through the submission of the Standard Form 1190. But plaintiffs have not identified any agency-wide policy or directive that requires supervisors to request such allowances for employees who meet the State Department’s eligibility criteria. The Court agrees with the government that emails by lower level personnel expressing their understanding that the payroll office would grant all supervisory requests for danger pay that fit within the DSSR, or a letter to a Member of Congress reciting that practice, are not equivalent to formal agency rules and regulations or written directives and instructions that are binding and therefore serve as a “source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.” Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216, 103 S.Ct. 2961. Cf. Roberts, 745 F.3d at 1166-67 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION The government’s partial motion to
holding that the rights and duties of the united states on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal law and that in the absence of an applicable act of congress it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law according to their own standards holding that without personal jurisdiction over one parent a court could still decide custody of a child living in the state but could not determine support and visitation holding that department of defense directive and naval instruction implementing statute and dssr provisions governing living quarters allowances provided moneymandating source of law upon which tucker act jurisdiction could be based holding that directive not promulgated according to apa procedure lacks force and effect of law holding that even though a bond contained provisions not required by statute it must be considered statutory and not common law because the bond did not expand the payment provisions beyond those stated in statute