NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

STEVEN J. STONE,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 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 

______________________ 

STEVEN J. STONE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pro se. 

LINDSEY SCHRECKENGOST, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK.

______________________ 

Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
2 STONE v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Stone appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. Because Mr. Stone has failed to 

satisfy his burden of proving that the Board had jurisdiction over his appeal, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Stone served as an Immigration Inspector with 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“Agency”) in 

Edmonton, Canada starting in 1984. In 1986, he 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 Agency notified Mr. Stone that he was subject to 

the Agency’s overseas rotation policy and would eventually be rotated to the United States. 

Mr. Stone filed a grievance with the Agency, which in 

2000 determined that as a “local hire” in 1984, Mr. Stone 

would not be subject to the overseas rotation policy. As a 

result of Mr. Stone’s classification as a local hire, the 

Agency 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 overpayment.1 

Mr. Stone appealed to the Board for reinstatement of 

his FQA and reimbursement of his garnished salary. 

Because the dispute did 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 

similarly situated employees could be subject to the 

rotation policy at a later date, but this does not affect his 

entitlement to the FQA at issue.

 
STONE v. MSPB 3

Mr. Stone appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

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. 2012). 

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 confined 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 adverse action of an employee’s

“reduction in pay.” 5 U.S.C. § 7512(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 position 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. § 531.203.

Because Mr. Stone’s alleged loss of FQA pay is “additional pay” not subject to MSPB review, the Board correctly 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)); see also

Roberts v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 598, 602 (2012), 

aff’d, 745 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[O]verseas allowances and differentials are not automatic salary supple-
4 STONE v. MSPB

ments, nor are they entitlements. . . . Individuals shall 

not automatically be granted these benefits simply because they meet eligibility requirements.”) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, 

Mr. Stone’s loss of FQA is not an 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 jurisdiction to review the Agency’s debt 

collection procedure. 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the Board’s decision dismissing Mr. Stone’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.