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

Finality of Decision

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 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 appellants’ official standard 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 revise 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 (OPM), Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellants’ position is currently classified as Lead Security Guard, GS-0085-06, 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 appellants are Rod C. De La Cueva, Lee A. Dickerson, and Brian J. Hokama (designated representative). When this appeal was originally submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) by the appellants’ designated representative there were four appellants. However, we learned that the fourth employee is not officially assigned to the appealed position and therefore has no standing in this classification appeal. The appellants believe their duties and responsibilities warrant reclassification to Lead Police Officer, GS-0083, and upgraded to GS-07.[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 Lead 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.

Position Information

The appellants serve as Lead Security Guards assigned to the PMO and 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. Each appellant serves as the shift leader and works 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 among the appellants.

The appellants ensure the appropriate methods and procedures are used for protecting TAMC; provide specific task and job technique instructions; prepare production reports; make written instructions, reference materials, and supplies available; assign projects and responsibilities based on PMO priorities, difficulties of assignments, and the capabilities of the employees; explain overall policies, goals, procedures, and regulations; serve as a consultant in unusual situations; resolve simple, informal complaints; train security guards in providing all aspects of security support; check on work in progress and observe the general physical security conditions during the shift.

The appellant who is the shift leader coming off-duty will brief the on-coming shift leader on what occurred during the previous shift as well as any additional information of which he needs to be aware. Their supervisor also informs them about what needs to be done during the shift either face-to-face or through email, as needed. The shift leader then provides a briefing to the security guards at the start of the shift. Topics may include providing them changes to their regular patrol assignments, a picture of an individual who needs to be denied access to the campus, a synopsis of what occurred during the previous shift and if any further action needs to be taken on the current shift, informing them of any scheduled training (e.g., shooting range), 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.

The appellants spend part of their shift in the Control Room performing duties including answering telephone calls requesting assistance, dispatching security guards to respond to the calls, and monitoring the closed-circuit televisions located throughout TAMC. They also check on the security guards at their patrol locations and respond to calls requesting assistance with the dispatched security guards to ensure the safety of the guards, guidelines and policies are being followed, and provide support to include answering questions and taking statements when there are numerous witnesses. Additionally, the appellants conduct patrols, which include ensuring exterior building doors are locked in the patrol area 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 help drivers locked out of their vehicles, as requested. They participate in traffic control by ensuring vehicle traffic does not back-up, as needed. 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 respond to calls received requesting assistance. For example, the appellants go 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).

After responding to calls, the appellants write up a synopsis of what occurred in a Word document for inclusion in that day’s blotter report. They also compose hand-written patrol reports documenting 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.

The appellants and their second-level supervisor certified to the accuracy of the appellants’ official PD (number EW549257). However, our review disclosed an inaccuracy in the appellants’ PD. We find that while the agency assigned Level 8-2 under Factor 8 – Physical Demands, the factor narrative in the PD describes the physical demands of the position as requiring considerable and strenuous physical exertion typical of Factor Level 8-3. In contrast, we find the appellants’ work requires regular and recurring physical exertion characteristic of Level 8-2. Therefore, the appellant’s official PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellants and their agency including their 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 appellants’ designated representative and their second-level supervisor. We did not interview the appellants’ immediate supervisor because he retired between December 2021, and January 2022.

Series, title, and standard determination

By application of the Grade Evaluation Guide (GEG) for Police and Security Guard Positions in Series, GS-0083, GS-0085, the agency classified the appellants’ position in the Security Guard Series, GS-0085, with a basic title of Security Guard.  In addition, because the position also meets the coverage requirements of Part 1 of the General Schedule Leader Grade Evaluation Guide (GSLGEG) the agency titled it Lead Security Guard, GS-0085. The appellants disagree with their agency’s title and series determination (as well as grade discussed later in this decision).  While they agree the position is a “leader” they believe it should be classified in the Police Series, GS-0083, and titled Lead Police Officer, GS-0083.

