Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


06/15/2023

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government.  The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision. There is no right of further appeal.  This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

As indicated in this decision our findings show the appellant’s position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III. E. of the Introduction.  Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must correct the PD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD within 30 days of the date of this decision to the Office of Personnel Management, Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office. 

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Police Officer, GS-0083-08, but she believes it should be graded at the GS-11 level. She is assigned to Force Protection, Protection Management and Planning, Naval Air Station (NAS) Whiting Field Security Department, Commander Navy Installations Command (CNIC), NAS Whiting Field, U.S. Department of the Navy, in Milton, Florida. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General Issues

The record shows that the Installation Security Officer certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s standard agency PD, number NV52100, which is used CNIC-wide to describe Supervisory Police Officer (Watch Commander) positions. However, both the appellant and her immediate supervisor (NSF Operations Chief/Police Chief) state that the PD is inaccurate because it describes “nonsupervisory” duties with their assigned respective percentages which are actually fully performed within the context of her overall supervisory duties and responsbilities. A PD is the official record of the duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign work.  A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by the employee. Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal based on a review of the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by an employee.  An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD. This decision is based on the actual work currently assigned to and performed by the appellant. 

Our review disclosed that portions of the appellant’s PD are not accurate. The PD states the appellant spends twenty-five percent of her time performing nonsupervisory law enforcement duties, and personally performs anti-terrorism and physical security duties twenty percent of her time. However, we find that these duties are fully performed as part of her supervisory responsibilities while overseeing and monitoring the law enforcement activities of her subordinate police officers. These include check rides with staff performing their daily law enforcement roving activities and observing the actions of her subordinate police officers at static posts and entry points to the installation. Her responsibilities also include observing her subordinates in carrying out the full range of their assigned force protection, anti-terrorism, and sentry duties such as checking identification and credentials of installation visitors, checking sensor systems, and conducting inspections of vehicles and parcels arriving at the installation. In addition, the appellant always functions as a training supervisor when participating in Random Anti-Terrorism Measures/Physical Security exercises. 

Given the PD inaccuracies described above, the appellant’s PD does not meet the standard of adequacy described on pages 11-12 of the Introduction and the agency must revise the PD amending the narrative to indicate that all her duties noted in the preceding paragraph are performed within the context of her supervisory responsibilities and removing percentages currently identified for “nonsupervisory” work. 

Position Information

The appellant serves as a Watch Commander (i.e., shift supervisor) assigned to NAS Whiting Field and its outlying installations. NAS Whiting Field’s campus encompassing approximately 12,000 acres, including 12 outlying airfields, a recreational center, and military housing. The NAS Whiting Field Security Department holds jurisdiction over the entire Naval Air Space. The appellant oversees law enforcement, physical security, anti-terrorism, and force protection for the people and property on Whiting Field.  She works a set shift that changes after every two-week period. There are two shifts. The first is from 4:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.; and the second shift is from 4:30 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. There are two teams of law enforcement officers led by a Watch Commander on each shift. 

Each shift begins with a briefing from the prior Watch Commander on duty. The appellant learns what occurred during the preceding shift and assigns work to each law enforcement officer according to rank, experience, and the needs of the installation.  Most of the officers are sent out on patrol. There is an officer assigned to a single chase vehicle to initiate traffic stops. 

The number of officers on duty fluctuates between shifts. The minimum number of law enforcement officers that must be present on duty is 11 who are assigned to either static posts or roving patrols. This number may include a Security Guard, GS-0085-05, who is assigned to a static post rather than a roving patrol. The appellant may also have auxiliary/military members on staff, who provide law enforcement equal to that of a civilian law enforcement officer. Their duties include working with the security office two days a month to maintain their proficiency while being on active military duty.   

Along with the roving patrols being conducted on the main installation, there are mobile patrol units assigned to properties offsite. There are two officers patrolling off base at any given time. This includes local areas in Florida, as well as a property in Southwest Alabama. If a serious incident occurs outside the main installation campus, the appellant will direct additional officers to the outlying fields and properties.  However, much of the appellant’s team is always located at the main installation. 

