An employee serving in a foreign area may be granted a danger pay allowance on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions which threaten physical harm or imminent danger to the health or well-being of the employee. A danger pay allowance may not exceed 35 percent of the basic pay of the employee, except that if an employee is granted an additional differential under section 5925(b) of this title with respect to an assignment, the sum of that additional differential and any danger pay allowance granted to the employee with respect to that assignment may not exceed 35 percent of the basic pay of the employee. The presence of nonessential personnel or dependents shall not preclude payment of an allowance under this section. In each instance where an allowance under this section is initiated or terminated, the Secretary of State shall inform the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate of the action taken and the circumstances justifying it.
Notes of Decisions
Acevedo v. United States, 824 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 5× “(“Appellants”) allege that the United States violated 5 U.S.C. § 5928 by refusing to provide them with danger pay allowances.”
Acevedo v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 57 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
· cites it 7× “§ 1491 ; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(b)(1); 5 U.S.C. § 5928 ; Danger Pay; 5 U.S.C. § 5922 .”
Striplin v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 493 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 3× “§ 5925 (post differential pay) 4 and 5 U.S.C. § 5928 (danger pay) 5 to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.”
King v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 476 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“at 1369 (emphasis in original). In addition, the Federal Circuit found that the Department of State Standardized Regulations (“DSSR”) is not money-mandating, at least with respect to danger pay, because the DSSR contemplates further regulations issued by agency heads.”
Reyes Colon v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 655 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“Contrastingly, shortly after the decision in Roberts , the Federal Circuit determined that this court lacked jurisdiction over a claim for danger pay allowances brought under the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5928 , because there were no implementing instructions or orders that *661 could be…”
Acevedo v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2015).
· cites it 7× “§ 1491 ; * Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Plaintiffs, * RCFC 12(b)(1); 5 U.S.C. § 5928 ; * Danger Pay; 5 U.S.C. § 5922 .”
Soliman v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“In his response and opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff alleges for the first time that he is entitled to recover back pay from the government for the period December 3, 2009 to lune 13, 2010, pursuant to the Back Pay Act Pl. Resp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.