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 GS-0085 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 classification of 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 the completion of formal charges (booking); requesting and serving warrants for search, seizure, and arrest; testifying at hearings to establish and collect collateral (bond); and/or participate 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 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 in the Police Officer Series, GS-0083, 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 follows.

The basic 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 appellants received police training at the Army Police Academy. The topics included Constitutional Law, Federal statutes, use of force, driving under the influence investigations, and probable cause to arrest. 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 meet 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 that series, the position performs protective services work in guarding Federally owned buildings and property within the area of jurisdiction. As previously stated, the appellants conduct patrols (e.g., checking exterior building doors and assisting with vehicle lock outs or jump starts). They monitor closed-circuit televisions, and respond to questions from civilians, Federal employees, veterans, and their family members. They participate in access control checks by checking the identification of those entering a particular building, as needed. They participate in traffic control by ensuring vehicle traffic does not back-up, as needed. When such things as a vehicle accident occurs, Government or personal objects are missing, or military members/civilian employees are fighting, the appellants conduct an initial on-site investigation and determine if a crime took place. 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. After responding to calls, the appellants write up a synopsis of what occurred and submit it for inclusion in that day’s blotter report. On a daily basis the appellants submit hand-written patrol reports documenting the patrol locations and what occurred during their shifts.

Additionally, 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 examples of work included in the Security Guard Series, GS-0085, which we have evaluated below by application of the GEG.

The appellants’ position includes “Lead” in the title and is evaluated by Part I of the General Schedule Leader Grade Evaluation Guide (GSLGEG) since they lead three or more employees in clerical or other one-grade interval GS work, perform the same kind and level of work performed by the team led, and their leader duties constitute a major duty occupying at least 25 percent of the position’s time. As work leaders they perform the same security guard duties as the GS-0085-05, Security Guards led per shift (e.g., approximately five first shift, seven second shift, and five third shift). In addition, they function as “shift leaders” performing oversight over the security guard staff as discussed previously in this decision. We also find that on a regular and recurring basis for at least 25 percent of their time they substantially perform all or nearly all (i.e., 12 of 14) of the following leader duties listed in Part I of the GSLGEG as specified below.

• Distributing and balancing the workload, assuring timely accomplishment of workload, and assuring enough work is distributed to keep the team busy;
• Monitoring status and progress of work, making daily adjustments as necessary, and obtaining assistance on problems which may arise;
• Estimating and reporting on extended time of completion of work, maintaining records of work and preparing production reports as requested;
• Instructing employees in specific tasks and job techniques, and making available written instructions, reference materials and supplies;
• Giving on-the-job training to new employees in accordance with established procedures and practices;
• Maintaining current knowledge and answering questions of other employees on procedures, policies, directives, etc., and obtaining needed information or decisions from the supervisor on problems that occur;
• Checking work in progress or spot-checking work, reviewing completed work to see that supervisor’s instructions on work sequence, procedures, methods, and deadlines have been met;
• Amending or rejecting work not meeting established standards, referring to supervisor questions or matters not covered by standards and problems in meeting performance standards;
• Monitoring working conditions such as seating, ventilation, lighting, safety;
• Informing employees of available services and employee activities;
• Resolving simple, informal complaints of employees and referring others to the supervisor;
• Reporting to supervisor on performance, progress, and training needs of employees, and on behavior problems; and

Therefore, their position meets the GSLGEG coverage requirements and their duties match work typical of positions in the Security Guard Series, GS-0085. Position classification guidance for evaluating the grade of GS-0085 positions is contained within the security guard sections of the GEG. Based on the preceding analysis, the appellants’ position is properly classified to the GS-0085 series and titled Lead Security Guard. Our evaluation of the grade of the position by application of the GSLGEG and the factor level grading criteria in the security guard sections of the GS-0085 GEG follows.