The appellant possesses the authority to apprehend (i.e., arrest) individuals subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and as discussed in Chapter 3, Law Enforcement, section 0301e. of CNIC M 5530.1 (8 April 2020). This authority applies to military members, cadets, military retirees, and certain civilians working in combat zones. For those subject to the UCMJ, police officers have the authority to apprehend those individuals who are suspected of violating the code. Apprehension is synonymous with arrest according to the Department of the Navy. In the event a crime is committed by an individual not subject to the UCMJ, police officers have the authority to detain suspects before transferring them to the appropriate Federal, state, or local law enforcement authority (i.e., Santa Rosa County Sheriff) for charging.  

When a call for service comes in, the appellant routes the call to the appropriate officer who then proceeds to the scene of the incident. While on scene, the police officer collects information about the incident. For example, if an individual threatens to commit a crime the police officer contacts the person who initiated the emergency call.  The police officer conducts a preliminary investigation including asking questions to ascertain the identification of the alleged violator. If the violator is located, the police officer detains and questions the subject regarding their alleged activities. Another example of a typical call for police service concerns a reported theft.  The law enforcement officer responds by arriving at the scene and speaks with the victim to ascertain what was stolen and tries to identify possible suspects. If the property is located, the police officer closes the investigation and returns the stolen property to its owner. In the event a police officer detains a civilian not subject to the UCMJ, the police officer contacts the local Sheriff’s Department for charging. If a military member is apprehended, the installation police officer reads him or her their 31 Bravo Rights. Depending on the severity of the offense, the military member is released on their own recognizance, turned over to their commanding officer, or transferred to the Navy Brig in Jacksonville, Florida. 

In a medical emergency, the appellant immediately contacts local medics/ambulances to help grant them access and direct them while on the installation. The appellant also assists in the event of a fire emergency by ensuring firefighters have access to the installation.  Any outside entity contacts the appellant (Watch Commander) on her assigned shift to coordinate their activity on the installation. This includes tow truck companies, the media, and the public. All who enter or exit the installation must have contact with the Watch Commander or law enforcement officers.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and her agency including the official PD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and her first-level supervisor (NSF Operations Chief/Police Chief). We also spoke with the appellant’s third-level supervisor who is normally the Deputy Security Officer, but at the time of this appeal was serving as the Acting Installation Security Officer. 

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Police Series, GS-0083, titling it Supervisory Police Officer (Watch Commander). The appellant does not disagree, and after careful consideration we concur. We find the position fully meets the coverage requirements addressed in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG) for titling and evaluation as a “supervisor.” Assignment of a parenthetical title is at the discretion of the agency. The GS-0083 series includes one-grade interval work that involves maintaining law and order. The work involves preventing, detecting, and investigating violations of laws, rules, and regulation involving accidents, crimes, and misconduct involving misdemeanors and felonies. The GS-0083 series includes positions the primary duties of which are the performance or supervision of law enforcement work in the preservation of the peace; the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes; the arrest or apprehension of violators; and the provision of assistance to citizens in emergencies, including the protection of civil rights. 

Police officers receive required training at police academies or other training facilities in all relevant subjects involving law enforcement. In compliance with this training requirement, the appellant attended a three-month in-residence course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico. The course covered law enforcement training in such subjects as maintaining community relations; the definition and application of arrest authority; familiarity with Federal and other laws, rules, and regulations; the rights of individuals; laws of search and seizure; rules for collecting and protecting evidence; performing investigations; the use of weapons; interviewing witnesses; and other information pertinent to performing law enforcement duties. Police work in the Federal service may involve both line operations and auxiliary operations. The appellant spends all her time supervising line operations performed by her subordinate police officers including patrol work, traffic control, policing installation entries, responding to incidents requiring law enforcement assistance, conducting preliminary investigations of crimes (e.g., thefts, property damage, assault), and is also involved in overseeing anti-terrorism activities. She is an appointed Department of Defense law enforcement officer. As such, she possesses and exercises arrest authority, including the power to arrest and incarcerate individuals pending the completion of formal charges (booking) and is authorized to conduct searches and seizures. She may also testify at hearings and trials. 

Our fact-finding disclosed that the appellant spends all her time performing supervisory and related program management functions. Therefore, we have solely evaluated the grade of the position below by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG. 

Grade determination

Evaluation of Supervisory Duties using the GSSG

The GSSG is a cross-series guide used to determine the grade level of supervisory work in the General Schedule. The GSSG has six evaluation factors, each with several factor-level definitions and corresponding point values. Positions are evaluated by crediting the points designated for the highest level met under each factor and converting the total to a grade by using the point-to-grade conversion chart in the guide.

The agency credited the appellant’s supervisory work as follows:  Levels 1-2 for Factor 1 (Program Scope and Effect), 2-1 for Factor 2 (Organizational Setting), 3-2c for Factor 3 (Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised), 4A-2/4B-2 for Factor 4 (Personal Contacts), 5-3 for Factor 5 (Difficulty of Typical Work Directed), and 6-1a for Factor 6 (Other Conditions). In her appeal to OPM, the appellant disagrees with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 1, 4, 5, and 6. After careful review, we concur with the agency’s evaluation of the remaining factors and have credited the position accordingly.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factors 1, 4, 5, and 6.

Evaluation using the GSSG

Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect

This factor assesses the general complexity, breadth, and impact of the program areas and work directed, including its organizational and geographic coverage. It also assesses the impact of the work both within and outside the immediate organization.  To assign a factor level, the criteria dealing with both scope and effect, as defined below, must be met. 

      Scope

This element addresses the general complexity and breadth of the program (or program segment) directed; or the work directed, the products produced, or the services delivered. The geographic and organizational coverage of the program (or program segment) within the agency structure is included under this element.

At Level 1-2, the program segment or work directed is administrative, technical, complex clerical, or comparable in nature. The functions, activities, or services provided have limited geographic coverage and support most of the activities comprising a typical agency field office, an area office, a small to medium military installation, or comparable activities within agency program segments. 

At Level 1-3, the position directs a program segment that performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work. The program segment and work directed typically have coverage which encompasses a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States; or, when most of an area’s taxpayers or businesses are covered, coverage comparable to a small city. Providing complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multi-mission military installation also falls at this level. 

Level 1-2 is met. Like this level, the law enforcement protective services work supervised by the appellant during her shift have limited geographic coverage and are primarily confined to the boundaries of Whiting Field (including military housing) and several outlying airfields. Comparable to this level, her law enforcement activities and services provide force protection support for most of the activities comprising a medium military installation.  

Level 1-3 is not met. Unlike this level, the protective work directed by the appellant on her work shift does not encompass a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States. While the appellant contends that her work encompasses and directly affects a large or complex multi-mission military installation, services addressed under Level 1-3 in that situation are limited to the provision of complex administrative, technical, or professional services which she does not perform.   

Scope is credited at Level 1-2.

Effect

This element addresses the impact of the work, the products, and/or the programs described under “Scope” on the mission and programs of the customer(s), the activity, other activities in or out of government, the agency, other agencies, the general public, or others.

At Level 1-2, the services or products support and significantly affect installation level, area office level, or field office operations and objectives, or comparable program segments; or provide services to a moderate, local, or limited population of clients or users comparable to a major portion of a small city or rural county.

At Level 1-3, the activities, functions, or services accomplished directly and significantly impact a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, or the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry), or the general public. At the field activity level (involving large, complex, multi-mission organizations and/or very large, serviced populations), the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions.

A work illustration at Level 1-3 describes a position that directs administrative services (personnel, supply management, budget, facilities management, or similar) which support and directly affect the operations of a bureau or major command headquarters; a large or complex multi-mission military installation; an organization of similar magnitude, or group of organizations which, as a whole, are comparable.

Level 1-2 is met. Like this level, the work directed by the appellant as part of the Force Protection program significantly affects the physical and personnel security of the installation. The appellant’s work ensures the safety of those working at or visiting the installation including civilian employees, active military personnel, retired service members, and at times the general public. 

Level 1-3 is not met. Unlike this level, the activities, functions, or services accomplished by the appellant and her team do not directly and significantly impact a wide range of the Department of the Navy’s (DON) activities, the work of other agencies, the operations of outside interests, or the general public. Rather than impacting a wide range of DON’s activities, the work of the appellant and her subordinate police officers solely impacts the properties and personnel within Whiting Field. While the appellant coordinates directly with Federal, state, and local law enforcement and legal entities, the work primarily focuses on the operations and activities on Whiting Field. Although at the field activity level, the appellant’s work does not directly involve or substantially impact the provision of essential support operations to numerous varied and complex technical, administrative, and professional functions at a large, complex, multi-mission organization. Instead, it is limited to providing general law enforcement, personnel, and physical security to the installation rather than significantly impacting the ability of tenants and mission support activities to carry out their program responsibilities. In addition, the appellant’s work does not match the overall intent of work situations described in the Level 1-3 illustrations. 

Effect is credited at Level 1-2. 

Since both Scope and Effect are evaluated at Level 1-2, that level is assigned for Factor 1 and 350 points are credited.

Factor 4, Personal Contacts

This is a two-part factor which assesses the nature and the purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities. The nature of the contacts credited under Subfactor 4A and the purpose of those contacts credited under Subfactor 4B must be based on the same contacts. The agency credited Levels 4A-2 and 4B-2 under this factor.

Subfactor 4A – Nature of Contacts

This subfactor covers the organizational relationships, authority, or influence level, setting, and difficulty of preparation associated with making personal contacts involved in supervisory and managerial work. To be credited, the level of contacts must contribute to the successful performance of the work, be a recurring requirement, have a demonstrable impact on the difficulty and responsibility of the position, and require direct contact.

At Level 4A-2, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following:  (1) members of the business community or the general public; (2) high-ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units and activities throughout the field activity, installation, command (below major command level) or major organization level of the agency; (3) representatives of local public interest groups; (4) case workers in congressional district offices; (5) technical or operating level employees of State and local governments; and/or (6) reporters for local and other limited media outlets reaching a small, general population. These contacts may be informal or may occur in meetings and conferences and may require special preparation.

At Level 4A-3, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following:  (1) high-ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency, administrative support staff at agency headquarters, or comparable personnel in other Federal agencies; (2) key staff of public interest groups (usually in formal briefings) with significant political influence or media coverage; (3) journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage; (4) congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel levels; (5) contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms; (6) local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations; and/or State and local government managers doing business with the agency. These contacts take place in meetings and conferences or may be unplanned where the employee is designated as a contact point by higher management, and often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date technical familiarity with complex subject matter.

The appellant’s supervisory contacts are characteristic of Level 4A-2. Like this level, her routine contacts are with military and civilian staff, high-ranking supervisors and managers on Whiting Field, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units on base.  Comparable to level 4A-2, her contacts may be informal or may occur in meetings and may require special preparation. 

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 4A-3. Unlike this level, she does not have regular contact with high-ranking managers, supervisors, and technical staff at the bureau and major organization levels of the agency, or administrative support staff at agency headquarters or comparable personnel in other Federal agencies. She does not deal with key staff of public interest groups who have significant political influence or media coverage; journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage; congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel; or contracting officials and high-level technical staff of large industrial firms. In addition, she has no contact with local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations, and/or State and local managers doing business with the agency. In contrast to Level 4A-3, her contacts do not take place in meetings and conferences requiring extensive in-depth technical preparation and briefings.  

This subfactor is evaluated at Level 4A-2 and 50 points are credited.

Subfactor 4B – Purpose of Contacts

This subfactor covers the purpose of the contacts credited in Subfactor 4A, including the advisory, representational, negotiating, and commitment making responsibilities related to supervision and management.

At Level 4B-2, the purpose of contacts is to ensure that information provided to outside parties is accurate and consistent; to plan and coordinate the work directed with that of others outside the subordinate organization; and/or to resolve differences of opinion among managers, supervisors, employees, contractors, or others.   

At Level 4B-3, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organizational unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. Contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts fully meets Level 4B-2. Like this level, the appellant meets with contacts identified in Level 4A-2 to ensure that information furnished to outside parties is accurate and consistent and to plan and coordinate the work of her Team with that of others outside her shift. For example, she has frequent contact with internal and external law enforcement to coordinate detentions and apprehensions of military and civilian personnel. She works with Navy attorneys to establish and identify the appropriate statute, code, regulation, or policy that may be applicable in any given situation and attends court hearings to provide testimony. She coordinates with local firefighters and medics when they must enter the installation on an emergency call. In addition, the appellant has frequent contact with fellow Watch Commanders on other shifts to coordinate work assignments and resolve security issues that arise on the installation. 

Level 4B-3 is not met. This level describes three conditions that must be present to credit Level 4B-3. As a shift Watch Commander, the appellant is not placed in a position where she must justify, defend, or negotiate on behalf of her unit, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. Unlike this level, the appellant has neither responsibility nor authority to obtain or commit resources for the Team, and typically does not actively participate in conferences, meetings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance to the program. While we recognize that in performing her law enforcement duties the appellant may have to deal with unruly or threatening individuals, these are not characteristic of the types of issues reflected in Level 4B-3 which require defending, justifying, and negotiating on programmatic issues concerning obtaining or committing program resources and gaining compliance with governing policies and regulations. 

This subfactor is evaluated at Level 4B-2 and 75 points are credited.

Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed, as well as other line, staff, or contracted work for which the supervisor has technical or oversight responsibility.

To evaluate first-level supervisory positions like the appellant’s, the GSSG instructs determining the highest grade which: (1) best characterizes the nature of the basic (mission oriented) nonsupervisory work performed or overseen by the organization directed; and (2) constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload (not positions or employees) of the organization. The following types of work are specifically excluded from this workload calculation: (1) work graded based on supervisory or leader duties; (2) work for which the supervisor does not have the minimum supervisory and managerial authorities defined under Factor 3; (3) lower-level support work primarily facilitating the basic work of the unit; (4) work that is graded based on an extraordinary degree of independence from supervision or personal research accomplishments. 

The appellant directly supervises a minimum of 11 law enforcement officers on her shift. These include (depending on current vacancies) 5 to 8 Police Officers, GS-0083-06; 3 or occasionally 4 active-duty military police officers (Master-at-Arms) equivalent to GS-06 who are generally assigned on a rotational basis for 18 months; and 1 Security Guard, GS-0085-05. While the appellant mentioned 2 Master-at-Arms equivalent to GS-07, the Acting Installation Security Officer indicated these billets are no longer assigned to the NAS Whiting Field Security Department. Based on review of the appellant’s subordinate civilian Police Officer PDs, and discussion with the appellant and her supervisor on the duties of the military Master-at-Arms and crediting only the percentage of time spent performing non-supervisory and non-leader duties on the shift, we find that GS-06 constitutes 25 percent or more of the basic mission-oriented workload of the appellant’s organization. Therefore, the base level determined under Factor 5 is GS-06. 

Factor 5 is credited at Level 5-3 and 340 points are credited.

Factor 6, Other Conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities. If the level selected under this factor is 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, and if three or more of the eight Special Situations described are met, the original level selected is increased by one level. If the level selected is 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations do not apply and the original level selected is credited. The agency assigned Level 6-1, but the appellant believes her position warrants assignment of Level 6-2. In addition, she states her position meets several Special Situations so the final level assigned should be Level 6-3. 

At Level 6-1a, the work supervised or overseen involves clerical, technician, or other work comparable in difficulty to the GS-06 level, or lower. This could vary from basic supervision over a stable workforce performing work operations that are routine, to a level of supervision which requires coordination within the unit to ensure that timeliness, form, procedure, accuracy, quality, and quantity standards are met in individual cases. 

At Level 6-2a, the work supervised or overseen involves technician and/or support work comparable in difficulty to GS-07 or GS-08, or work at the GS-04, 05 or 06 level where the supervisor has full and final technical authority over the work, which requires coordination and integration of work efforts, either within the unit or with other units, in order to produce a completed work product or service. (Full and final technical authority means that the supervisor is responsible for all technical determinations arising from the work, without technical advice or assistance on even the more difficult and unusual problems, and without further review except from an administrative or program evaluation standpoint.  Credit for this should be limited to situations involving an extraordinary degree of finality in technical decision making.)

  OR

At Level 6-2b, the position directs subordinate supervisors of work comparable to GS-06 or lower, where coordinating the work of the subordinate units requires a continuing effort to assure quality and service standards, limited to matters of timeliness, form, procedure, accuracy, and quantity.

The appellant’s position meets Level 6-1a. Like this level, as established in Factor 5, the base level of the work overseen is at the GS-06 grade level. The appellant supervises a stable workforce performing routine law enforcement and physical security operations also requiring coordination within the unit to ensure that timelines, procedural requirements, accuracy, and quality standards are met by her subordinate staff. 

The appellant’s position does not meet either Level 6-2a. or b. Unlike Level 6-2a, while her supervisory position has a base level of GS-06, she does not exercise full and final technical authority over all the work as defined under this level. Our fact-finding disclosed that to resolve complex legal or regulatory issues the appellant regularly consults with legal staff of the Judge Advocate General office and/or the NSF Operations Chief or Deputy Security Director to seek, for example, guidance on the legality of conducting a search of military housing to locate unauthorized firearms, interpretation on the Federal rules of evidence, legal requirements supporting search and seizure, changes and updates to the UCMJ, and proper law enforcement procedures for dealing with foreign national military personnel temporarily assigned for aircraft training at NAS Whiting Field. In contrast to Level 6-2b, the appellant does not have any subordinate supervisors. 

As previously discussed, if a position meets Level 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, the Special Situations addressed in the GSSG must be considered for possibly awarding an additional level over the original one assigned. Therefore, we have compared the appellant’s position to the eight Special Situations below. 

Special Situations

1. Variety of Work: Credit this situation when more than one kind of work, each kind representing a requirement for a distinctly different additional body of knowledge on the part of the supervisor, is present in the work of the unit. A "kind of work" usually will be the equivalent of a classification series. Each "kind of work" requires substantially full qualification in distinctly separate areas, or full knowledge and understanding of rules, regulations, procedures, and subject matter of a distinctly separate area of work. Additionally, to credit "Variety" (1) both technical and administrative responsibility must be exercised over the work, and (2) the grade level of the work cannot be more than one grade below the base level of work used in Factor 5.

Situation 1 “Variety of Work” is not credited.  Unlike this situation, the appellant is not responsible for directing more than one kind of work. She exercises technical and administrative responsibility over subordinate staff performing work not requiring substantially full qualifications in distinctly separate areas. We note the only work supervised is classified in the closely related and overlapping areas of the Police Officer Series, GS-0083, and Security Guard Series, GS-0085.

2. Shift Operations: Credit this situation when the position supervises an operation carried out on at least two fully staffed shifts.

Situation 2 “Shift Operations” is not credited.  Unlike this situation, the appellant is responsible for directing the work of subordinate staff on only one shift.

3. Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines: Credit this situation when the workforce supervised by the position has large fluctuations in size (e.g., when there are significant seasonal variations in staff) and these fluctuations impose on the supervisor a substantially greater responsibility for training, adjusting assignments, or maintaining a smooth flow of work while absorbing and releasing employees. Credit Constantly Changing Deadlines when frequent, abrupt, and unexpected changes in work assignments, goals, and deadlines require the supervisor constantly to adjust operations under the pressure of continuously changing and unpredictable conditions

Situation 3 “Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines” is not credited. Unlike this situation, the appellant’s unit does not experience large fluctuations in size and is regularly staffed with up to 11 law enforcement personnel during the appellant’s shift. Constantly Changing Deadlines is also not credited. While it is the nature of law enforcement duties to sometimes react to unanticipated situations occasionally requiring shifting employee assignments to accommodate the event, usually work assignments for the appellant’s shift are made at the beginning of the shift (e.g., static posts and rotating patrol) and normally do not significantly change during the shift. Most situations can usually be handled by the assigned officer with supplemental instructions provided by the appellant, as needed. The appellant is not regularly placed in unexpected situations where she must constantly adjust operations and assignments during her shift under the pressure of continuously changing and unpredictable conditions. Regarding administrative deadlines (e.g., deadlines for case incident reports or court appearances), the appellant is normally aware of them in advance and able to anticipate and accommodate them.

4. Physical Dispersion: Credit this situation when a substantial portion of the workload for which the supervisor is responsible is regularly carried out at one or more locations which are physically removed from the main unit (as in different buildings, or widely dispersed locations in a large warehouse or factory building), under conditions which make day-to-day supervision difficult to administer.

Situation 4 “Physical Dispersion” is not credited. Whiting Field has facilities and properties located in both Florida and Southwest Alabama. The property in Alabama is an hour and a half away, while the locations in Florida are within a ten-to-fifteen-minute drive from the main installation.  The appellant has two officers that patrol the properties outside the main installation. There is one officer scheduled to patrol the Alabama property, however, this patrol appears to be infrequent and not performed daily.  Both officers performing these roving patrols are regularly in contact via radio with the appellant thus daily supervision is readily available. Therefore, a substantial portion of the workload for which the appellant is responsible is not regularly carried out at one or more locations which is physically removed from the main unit under conditions which make day-to-day supervision difficult to administer. 

5. Special Staffing Situations: Credit this situation when: (1) a substantial portion of the work force is regularly involved in special employment programs; or in similar situations which require involvement with employee representatives to resolve difficult or complex human resources management issues and problems; (2) requirements for counseling and motivational activities are regular and recurring; and (3) job assignments, work tasks, working conditions, and/or training must be tailored to fit the special circumstances.

Situation 5 “Special Staffing Situations” is not credited. Unlike this situation, the work directed does not include the special staffing situations listed in this situation. 

6. Impact of Specialized Programs: Credit this situation when supervisors are responsible for a significant technical or administrative workload in grades above the level of work credited in Factor 5, provided the grades of this work are not based upon independence of action, freedom from supervision, or personal impact on the job.

Situation 6 “Impact of Specialized Programs” is not credited. Unlike this situation, the appellant is not responsible for a significant technical or administrative workload in grades above the GS-06 base level of work credited in Factor 5.   

7. Changing Technology: Credit this situation when work processes and procedures vary constantly because of the impact of changing technology, creating a requirement for extensive training and guidance of the subordinate staff.

Situation 7 “Changing Technology” is not credited. Although there are regular innovations in the field of law enforcement, the security programs and related procedures are not impacted to a significant degree by changes in technology thus there is no requirement for extensive staff training to accommodate such changes. 

8. Special Hazard and Safety Conditions: Credit this situation when the supervisory position is regularly made more difficult by the need to make provision for significant unsafe or hazardous conditions occurring during performance of the work of the organization.

Situation 8 “Special Hazard and Safety Conditions” is credited. The work directed by the appellant can involve significant unsafe or hazardous conditions involving unruly and/or unstable individuals, potentially dangerous circumstances as the result of enforcing law and order on the installation, as well as the handling of dangerous and lethal equipment and weapons. The appellant’s work is made more difficult by the need to make provision for these unsafe or hazardous conditions that can occur during the performance of the law enforcement work at the installation. She is responsible for the safety of her subordinate employees including making sure their equipment is serviceable.

The appellant’s position is credited with one of the eight Special Situations, i.e., Situation 8. However, the guide requires positions to meet three or more of the eight Special Situations to receive a single level increase for Factor 6. Therefore, no additional level is added to the level initially assigned. 

Summary Table 

Grade Determination

Factor	Level	Points
1.      Program Scope and Effect	1-2	350
2.      Organizational Setting	2-1	100
3.      Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised	3-2	450
4.      Personal Contacts
A.     Nature of Contacts	4A-2	50
B.     Purpose of Contacts	4B-2	75
5. Difficulty of Work Directed	5-3	340
6. Other Conditions	6-1a	310
Total Points		1,675

 

The total of 1,675 points falls within the GS-08 range (1605-1850) on the grade conversion chart in the GSSG.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Supervisory Police Officer, GS-0083-08. 

Back to Top