Unequal Pay for Equal Work

For prospective employees of the Department of Defense (DoD) who are married to a service member, the DoD offers a Priority Placement Program (PPP) – Military Spouse Preference (MSP). The stated purpose of the program is:

“[…] to provide career opportunities for spouses of active duty military members who relocate to accompany their sponsor on a PCS move.”

If correctly applied, the spouse is eligible to apply to positions solely on the basis of being a military spouse or under other eligibility (e.g. overseas family member) and have the preference applied if they are amongst the best qualified. Within DoD, the Priority Placement Handbook is the guiding implementation document, which dictates all competitive announcements include MSP applicants and best qualified military spouses block the selection of other competitive candidates except in a very few circumstances (e.g. displacing a current employee). (MSP applicants do not block others with noncompetitive eligibility; we won’t delve into this further here.) Spouses may exercise their PPP-MSP up to 30 calendar days prior to the military sponsor’s reporting date to the new duty station or upon relocation anytime thereafter during the sponsor’s tour, up to 6 months before their tour rotation date.

Sounds wonderful, right? Anyone who is remotely familiar with federal government hiring knows the recruitment process is slow, so the only downside of which most individuals are aware is the limitation on applying the PPP-MSP within 30 days of the military member’s report date. The real downside of PPP-MSP is DoD’s self-imposed limitations when applied to positions overseas.

Within the DoD, when using one’s status as a military spouse to apply for positions overseas, home leave, increased leave carryover, and Living Quarters Allowance (LQA) are not granted because they are considered "incentives." That can mean a significant difference in pay between a military spouse and the civilian employee sitting next to them, even if they were already a federal employee.

Would you do the same job as the person sitting next to you for fewer benefits and less pay? Many military spouses are forced to at the risk of not working at all.

The question I’ve asked many a military spouse and several Department of the Navy Human Resources professionals is “why?” It isn’t a simple answer, so most often the response has been “because that is the policy,” but no one has been able to cite the policy to me as yet. Let’s dig into the policy further.

Home Leave:

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1400.25, Vol. 1260 dated 19 March 2015 governs the granting of home leave, which is earned in addition to annual leave to allow the individual to travel to the United States or its territories and possessions. It is codified in 5 C.F.R. §630.601-630.607. §630.606 Grant of home leave defines the entitlement for home leave as:

Except as otherwise authorized by statute, an employee is entitled to home leave only when he has completed a basic service period of 24 months of continuous service abroad.

Nothing in the DoDI or the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) precludes it from being granted to federally employed military spouses.

Leave Carryover

Increased annual leave carryover from 30 days (240 hours) to 45 days (360 hours) is governed by 5 U.S.C. §6304 and applies to federal employees overseas. There are several means by which to qualify for the increase, but paragraph (b) (1) appears to apply to military spouses being recruited from the U.S. and Guam (or other territories or possessions -- as we don’t have military bases there, I have not specified them):

(1) Individuals directly recruited or transferred by the Government of the United States from the United States or its territories or possessions including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for employment outside the area of recruitment or from which transferred.

An argument could be made military spouses might also be eligible under paragraph (b) (2), which states:

(2) Individuals employed locally but— […]

(B)(i) who were at the time of employment temporarily absent, for the purpose of travel or formal study, from the United States, or from their respective places of residence in its territories or possessions including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and

(ii) who, during the temporary absence, have maintained residence in the United States or its territories or possessions including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico but outside the area of employment.

A central tenet of the Military Spouse Residency Relief Act and the Service Members Civil Relief Act is military orders do not change your place of legal residence. Therefore, it could be argued a military spouse has maintained their residence within the U.S. or its possessions and territories and is temporarily absent for the purpose of travel. I’ll leave it to the sea lawyers to debate the definition of “temporarily absent” and “travel.”

Once again, I am left pondering what policy states military spouses are not entitled to carryover 360 hours of leave.

Context

Because the next incentive will be a weighty one, I want to draw attention to the fact 90% of military spouses are female, and while I don’t typically like to wade into what could be considered “political issues” when discussing military spouse employment, it is important to note these policies further inequities which already exist in compensation structures. According to a recent study from the Pew Research Center, in 2022 women averaged 82% of what men were paid. Compound that with the 21% unemployment rate the DoD reported in their latest survey of military spouses (2021) [caveat: the survey size was 21% of those selected to participate or 11,764 respondents]. Further, the Department of Labor reports the military spouse underemployment rate as 31.6% (date unknown).

Living Quarters Allowance

Civilians overseas do not receive locality pay but instead receive LQA [caveat: unless on a Domestic Employees Teleworking Overseas agreement in accordance with the FY23 NDAA; more information can be found on the Office of Personnel Management's website here]. Military members living overseas receive a similar housing stipend called an Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA). A primary tenet of each is you use it or lose it, unlike locality pay and Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) stateside in which the individual keeps any difference between the pay and their actual housing cost.

