N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

STEVEN J. STONE, Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD, Respondent

______________________

2015

- 3139

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DA

- 3443

- 14

- 0560 -I- 1.

______________________

Decided: December 10, 2015

______________________
S TEVEN J. S TONE , Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pro se.

L INDSEY S CHRECKENGOS T , Office of the General Cou nsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by B RYAN G. P OLISUK

.

______________________

Before D YK , O’M ALLEY , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.STONE v. MSPB 2

P ER C URIAM

. Mr. Stone appeals the final decision of the Merit Sy stems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because M r

. Stone has failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the Board had jurisdi ction over his appeal, we affirm

. B ACKGROUND Mr. Stone served as an Immigration Inspector with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“ A gency”) in Edmonton, Canada starting in 1984

. In 1986, h e began receiving foreign quarters allowance (“FQA”) under 5 U.S.C. § 5922
, which authorizes payment to United States citizens for the annual cost of suitable housing abroad . In 2000 , the A gency notified Mr. St one that he was subject to the A gency’s overseas rotation policy and would eventua lly be rotated to the United States.

Mr. Stone filed a griev ance with the Agency, which in 2000 determined that as a “local hire” in 1984, Mr. Stone would not be subject to the oversea s rotation policy. As a result of Mr. Stone’s classification as a local h ire

, the A gency terminated all entitlements, including FQA

. Mr. Stone, however, mistakenly received FQA payments until October 2001 , when the Agency notified him that his salary would be offset to collect the $30,323.72 overpa yment. 1 Mr. Stone appealed to the Board for reinstatement of his FQA and reimbursement of his garnished salary. Because th e dispute d id not constitute an appealable

“ reduction in pay ,” the Board ultimately dismissed Mr. Stone’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction

.

1 A later decision held that Mr. Stone and other sim i larly situated employees could be subject to the rotation policy at a later date, but this does not affect his entitl e ment to the FQA at issue.STONE v. MSPB 3

Mr

. Stone appealed to this court, and we have juris

diction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

D ISCUSSION Whether the Board has jurisdiction to hear an appeal is a question of law we review de novo. Whiteman v. Dep’t of Transp. , 688 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 201 2). Mr. Stone bears the burden of proving Board jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. Fields v. Dep ’ t of Justice

, 452 F.3d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56( b )(2)(i)(A)

. The Board’s jurisdiction is “strictly defined and co nfined by statute and regulation” to appeals of decisions involving “adverse actions.” Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 154 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Board has jurisdiction to review the a dverse action of an employee’s “reduction in pay.” 5 U.S.C. § 7 512 (4). Pay is defined as “the rate of basic pay fixed by law or administrative action for the position held by [the] employee.” Pann v. Dep ’ t of Navy , 265 F.3d 1346, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(4)). Basic pay, in turn, means “the rate of pay fixed for the posi tion held by the employee before any deductions and exclusive of additional pay of any kind .” Id. (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ; see also 5 C.F.R. § 5 31.203.

Because Mr. Stone’s alleged loss of FQA pay is “add itional pay” not subject to MSPB review, t he Board correc tly held that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Stone’s appeal. See 5 C.F.R. § 531.203. Moreover, Mr

. Stone’s FQA was
not “fixed by law or administrative action” as proscribed by 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(4)

— it was discretionary

. See 5 U.S.C. § 5922 (a) (“allowances .

. . authorized by this subchapter may be granted to an employee officially stationed in a foreign area ” (emphasis added)); se e also Roberts v. United States , 1 04 Fed. Cl. 598, 602 (2012), aff’d , 745 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[O]verseas allo wances and differentials are not automatic salary suppl e-STONE v. MSPB 4

ments, nor are they entitlements.

. . . Individuals shall not automatically be gr anted these benefits simply b ecause they meet eligibility requirements.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, Mr . Stone ’s loss of FQA is not a n appealable “ reduction in

pay ” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(4)

, and the Board did not

err in dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board also lacked ju risdiction to review the A gency’ s debt collection procedure.

C ONCLUSION We affirm the Board’s decision dismissing Mr. Stone’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs.