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


02/09/2023

---

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).

Introduction

The appellants’ position is currently classified as Security Guard, GS-0085-05, assigned to the Provost Marshal Office (PMO), Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC), U.S. Defense Health Agency, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), in Honolulu, Hawaii.  The eighteen appellants are Anthony D. Abellira, Eugene O. Adduro, Alexis G. Antinero, Eric K. Apaka (designated representative), William E. Barnes, Antonio R. Bello, Gilbert B. Cardenas, Anson O. Casem, Nicole K. Chang, Winston S. Damo, Richard Gonsales, Jarred K. Hamao, Jeremy L. Inferrera, Jarrett M. Kaupiko, Dustin B. Konishi, Adrian M. Peay, Patrick L. Rodrigues, and Billy Joe P. Velles.  When this appeal was originally submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) by the appellants’ designated representative there were twenty-two appellants.  However, some moved into other positions and one retired.  The appellants believe their duties and responsibilities warrant reclassification to Police Officer, GS-0083-06[1].  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellants make various statements about the classification review process conducted by their agency and claim they continue to perform law enforcement work as Security Guards.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of their position.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Therefore, we have considered the appellants’ statements only insofar as they are relevant to making that comparison.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellants’ agency in classifying their position are not germane to the classification appeal process.

The appellants believe certain aspects of their standard position description (PD) of record (number EWMC500243) is inaccurate.  However, the record shows the appellants’ second-level supervisor stated the PD is accurate.  A PD is the official record of the major 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 on the basis of the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee.  An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD.  This decision is based on the work currently assigned and performed by the appellants.

Our review disclosed the appellants’ PD is accurate.  The appellants stated they are unaware of any Federal certification they need to maintain to perform their duties, as stated in their PD.  However, their second-level supervisor confirmed the certification is the command-level Security Guard training to be completed by new Security Guard hires with no prior training certification.  The PD includes duties the appellants assert they do not perform but the record shows they do perform those duties.  For example, the appellants do participate in Random Anti-Terrorism Measures (RAM) and access control checks, as needed.  They may be directed to perform identification checks of those entering the TAMC Main Gate when not enough Fort Shafter personnel are available.  During foot patrols, they ensure exterior building doors are locked and/or check the identification of those accessing mission essential or vulnerable areas (MEVA) and high-risk targets (HRT) (e.g., drug and medical supply storage areas). 

In reaching our classification decision, we carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellants and their agency including the major duties described in their official PD which we find sufficient for purposes of classification and have incorporated it by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellants’ designated spokesperson and their second-level supervisor.  We did not interview the appellants’ immediate supervisor because he retired between December 2021 and January 2022.

Position information

The appellants serve as Security Guards assigned to the PMO.  The majority of them are stationed at TAMC’s campus encompassing 374 acres, approximately half of which falls within their area of jurisdiction.  The appellants provide security support to numerous facilities including TAMC, a warehouse, drug lab, Human Resources Division Building, Education Center, Facility Management Division Building, Acute Care Clinic (DoD ACC), and the Regional Headquarters for the Regional Health Command, Pacific.  Support is also provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) E Wing Building (part of TAMC) and the Center for Aging on TAMC and the Ambulatory Care Center (VA ACC) and its parking garage adjacent to the TAMC campus.  They work a set shift of five days per week on either first shift of 12:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M., second shift of 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., or third shift of 4:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M., including weekends and holidays.  The two off days vary throughout the week among the appellants.

On the TAMC campus, each shift begins with a briefing from the shift leader regarding items to bring to the appellants’ attention.  Topics may include dissemination of a picture of an individual who needs to be denied access to the campus, changes to unauthorized parking or parking zone locations, where to set up traffic pattern shifts to divert traffic, and the need for increased patrols when there are increases in the number of larcenies.  Additionally, the appellants conduct individual two-hour rotating patrols, which include ensuring exterior building doors are locked in the patrol area, monitoring one of the closed-circuit televisions, and responding to questions asked by those entering the VA ACC when stationed at the entrance desk.  They participate in access control checks by checking the identification of those entering a particular building, as needed.  When patrolling parking lots or garages, the appellants ensure parking violations do not occur and provide assistance to drivers locked out of their vehicles, as requested.  They participate in traffic control by ensuring vehicle traffic does not back-up.  If two visitors are seen arguing, the appellants separate them and speak calmly to each of them to understand what occurred and, hopefully de-escalate the situation.  The appellants explain their behavior is not acceptable and they need to remain calm or leave the campus.  The appellants provide a security presence by walking or driving throughout the area of jurisdiction and speaking to visitors and employees to determine if there are any problems.

