hire), the Board need not probe the details

or provide further elaboration. The claimant’s potential actions, based upon the claimant’s

own personal interests, are not part of the analysis identified in the regulations. The claimant

was in the United Kingdom with his spouse at the time he applied for and accepted the

present position in the United Kingdom. He lacked assignments from the military contractor;

he was not on an active deployment; and, he has not identified any return rights. The

claimant was a local hire. The claimant is not entitled to negotiate an initial agreement.

CBCA 4899-RELO

4

Accordingly, the Board denies the relief requested.

____________________________

JOSEPH A. VERGILIO

Board Judge