Grade determination

Evaluation using the GSLGEG

art 1 of the GSLGEG states leader positions are classified one GS grade above the highest level of nonsupervisory work led. It also states neither the number of workers nor the variety of occupations in which they perform work impact the grade of the leader position. The base level of work needs to be determined to grade the leader position. It is usually the grade of the highest-level employee on the team other than the leader or a supervisor. However, care must be taken to assure that this grade reflects the level of nonsupervisory work actually led. The record shows the appellants lead GS-0085-05 Security Guards. The appellants are fully knowledgeable of this occupation but believe they are performing and leading police officer work at the GS-06 level. However, as discussed above we have determined their position is classified in the Security Guard Series, GS-0085, but they contend their non-leader work should be evaluated by application of the relevant factor levels for police work in the GEG. Our evaluation using the grading criteria in the GEG follows. 

Evaluation using the GEG

The GS-0083/0085 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 3-2 for Factor 3, Guidelines 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 4-2 for Factor 4, Complexity, Level 5-2 for Factor 5, Scope and Effect, Level 6-3 for Factor 6, Personal Contacts, Level 7-3 for Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts, and Level 8-2 for Factor 8, Physical Demands. However, they submitted new factor level write-ups for Factors 1, 3, and 9. After careful review, we agree with the agency’s factor level assignments for Factors 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Therefore, we have confined our analysis below to Factors 1, 3, and 9, applying those sections for security guard positions where appropriate. Our evaluation addresses the level of the non-Leader work performed by the appellants.

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.

We note the appellants did not dispute the factor level assigned to Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position, but compare their knowledge to the GEG sections describing police officer work. However, we determined the appellants perform security guard work thus only discuss that type of work.

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.

We note the appellants did not dispute the factor level assigned to Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position, but compare their knowledge to the GEG sections describing police officer work. However, we determined the appellants perform security guard work thus only discuss that type of work.

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 guard activities in and around the medical treatment facility at TAMC. 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 knowledges (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 the treatment facility, 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.

At Level 3-3, the guidelines are generally similar to those described at the next lower level. However, because of the nature of work assignments or the environment in which they are performed, the guidelines are not always applicable or there are gaps in specific applicability in circumstances such as those encountered in volatile emergency situations such as terrorist attacks, hostage situations, armed robbery, prolonged investigations, or when enforcing traditional (written or unwritten) customs or laws. The employee uses personal judgment in interpreting, adapting, applying, and deviating from guidelines, based on unusual or emergency circumstances and concern with protecting public safety.  The employee analyzes the results of such adaptations and recommends changes in established methods and procedures.

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., informing a security guard to drive a veteran released from TAMC in the early morning hours to the near-by bus terminal for safety purposes instead of to the main gate).

Level 3-3 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellants’ work assignments and environment do not present situations where guidelines are inapplicable or there are gaps in specificity where the employee’s work requires him/her to regularly deal with such volatile emergency situations as terrorist attacks, hostage situations, or armed robberies as described at this level. On the contrary, as discussed above like Level 3-2 the appellants exercise judgment in making minor deviations from available guidelines in accordance with the specific circumstances encountered during their shift. When responding to calls requesting assistance, they oftentimes encounter uncooperative individuals or those dangerous to self or others (e.g., those being argumentative or abusive with medical staff, not wanting or waiting to be examined by a physician, not willing to return to his/her room, and wanting to harm self or others), which does not meet the full intent of this level. As compared to Level 3-3, given the limited environment in which they work they are not required to interpret, apply, and adapt guidelines to the degree described at Level 3-3. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 3-2 and 125 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 TAMC. 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 and unpleasantness 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 appellants’ security guard duties are graded at the GS-05 level. In addition, because their position fully meets the coverage requirements of the GSLGEG it is graded one GS level above the highest level of nonsupervisory work led resulting in GS-06.  Based on the application of mixed-grade principles as discussed in the Introduction, the position is properly classified as Lead Security Guard, GS-0085-06.

[1] When this appeal was filed the appellants requested only a change in series to Police Officer, GS-0083.  Subsequently, in a June 28, 2022, email from their designated representative to OPM they requested the position be upgraded to the GS-07 level.

Back to Top