The appellants are dispatched to respond to calls received requesting assistance.  For example, the appellants are sent to the TAMC Emergency Department (ED) to perform a patient watch, as needed.  This involves watching a patient deemed suicidal or violent until a physician can assess the patient.  They also perform a contraband search when a patient is suspected of possessing illegal or prohibited items.  This involves asking the patient to empty his/her pockets and patting down the pockets of a male patient or using a wand to check the pockets of a female patient.  If a patient becomes violent, the appellants speak calmly to the patient to understand what occurred and, hopefully de-escalate the situation.  The appellants explain his/her behavior is not acceptable and they need to remain calm so hospital staff can assist the patient.  When such things as a vehicle accident occurs, Government or personal objects are missing, or military members/civilian employees are fighting, the appellants are sent to the site to conduct an initial investigation and determine if a crime took place.  This is done by interviewing witnesses and taking their statements and preserving the crime scene by cornering off the area.  Depending on what crime took place and who was involved, determines who the appellants contact to pick up the suspects and take over the case.  For example, Army Criminal Investigative Division (CID) is called when serious crimes or felonies are committed (e.g., acts of violence and high value objects stolen).  Fort Shafter military/civilian police is called for violations of the uniformed code of military justice (UCMJ) or Honolulu statutes (e.g., an assault by a military member against another military member or civilian).  The Honolulu Police Department (PD) is called when crimes involve non-military affiliated civilians (e.g., property of a civilian is taken and an assault by a civilian against another civilian).

Appellants dispatched to respond to calls write up a synopsis of what occurred in a Word document and submit it to the shift leader for inclusion in that day’s blotter report.  On a daily basis, the appellants submit hand-written patrol reports to the shift leader for review and they document their patrol locations and what occurred during the shift (e.g., provided assistance to another patrol and stationed at the VA ACC and ED).  These reports are forwarded to the administrative office for retention.

Four of the appellants are stationed outside the TAMC campus.  Two are stationed at the Desmond T. Doss Health Clinic (DDHC), a free-standing ambulatory care facility providing medical support to active-duty military, military dependents, and military retirees from certain organizations in Schofield Barracks.  Two are stationed at the Warrior Ohana Medical Home (WOMH), a full-service family medicine/primary care clinic providing medical support to military dependents, military retirees, and activated Army reserve and guard members on a case-by-case basis.  The appellants working at these clinics work a set second shift of 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Monday through Friday.  They provide security support to the interior and surroundings of their area of jurisdiction duty stations, which the appellants patrol throughout their shift.  These appellants perform many of the same duties as described above.  For example, they are dispatched to respond to calls received requesting assistance (e.g., vehicle lock outs or jump starts, and staff office lock outs, fighting/arguing between civilians or military members).  When the appellants are sent to conduct an initial investigation, they determine if a crime took place.  This is done by interviewing witnesses and taking their statements and preserving the crime scene by cornering off the area.  Depending on what crime took place and who was involved, they determine who to contact to pick up the suspects and take over the case (e.g., Army CID, Fort Shafter military/civilian police, and the Honolulu PD).  The appellants provide a security presence by walking or driving throughout the area of jurisdiction and speaking to visitors and employees to determine if there are any problems.  They participate in traffic control by ensuring vehicle traffic does not back-up.  Additionally, the appellants ensure the duty station’s exterior doors are locked, monitor the closed-circuit television at each duty station, and respond to questions asked by those entering the duty station when posted at the entrance desk.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellants’ position in the Security Guard Series, GS-0085, titling it Security Guard, and grading it at the GS-05 level by application of the Grade Evaluation Guide (GEG) for Police and Security Guard Positions in Series, GS-0083, GS-0085.  The appellants disagree with the agency’s title, series, and grade determination believing their work warrants reclassification to the Police Series, GS-0083, and grading at the GS-06 level by application of the section of the GEG addressing Police Officer positions. 

As defined in the GS-0083 GEG, the Police Series, GS-0083, 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.  The purpose of police work is to assure compliance with Federal, State, county, and municipal laws and ordinances, and agency rules and regulations pertaining to law enforcement work.  Federal police officers receive training in police academies or other training facilities in subjects involving 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; the use of weapons; protecting evidence; 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.  Line operations typically include such activities as patrol work, traffic control, canine operations, vice control, work with juveniles, and detective operations.  Auxiliary operations performed by officers include such activities, and other miscellaneous duties that support and enhance line operations.  Trained officers might perform in any of the line or auxiliary operations in full-time or part-time assignments.  Some officers receive additional training covering specialized techniques for crowd and riot control; detection and response to attempts at espionage and sabotage; specialized weapons; bombs and incendiary materials; and special measures pertinent to the specific installation or facility.  The GS-0083 series is a one-grade interval series.