The Department of State’s Standardized Regulations (DSSR) govern LQA. DSSR 130, dated 10 Jul 2016 is the Living Quarters Allowance chapter; DSSR 134 Determination of Rate further governs and states:

Except as otherwise prescribed in Sections 134, 136 and 137, an employee shall receive an allowance for allowable quarters costs for items listed in Sections 131.2 and 131.3 or the maximum rate for the post (Section 040h) indicated in Sections 920 and 135, whichever is less, unless the rate is revised by administrative action in accordance with Sections 134.2, 136 and 137.

Paragraph 134.13 Married Couples or Domestic Partnership Rates provides the meat of the DSSR policy on the topic:

"The following rates of quarters allowances may be granted to married couple employees or domestic partnership employees residing together:"

Paragraph c. specifically addresses a military service member-civilian relationship, which states:

c. an employee eligible for a quarters allowance who is married to or in a domestic partnership with, and residing at the post with, a member of the military service of the United States may be granted the "without family" rate if the spouse or domestic partner in the military service draws a quarters allowance. If the spouse or domestic partner in the military draws no quarters allowance, the employee may be granted the "with family" rate plus increments for additional members of the family, except that no payment shall be made to the spouse or domestic partner of a member of the military service if the employee resides with the member of the military service in Government-owned or -leased quarters. [emphasis added]

While the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) website used to have a dual LQA-OHA FAQ, a recent overhaul of the website seems to have scrubbed the answer. For those adept at using archived websites, here is the link: https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/faqdual.cfm. It stated:

Civilian Employee Married to Service Member, Both Transferred to the Same PDS

21. How is the Living Quarters Allowance (LQA) and Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) affected?

Married couple LQA rates under special circumstances are in DSSR Section 134.13. A Civilian employee eligible for LQA, who is married to and residing with a Service member, may be granted the 'without family' rate if the Service member spouse is authorized OHA. If the Service member spouse is not authorized OHA the employee may be paid the 'with family' rate plus increments for additional members of the family. LQA is not authorized if the employee resides with the Service member in Government owned or Government leased quarters. LQA is applicable for foreign locations only.

This is a basic re-stating of the DSSR above, but its inclusion in the JTR seemed to endorse its applicability to federally employed military spouses.

As a frequent user of the DoD Financial Management Regulations (FMR) in my day job, I turned to Volume 7A, chapter 26 “Housing Allowances” dated August 2021 for the financial policy. Paragraph 6.8, OHA and Living Quarters Allowance (LQA) (DSSR § 130) Paid Concurrently provides the following:

A Service member is entitled to OHA at the with-dependent rate even if the Service member’s dependent spouse receives a LQA. Direct questions pertaining to LQA to the spouse’s Civilian Personnel Office (CPO) or Civilian Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC). Volume 7A has no authority to determine or control eligibility or entitlement of LQA for a civilian employee. See DSSR § 130, and the DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1400.25, Vol. 1250, Civilian Employee Overseas Allowances and Differentials. [sic]

This time we are referred to the DoDI 1400.25, Vol. 1250 "Overseas Allowances and Differentials" dated 23 February 2012. It does not provide additional guidance above the DSSR that would prohibit federally employed military spouses from receiving LQA.

“The Policy?”

The answer we seek with regard to all of the above questions may come down to DoDI 1400.25, Vol. 1250 paragraphs 4. c. and d., which state:

c. Overseas Allowances and Differentials. Overseas allowances and differentials are not automatic salary supplements, nor are they entitlements. They are specifically intended to be recruitment incentives for U.S. citizen civilian employees living in the United States to accept Federal employment in a foreign area. If a person is already living in the foreign area, that inducement is normally unnecessary. Individuals shall not automatically be granted these benefits simply because they meet eligibility requirements.

d. Recruitment Need. Individuals authorized to grant overseas allowances and differentials shall consider the recruitment need, along with the expense the DoD Component will incur, prior to approval.

I include for reference DoDI 1400.25, Vol. 1232, "Employment of Family Members in Foreign Areas" dated 5 January 2012. The policy notes family member preference is applied: “[… in] addition to, but separate from, the preference that military spouses may be entitled to under Volume 315 of this Instruction.”

While it does seem to be the source of some policies related to Schedule A appointments and restrictions on family members residing in an overseas location after the family/service member has left, which are often applied to military spouses, no additional guidance on pay or incentives are included or referenced in this volume.

Inequitable Housing Allowances

I initially discovered the inequality of overseas compensation for federally employed military spouses when we received orders from Bremerton, Washington, to Yokosuka, Japan, at about the same time as friends who were DoD civilians. I was struck at the difference between their LQA and my spouses’ OHA. DSSR 130 provides a living quarters chart grouping GS grades into groups. A GS-12 is categorized as a Quarters Group 3, encompassing GS grades 10-13.

For comparison:

• 31 December 2023, Yokosuka, Japan, Annual Living Quarters Allowance In U.S. Dollars | Group 3 LQA is $42,000 per year with family or $40,000 per year without family – or approximately $3,500 and $3,333 per month, respectively.
• 1 January 2024, Yokosuka, Japan, Overseas Housing Allowance | For an O-4 with dependents, the monthly OHA Rental Allowance is 250,000 Japanese Yen or approximately $1,831.84. In addition, a monthly utility and maintenance allowance of 82,939 Japanese Yen or approximately $607.72 is provided.

Just comparing the housing allowances highlights a large discrepancy (albeit, using Yokosuka, Japan, as an example; other locations may have no difference or the opposite effect). The difference between an O-4 with dependents’ OHA and a GS-12 LQA – using the more conservative LQA Without Family rate – is $1,893.77 per month. Most military would see these ranks and grades as roughly equivalent in a military-civilian hierarchy, so the difference in allowances is stark.

Within the U.S., federal employees receive a locality pay based on location. Using the 2024 Seattle Locality rate of 30.81%, a GS-12’s locality pay accounts for $22,935 per year over the base GS salary of $74,441 – or $1,911.25 a month. Civilian employees overseas are not paid a locality, and as we’ve seen, LQA is not automatically granted. Therefore, a military spouse doing the same work as a DoD civilian next to them could be compensated a third less.

Maybe it is just the reality of living overseas, though? Maybe this is a budgeting tactic universal across the DoD? Maybe the system is purposefully built this way? Perhaps it is, but there is a class of individuals who would mutiny if DoD were to cut their compensation in this manner: dual military.

Per the Defense Travel Management Office FAQs:

If two BAH-eligible Service members are married with children, will each member receive the BAH ‘With Dependent’ rate or the ‘Without Dependent’ rate? “One member in the marriage will receive the ‘with dependent’ rate and the other will receive the ‘without dependent’ rate. The rules governing allocation of dependents for BAH are specified in the DoD FMR, Volume 7A, par. 2604. The rules reflect the law and the policy of the Services.”

It references the aforementioned Volume 7A, Chapter 26, but specifically paragraph 4.0 SERVICE MEMBER MARRIED TO ANOTHER SERVICE MEMBER (2604) which does not elucidate further. Additional information specific to OHA can be located in paragraph 6.0 OVERSEAS HOUSING ALLOWANCE (OHA) (2606), but again, it doesn’t expand further.

So why does DoD pay dual military couples dual OHA and not military-civilian couples OHA and LQA? To reiterate, these are use or lose allowances, so the military-civilian couple is not likely to live any higher on the hog than a dual-military couple; but having the added benefit of increased housing allowances allows a dual-professional couple added flexibility in finding housing overseas (for many, it is the golden rule of real estate: location, location, location).

Why?

As we’ve seen in reviewing the above policies, there does not seem to be a reason federally employed military spouses are not provided compensation equal to their peers, whether it be housing allowances or other flexibilities such as home leave and increased leave carryover. I can’t point to a reason or a justification other than the general lack of “recruitment need” per DoDI 1400.25, Vol. 1250. Perhaps the individual services have more explicit policies and justifications… if you know of any, please share.

Recruitment is an interesting subject in the government these days. Whether it is recruitment to federal employment or to the military services, both are struggling. Last year military brass asked veterans themselves to extoll the virtues of military service in a Wall Street Journal op-ed “Uncle Sam Wants You for a Military Job That Matters”: “To our veterans, we ask that you tell your stories of service to the greatest nation in the world.”

According to another recent Journal article “The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Families to Join”, nearly 80% of Army recruits today have a family member who served. That is a problem because, according to Admiral Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: “Influencers are not telling them to go into the military […]. Moms and dads, uncles, coaches and pastors don’t see it as a good choice.”

The same could likely be said for military spouses. What would families with working spouses say about the impact of military service on their financial health and long-term earnings? How many military spouses today would encourage young men and women to marry into the military? Ellyn Dunford, who successfully retained her career in spite of her husband’s – former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford – recently said: “Who will we lose if we can’t find flexible, professional employment for our spouses?”

An often under-appreciated aspect of the military spouse and the military family is their willingness to serve alongside the service member. As Ms. Dunford acknowledges, “If I had said I was done with […] disruptions to my career […], Joe might have decided to leave the service.” Instead of taking advantage of the captive audience that are military spouses stationed overseas and treating them as second-class employees, we should recognize the federal workforce benefits from a population that is more educated than their peers. The 2021 Survey of Active Duty Spouses, the most recent survey available, found 84% had some college education. The Office of Personnel Management’s 2017 Common Characteristics of the Government, the most recent report available, found only 71.83% of federal employees had some college education.

If we want to consider “recruitment need” in awarding these “incentives” we need to look at the holistic retention and recruitment of military families. Otherwise, all the recruitment bonuses we throw at service members won’t offset the long-term financial impacts military families face when surviving on a single income in a dual-income economy – let alone personal accomplishment and satisfaction, mental health, and other positive aspects of military spouse employment.

Caveat: I began this discussion picking on the DoD’s PPP-MSP, but I can’t necessarily fault PPP for the above. However, the policies seem to go hand-in-hand and those that skirt them do so by competing for positions not as military spouses but as current federal employees.

I wish there were a single policy to fault for the inequitable treatment of military spouses in federal employment overseas. In many ways that would be easier. Instead, my perception is there is a general sense military spouses are being done a favor in providing them preference for working overseas instead of recognizing we’re stranding them there in the first place, potentially negatively impacting their career progression.