Positions in the Police Series, GS-0083, are commissioned, deputized, appointed, or otherwise designated as agency and/or local law enforcement officers by statute, delegation, or deputation by local governments, or other official act.  Police officers possess and exercise arrest and apprehension authority including the power to formally detain and incarcerate individuals pending the completion of formal charges (booking); request and serve warrants for search, seizure, and arrest; testify at hearings to establish and collect collateral (bond); and/or participate in trials to determine innocence or guilt.  Officers assigned to detective work, full-time or part-time, conduct investigations of crimes and maintain surveillance over areas with high rates of crime.  Investigations involve searching crime scenes for clues, interviewing witnesses, following leads, analyzing and evaluating evidence, locating suspects, and making arrests.

As defined in the GEG, the Security Guard Series, GS-0085, includes positions the primary duties of which are the performance or supervision of protective services work in guarding Federally owned or leased buildings and property; protecting Government equipment and material; and controlling access to Federal installations by employees, visitors, residents, and patients.  The purpose of security guard work is to protect and prevent loss of materials or processes which are important for national defense, for public health or safety, or as national treasures.  The primary emphasis in Federal security guard training is the methods and techniques involved in protecting specific Government property.  Though much of the training may be given on the job, specifically tailored to installation requirements, some security guards receive formal training similar to that given to police officers.  Security guards serve at fixed posts or patrol assigned areas on foot or by vehicle and perform a variety of protective duties. They enforce pertinent administrative rules and regulations governing traffic control, parking, building or other facility access, and breaches in physical security controls (locks, fences, gates, or other barriers).  When enforcing rules and regulations established to accomplish the protective mission, guards control the movement of persons and protect lives and personal property in and around the Federal property being protected.  Guards in hospitals may be required to help in dealing with patients who are mentally ill and others whose actions are influenced by distress associated with their medical condition.  Security guards carry out related duties such as escorting persons, driving emergency vehicles, making preliminary checks of violations, and preparing reports of incidents or security conditions.  Security guards exercise their authority most often by administering rules and regulations, rather than laws, totally within the confines of Federally owned or controlled property under exclusive jurisdiction.  Some installations negotiate concurrent jurisdiction or similar cooperative action agreements with local law enforcement authorities as a means for turning over serious violators for arrest based on formal complaints by guard personnel.  The GS-0085 series is a one-grade interval series.

Although the appellants conduct initial investigations, our fact finding does not support classifying their position in the Police Series, GS-0083.  As previously cited, the GS-0083 series definition includes positions the primary duties of which are the performance or supervision of law enforcement work to include “the arrest or apprehension of violators.”  Occupational information in the GS-0083 GEG provides that arrest and apprehension authority includes the power to formally detain and incarcerate individuals pending booking on formal charges; requesting and serving warrants for search, seizure, and arrest; testifying at hearings to establish and collect collateral (bond); and/or participating in trials to determine innocence or guilt.  For the reasons explained below the appellants’ position does not meet the series definition for positions in the Police Series, GS-0083, and exercises the same limited apprehension and detention authority as that delegated to Department of the Army (DA) Security Guards, GS-0085. 

Army Regulation (AR) 190-56, The Army Civilian Police and Security Guard Program, dated March 15, 2013, Chapter 5, paragraphs 5-1 General and 5-2 Authority, discuss the authority of Department of the Army Civilian Police (DACP) and Security Guards (SG) and Contract Security Guards.  Paragraph 5-2.a. provides the following:

The DACP/SG performing law enforcement and security duties authorized by the installation or activity commander are limited in the execution of this authority to the installation boundaries.  They can apprehend any persons found on the installation or activity for offenses committed on post that are felonies, misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, a threat to property or welfare, or detrimental to good order and discipline.  Such apprehension authority is limited to issuing citations and turning the subject over to the appropriate civilian or military authorities.

 Additionally, AR 190-45, Law Enforcement Reporting, dated October 27, 2016, Table 1-1, Geographical area of responsibilities, assigned the TAMC law enforcement mission to the U.S. Army Pacific, U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM) Pacific.  Also, Annex A, Specific Provisions, of the Installation Agreement, dated April 1, 2017, between IMCOM Pacific’s U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii (USAG-HI), and TAMC, states USAG-HI provides “regular police support and services on the same basis as provided for other Military activities in the area.”  The Director of Emergency Services having law enforcement responsibility for TAMC defines the police support as providing services for the protection of people and property, enforcement of laws, maintenance of order and discipline; conducting traffic, game warden, special event enforcement, and civil liaison with law enforcement agencies; investigating crimes; and providing military working dog support.

Thus, as addressed above and confirmed during our fact finding, the appellants may simply detain civilians committing offenses within the area of jurisdiction until they can be released to the appropriate Federal or local law enforcement agency.  However, while the appellants are authorized to detain civilians for violations of criminal law, they do not “incarcerate individuals pending the completion of formal charges (booking).”  In the appellants’ situation, USAG-HI is assigned law enforcement jurisdiction and processes investigations involving violations of criminal law, retaining the authority to request and serve warrants for search, seizure, and arrest.  Therefore, because the appellants do not exercise the full scope and application of “arrest and apprehension authority,” as provided in the GS-0083 GEG and substantiated by DA regulations and an installation agreement, they do not meet the series definition for positions classified in the GS-0083 series.

In their appeal request to OPM, the appellants cite OPM’s Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions (“Digest Article”), Number 08-05, which discusses the intended use of the Police Officer Series, GS-0083, versus the Security Guard Series, GS-0085.  The Digest Article recognizes the difference between guard and police work can sometimes be difficult to make and even though similarities exist, four indicators can be used to determine the proper series.  They are the basic mission of the organization, arrest authority, training, and patterns of work. 

The appellants believe reclassifying their position to the GS-0083 Police Officer series is appropriate based on their responses to the four indicators described in Digest Article 08-05.  However, OPM’s Digest Articles contain summaries of appeal decisions and interpretive opinions that provide clarifying guidance to ensure consistency of interpretation of classification standards and guides in force at the time.  They do not supersede or supplement classification standards and do not constitute case law.  Care must be exercised in interpreting and applying Digest Articles.  Our discussion of the four indicators is discussed in the following paragraph. 

The primary mission of the PMO is to provide security enforcement services, while maintaining law and order and protecting persons and property within the area of jurisdiction.  The appellants second-level supervisor defines law and order as determining if a crime was committed before contacting the appropriate law enforcement personnel to take over the case for further investigation.  The record shows the appellants can make citizens arrests but lack enforcement officer arrest authority.  As addressed above, the TAMC law enforcement mission has been assigned to the USAG-HI.  The majority of the security guards received police training at the Army Police Academy.  The topics included Constitutional Law, Federal statutes, self-defense, report writing techniques, and drug detection.  However, these knowledges and skills are not regularly required for the appellants to perform their duties.  The appellants provide guard support to facilities within their area of jurisdiction, which include protecting property and people (e.g., conducting initial investigations to determine what occurred, turning over cases and violators to law enforcement officers, and monitoring closed circuit television systems).  Therefore, after careful consideration we conclude the position does not demonstrate application of the four indicators typical of Federal police officer positions classified in the GS-0083 series. 

Our fact-finding supports placement of the appellants’ position in the Security Guard Series, GS-0085.  Like this series, the position performs protective services work in guarding Federally owned buildings and property within the area of jurisdiction.  As previously listed in the “Position information” section of this decision and addressed in our series determination section, the appellants perform duties typical of Security Guard, GS-0085, positions.  For example, they conduct patrols (e.g., checking exterior building doors and assisting with vehicle lock outs or jump starts); monitor closed circuit television and respond to questions from employees and veterans; participate in access control checks and vehicle traffic control; conduct initial investigations of vehicle accidents and crimes, determining who to call to pick up suspects.  They also prepare brief hand-written patrol reports on crimes, accidents, and notable events occurring on their work shifts for inclusion in the day’s blotter report. 

The appellants assert their PD contains duties and functions they believe warrant reclassification to the Police Series, GS-0083.  They note the PD states they conduct initial inquiries, have detention authority, provide written reports, act as first responders to incidents, de-escalate disturbances, interview subjects and witnesses, observe the behavior of others, and provide protection to very important persons.  However, these duties and functions are typical examples of work performed in GS-0085 positions.   Based on the preceding analysis, the appropriate title and series of the appellants’ position is Security Guard, GS-0085.  Therefore, we have evaluated the grade of the position below by application of the sections of the GEG for Security Guard, GS-0085.

Grade determination

The GS-0085 GEG uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level description describes the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  Therefore, if a position fails to meet the criteria in a factor-level description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a lower level, unless an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency.  Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some aspects and still not be credited at a higher level.  Each factor level has a corresponding point value.  The total points assigned are converted to a grade by use of the Grade Conversion Table in the GEG.

The appellants disagree with their agency’s assignment of Level 5-2 for Factor 5, Scope and Effect, Level 6-2 for Factor 6, Personal Contacts, Level 7-2 for Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts, Level 8-2 for Factor 8, Physical Demands, and Level 9-2 for Factor 9, Work Environment.  The appellants agree with their agency’s assignment of Level 1-3 for Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position, Level 2-2 for Factor 2, Supervisory Controls, Level 3-2 for Factor 3, Guidelines, and Level 4-2 for Factor 4, Complexity.  However, they submitted new factor level write-ups for Factors 1 and 3 because they believe they perform police officer work as stated in the GEG.  After careful review, we agree with the agency’s factor level assignments for Factors 2 and 4.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis below to Factors 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts that a worker must understand to do acceptable work and the extent of the skills needed to apply this knowledge.  To be used as a basis for selecting a level under this factor, knowledge must be required and applied.

At Level 1-3, security guards use knowledge of a body of established rules, procedures, and methods of operating to perform independently the full range of guard activities at Federal installations. These activities may involve a diverse range of protective responsibilities over Federal property, employees, and visitors.  Knowledge of specialized operating requirements, methods, and procedures is used in safeguarding sensitive national defense materials or processes; protecting national treasures such as gold bullion, works of art, literary collections, and historical artifacts in Government buildings, libraries, museums, and other locations under Federal control; enforcing specialized personnel access controls; protecting and preventing unauthorized access to areas containing valuable documents or hazardous materials that could affect public health or safety; detaining violators who attempt to resist; subduing violent patients in hospitals; and other situations requiring special training and experience.  Security guard work using this level of knowledge includes controlling access to highly sensitive restricted areas where there is potential for significant breach of national security, or danger to public safety or public health.  Examples of such circumstances may include installations involved in manufacturing and storing nuclear weapons; manufacturing or research facilities involving highly classified national defense information and/or processes; hospital and research installations where there is significant potential for releasing materials that could seriously endanger public health; and other facilities containing materials or processes that require special protective methods.

As noted above, the appellants do not dispute the factor level assigned to Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position, but compared their knowledge to the section describing police officer work.  However, we determined the appellants perform security guard work.  Therefore, we only address Level 1-3 for that occupation as described in the GEG.

Level 1-3 is met.  Like this level, the appellants use their knowledge of established rules, procedures, and methods to independently perform the full range of security guard activities in and around medical treatment facilities at TAMC, DDHC, and WOMH.  These activities involve protective responsibilities over Federal property and employees, patients, those with medical appointments, visitors, and military members.  Similar to Level 1-3, their knowledge of specialized operating requirements, methods, and procedures is gained through experience and specialized training used in protecting and preventing unauthorized access to sensitive personal information and hazardous materials that could affect public health, and subduing individuals.  On a regular basis, the appellants use their knowledge (e.g., mental health assessment, Privacy Act, operations security, threat awareness, information security, and safety precautions) and communication skills.  For example, when responding to calls requesting assistance, the majority of the time they are dealing with uncooperative individuals or those dangerous to self or others.  Oftentimes the appellants calmly speak to the individuals and are able to de-escalate volatile situations.  If this does not occur, they take further action, which may require using restraining techniques.  When the appellants are on a foot patrol inside treatment facilities, they ensure patient health records, medical equipment and supplies, and narcotic drugs are properly secured so access is denied to unauthorized personnel.  They use personal protective equipment around hazardous materials (e.g., bodily fluids, contagious diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis, and medical gases such as medical oxygen and nitrous oxide), which could affect public health if someone becomes infected or materials are released into the air.

This factor is evaluated at Level 1-3 and 350 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Guidelines

This factor covers the nature of guidelines and the judgment needed to apply them.

At Level 3-2, procedures, instructions, and a number of specific guidelines for doing the work have been established by the organization and are readily available to the employee.  Guidelines for security guards include local manuals and handbooks that describe the guard force jurisdiction; limits on authority to detain individuals; responsibilities for protecting property and persons; operating manuals and instructions for weapons, communications, and other equipment commonly used by the guards; and standing and special operating procedures for each post of assignment.  The number and relationships of guidelines requires the employee to use judgment in identifying and applying the proper procedures and techniques for application to specific actions when protecting property, enforcing the law, or assisting people.  The employee also exercises judgment in making minor deviations from available guidelines according to the specific circumstances encountered at the scene of activity.  Unless prevented by the emergency nature of an incident, employee proposals to significantly deviate from established guidelines are referred to the supervisor.  

We note the appellants did not dispute the factor level assigned to Factor 3, Guidelines, but compare their guidelines to the section describing guidelines used in police officer work.  However, as stated previously, we determined the appellants perform security guard work.  Therefore, we will only address Level 3-2.

Level 3-2 is met.  Similar to this level, the appellants refer to and access ARs, titles within the United States Code, UCMJ, Hawaii state laws, and standard operating procedures when performing their security duties.  The guidelines explain policies, responsibilities, and procedures covering various topics.  They include a description of their jurisdiction, patrol responsibilities, limits on their apprehension authority and turning individuals over to the appropriate law enforcement personnel, weapons qualification training requirements, driving privileges requirements on Federal installations, and guidance on carrying firearms and the use of force.  Like Level 3-2, the number and relationships of guidelines require the appellants to use judgment in identifying and applying the proper procedures and techniques.  They make minor deviations in accordance with specific circumstances (e.g., issuing a citation or verbal warning, determining if counselling is appropriate, and speaking to individuals involved in a workplace argument instead of referring them to their supervisor for disciplinary action).

This factor is evaluated at Level 3-2 and 125 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of the work (i.e., the purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignment), and the effect of the work products or services both within and outside the organization.

At Level 5-2, the employee performs a full range of police or security guard duties by following and executing specific rules, regulations, or procedures covering law and rules enforcement, physical and personal security operations, patrol duties, control desk duty, coordination with local courts, and/or crime prevention activities for the local jurisdiction.  Work products or services affect the acceptance of law enforcement and security program services and actions, contribute to crime prevention programs, influence employees and visitors to cooperate with the security force, and set an example for conforming with laws, rules, and regulations at the installation.  The results of the work or services also effect the secure flow of work processes and materials and provides for a sense of personal security that enhances productivity of individuals in the workplace.

At Level 5-3, the employee treats a variety of law enforcement problems ranging from simple rules violations to felony crimes in conformance with established criteria, methods, techniques, and procedures.  They also perform criminal investigative work such as that performed by detectives.  The results of the work contribute to crime prevention objectives in the local installation or jurisdiction and the adequacy of the local law enforcement program.  At this level, work resulting in the charging of or convicting of persons for violations affects the economic well-being and freedom of individuals.

Level 5-2 is met.  Like this level, the appellants perform a full range of security guard duties by following and executing specific rules, regulations, or procedures covering topics such as physical and personal security operations and authorities, safety procedures, patrol duties, and motor vehicle and traffic control requirements for their area of jurisdiction.  Like Level 5-2, the security services provided influence employees, patients, and visitors to cooperate with the appellants and set an example for conforming with Federal, State, and local rules and regulations.  The services also provide for a sense of personal security that enhances the productivity of employees in the workplace.

Level 5-3 is not met.  As addressed above and confirmed during our fact-finding, the appellants do not treat a variety of law enforcement problems or perform criminal investigative work.  As security guards they may encounter disturbances while patrolling or dispatched to respond to calls but would perform only an initial investigation of the incident.  This is done by speaking to the individuals involved and any witnesses to determine what happened and how to move forward.  If a crime took place, they take statements from those present and determine which law enforcement agency to contact to pick up the suspects and take over the case.

This factor is evaluated at Level 5-2 and 75 points are assigned.

Factor 6, Personal contacts

This factor includes face-to-face contacts and telephone dialogue with persons not in the supervisory chain. Levels described under this factor are based on what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with those contacted, and the setting in which the contact takes place.

At Level 6-2, personal contacts are with employees in the same agency, but outside the immediate organization.  People contacted are generally engaged in different functions, missions, and kinds of work e.g., representatives from various levels within the agency such as headquarters, regional, district, or field offices or other operating offices in the immediate installation.  Contacts are also with members of the general public, as individuals or groups, in a moderately structured setting (e.g., the contacts are generally established on a routine basis, usually at the employee's workplace; the exact purpose of the contact may be unclear at first to one or more of the parties; and one or more of the parties may be uninformed concerning the role and authority of other participants).  Contacts typical of this level are cooperative persons stopped for traffic violations or persons questioned as witnesses to a violation of rule or law.

At Level 6-3 (the highest level for this factor described in the GEG), personal contacts are with individuals or groups from outside the employing agency in a moderately unstructured setting (e.g., the contacts are not established on a routine basis, the purpose and extent of each contact is different, and the role and authority of each party is identified and developed during the course of the contact).  And/or contacts at Level 6-3 are with violators of laws, rules, or regulations where those contacted are reluctant to accept the officer's authority, may resist detention or attempt to flee, or with unruly individuals who pose a threat to the officer and/or other individuals present.  Such contacts may include, for example, individuals involved in a serious disagreement or fight, trespassers attempting to avoid apprehension and detention, demonstrators attempting to cross control lines, and others where the circumstances commonly cause the violators to react negatively and violently to the enforcement officers.  They may also include contacts with individuals such as felons, suspects in felony crimes, recalcitrant witnesses, distraught individuals involved in or witness to accidents, and others where there is potential for arrest, detention, or issuing citations for serious offenses of law, rule, or regulation, or for violent or irrational response on the part of the perpetrator or victim.

The agency assigned Level 6-2 but our fact finding shows their contacts are similar to Level 6-3.  Like this level, the majority of their contacts are with individuals from outside the agency (e.g., patients, those with medical appointments, visitors, military members, and Federal employees) in a moderately unstructured setting.  When patrolling and responding to requests for assistance, the appellants remain alert to their surroundings because they are unaware of how individuals will respond to their presence.  The record shows that many of the appellants’ contacts are unruly, uncooperative, and reluctant to accept the appellants’ authority, and their behavior (e.g., disagreeing, fighting, or trespassing on the installation) may pose a threat to visitors or other patients.  In some cases where physical violence is threatened or occurs, the appellants take further action including using restraining techniques.

This factor is evaluated at Level 6-3 and 60 points are assigned.

Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts

The purpose of personal contacts ranges from factual exchanges of information to situations involving significant or controversial issues and differing viewpoints, goals, or objectives. The personal contacts which serve as the basis for the level selected for this factor must be the same as the contacts which are the basis for the level for Factor 6.

At Level 7-2, the purpose is to plan, coordinate, or advise on work efforts or to resolve operating problems by influencing or motivating individuals or groups who are working toward mutual goals and who have basically cooperative attitudes.  Contacts may include circumstances such as coordinating the installation of new or revised access controls or security monitors and alarms, implementing patrol procedures, coordinating alarm response procedures with security and subject-matter personnel, explaining proposed traffic control patterns and speed limit requirements, making presentations about local crime prevention programs, and similar activities that require explanation to and acceptance by employees and visitors at the installation.

At Level 7-3, the purpose is to influence, motivate, interrogate, or control persons or groups.  Persons contacted may be fearful, skeptical, uncooperative, or dangerous.  The employee must be skillful in approaching the individual or group in order to obtain the desired effect, such as gaining compliance with established policies and regulations by persuasion, negotiation, or gaining information by establishing rapport with a suspicious informant.  Contacts at this level may include, for example: uncooperative individuals involved in traffic violations, persons disturbing the peace, “peaceful” demonstrators, persons attempting to commit suicide, suspects and reluctant witnesses to a crime, deranged persons, or families involved in domestic disturbances.

The agency assigned Level 7-2 but we find the position meets Level 7-3.  Like this level, the purpose of the appellants’ contacts is to influence, motivate, or control persons or groups, who may be fearful, skeptical, uncooperative, combative, abusive, violent, or occasionally dangerous.  This includes veterans brought to TAMC by Honolulu police.  These individuals are frequently intoxicated or experiencing substance abuse and some are mentally unstable, suicidal, or involved in domestic disturbances requiring medical care or social work intervention.  Other instances involve uncooperative patients or those dangerous to themselves or others who are argumentative or abusive with medical staff and refuse examination and treatment.  Like Level 7-3, the appellants must be skillful in approaching these individuals or groups in order to obtain the desired effect.  Similar to Level 7-3, the appellants de-escalate situations by speaking to unruly patients and others by persuading them to comply with medical facility staff requests and TAMC procedures and security requirements.

This factor is evaluated at Level 7-3 and 120 points are assigned.

Factor 8, Physical demands

This factor covers the requirements and physical demands placed on the employee by the work assignment.

At Level 8-2, the work requires regular and recurring physical exertion such as long periods of standing, walking, driving, bending, stooping, reaching, crawling, and similar activities.  Employees engage in such exertions when responding to alarms, pursuing suspects, or participating in weapons or other kinds of training activities, climbing stairs in office buildings, or walking foot patrols in and around large buildings.  In some positions, the work may regularly involve lifting and carrying of heavy objects of 23 kilograms (50 pounds) or less, such as weapons.  Some positions may require common physical characteristics and abilities in agility and dexterity and the strength to pursue, apprehend, and detain uncooperative suspects.

At Level 8-3, the work requires, on a regular and recurring basis, considerable and strenuous physical exertion such as frequent climbing of multiple flights of stairs, lifting heavy objects over 50 pounds, crouching or crawling in restrictive areas during search or pursuit activities, or defending oneself or others against physical attack.

Level 8-2 is met.  Like this level, the appellants’ security duties require regular physical exertion such as long periods of standing when assigned to fixed patrol locations, walking throughout and between buildings when patrolling in their area of jurisdiction, climbing office building and medical treatment facility stairs, or bending, stooping, reaching, and similar activities when responding to various requests for assistance, responding to alarms, and securing crime scenes.  Similar to Level 8-2, their position may require common physical characteristics and abilities in agility, dexterity, and strength when participating in weapons training or interacting with uncooperative patients, visitors, or employees.

Level 8-3 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellants’ security work does not require considerable regular and recurring strenuous physical exertion such as crouching or crawling in restrictive areas during search activities.  Although when performing traffic control they place, rearrange, and remove traffic cones and barriers Monday through Friday, but they do not regularly lift these items.  Occasionally they are called upon to lift patients or hospital equipment.  The appellants can defend themselves or others against physical attack but the majority of their encounters with patients, visitors, and others do not result in physical attacks.  They are able to diffuse such situations by speaking to the individuals.  

This factor is evaluated at Level 8-2 and 20 points are assigned.

Factor 9, Work environment

This factor considers the risks and discomforts in the employee’s physical surroundings, or the nature of the work assigned and the safety regulations required.  Although the use of safety precautions can practically eliminate a certain danger or discomfort, such situations typically place additional demands upon the employee in carrying out safety regulations and techniques.

At Level 9-2, the work is performed in settings in which there is regular and recurring exposure to moderate discomforts and unpleasantness, such as high levels of noise in industrial settings, high temperatures in confined spaces, or adverse weather conditions during extended periods of traffic and patrol duties.  The employee may be required to use protective clothing or gear such as masks, gowns, coats, boots, goggles, gloves, or shields.  The work involves moderate risk requiring exercise of safety precautions when working around hazardous materials such as toxic gases, explosives, infectious biological materials, and others that pose a moderate risk of exposure.  The work also involves moderate risk and discomfort when working outdoors without shelter or operating vehicles for extended periods of time over rough terrain.

At Level 9-3, the work environment regularly involves high risks with exposure to potentially dangerous situations or unusual environmental stress which require a range of safety and other precautions (e.g., subject to possible physical attack or mob conditions or similar situations where conditions cannot be controlled).  This level includes work in a high crime area where the public has easy access and officers must patrol in locations where persons may be armed while attempting auto theft, vandalism, narcotics transactions, and other offenses which can lead to assault with or without a weapon in order to avoid arrest.  Also at this level are police and guard operations regularly performed in areas of extremely rough terrain with wide annual variations in climatic conditions such as encountered in very large military installations or Indian reservations.

Level 9-2 is met.  The appellants provide security support within and around medical treatment facilities which present regular exposure to moderate discomforts and unpleasantness.  Thus, comparable to this level the appellants are required to use protective clothing or gear (e.g., gowns, googles, face shields, and medical shoe covers) when interacting with patients with illnesses such as Tuberculosis, HIV, and Hepatitis.  Masks and gloves are used each day to protect against COVID 19.  Like Level 9-2, the appellants also use protective clothing or gear around hazardous materials (e.g., bodily fluids, airborne pathogens such as influenza, and medical gases such as nitrogen and nitrous oxide) when responding to requests for assistance within medical treatment areas.  They are exposed to moderate discomforts such as adverse weather conditions (e.g., heat, heavy rains, and high winds) when patrolling the facility. 

Level 9-3 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellants’ work environment does not involve exposure to potentially dangerous situations or unusual environmental stress requiring a range of safety and other precautions.  They are not subject to mob conditions or similar situations where conditions cannot be controlled.  In contrast to Level 9-3, the appellants’ work is not performed in a high crime area where the public has easy access to the area.  They also do not patrol locations where persons may be armed while attempting to commit a crime leading to assault with or without a weapon in order to avoid arrest.  Moreover, unlike Level 9-3, the work is not performed in areas of extremely rough terrain with wide annual variations in climatic conditions such as those encountered in very large military installations or Indian reservations. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 9-2 and 20 points are assigned.

Summary
Factors	Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-3	350
2. Supervisory controls	2-2	125
3. Guidelines	3-2	125
4. Complexity	4-2	75
5. Scope and effect	5-2	75
6. Personal contacts	6-3	60
7. Purpose of contacts	7-3	120
8. Physical demands	8-2	20
9. Work environment	9-2	20
Total		970

 

A total of 970 points falls within the GS-05 grade level point range (855 to 1100) in the grade conversion table of the GS-0083/0085 GEG.

 Decision

 The appellant’s position is properly classified as Security Guard, GS-0085-05.

[1] In the initial appeal the appellants only requested a change in series.  However, in a January 31, 2022, email to OPM the designated representative indicated that in addition to a change in series to GS-0083 they also seek an upgrade to the GS-06 level. 

Back to Top