Washington, DC

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

---

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


07/21/2021

---

Date

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 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 appellants’ PD to reflect our findings.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD and Standard Form (SF) 50s showing the personnel action taken within 30 days of the date of this decision to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellants’ position is currently classified as Test Control Officer (TCO), GS-0301-09, but they believe their position should be classified at the GS-11 grade level.  All of the appellants are assigned to various Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPSs) within the Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM) of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).  The USMEPCOM, with headquarters in North Chicago, Illinois, is a joint service command staffed with civilian and military personnel from all five branches of service.  The nine appellants are U.S. Department of the Army (DA) employees. 

The appellants with their duty locations are:  (1) [ name and location] (2) [name and location] (3) [name and location] (4) [name and location] (5) [name and location] (6) [name and location] (7) [name and location] (8) [name and location]; and (9) [name and location]. [1]  The appellants perform essentially identical duties and are all assigned to the same PD.  Therefore, we have processed and adjudicated this case as a group appeal.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General Issues

During our interview, the appellants made various statements about their agency’s position management with respect to higher graded positions in their organization.  They assert that the GS-11 (or higher graded) Education Services Specialist (ESS) position that serves as the program manager for the Student Testing Program (STP) for their MEPS area of responsibility (AOR) is only responsible for supervising one employee (i.e., GS-07, Test Coordinator (TC)) position, while the appellants are the official supervisors of the Intermittent Test Administrators (ITAs) for the STP.  As supervisors of the ITAs they are required to resolve all work situations encountered and must work with the ESS and/or the TC to coordinate and resolve scheduling matters involving their subordinate employees.  Implicit in the appellants’ rationale is a concern their position is classified inconsistently with other DA positions.  However, by law (5 U.S.C. 302 and 5102(a)(3)), agency management has the right to establish positions and determine the work assignable to each position.  Management actions concerning the assignment or removal of work are not reviewable under the classification appeals process.  By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM Position Classification Standards (PCSs) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Therefore, we have considered the appellants’ statements only in so far as they are relevant to making that comparison.

[1] Initially this group appeal also included [name and location].  However, effective December 22, 2019, she transferred to a position with the U.S. Department of the Air Force, thus is no longer assigned to the appealed position.  The appellant withdrew her appeal with OPM on August 17, 2020. 

Position Information

The appellants certified to the accuracy of the duties described in their standard PD of record number BGP200810.  By letter dated October 21, 2019, the Chief of Testing at USMEPCOM certified to the accuracy of the TCO PD. [2]  However, our review disclosed that the PD does not accurately reflect the percentage of time spent by the appellants performing supervisory and related managerial duties which we find constitutes one-hundred percent of their work rather than simply 25 percent as noted in the PD.  Those duties are discussed below.  Therefore, the appellants’ PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy as addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

The mission of the USMEPCOM is to evaluate applicants for military service by applying established DoD standards during their processing.  Through its 65 MEPS locations nationwide, the command determines whether applicants are qualified for enlistment in the military services.  Two geographic sectors and twelve battalions provide intermediate management in operating the MEPS.  Each MEPS has a processing section, a testing section, and a medical section.  The appellants are TCOs for the testing sections of their MEPS and serve as first-line supervisors of the MEPS testing staff.  The testing staff includes Intermittent Test Administrators, GS-0303-04, Testing Clerks, GS-0303-05, in one case a Lead Testing Clerk, GS-0303-06, Testing Score Technicians, GS-0303-07, and in most cases an E-5/E-6 military position (also known as “Testing Specialists”). 

The appellants provide managerial and supervisory oversight of testing administration and security at the MEPS and its assigned sites in support of DoD’s Enlistment Testing Program (ETP) and DoD’s STP, also known as the Career Exploration Program (CEP).  The appellants are responsible for ensuring the security and control of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test to safeguard and account for test materials as they are received, mailed, stored, administered, and scored.  They also exercise control and security over various paper and pencil and computer administered service-specific special purpose tests given at the MEPS to determine occupational specialties. 

As first-line supervisors, the appellants provide direct supervision to the testing staff including responsibility for planning work to be accomplished by subordinates; setting and adjusting work priorities and scheduling work; assigning work, establishing performance standards, and evaluating work performance; creating individual development employee training plans; taking minor disciplinary actions and recommending awards; approving employee leave, interviewing candidates for vacancies and recommending selections; and hearing and resolving complaints from employees and taking minor disciplinary actions. 

The testing staff supervised by the appellants at each MEPS administers the ASVAB and special purpose tests either at the MEPS location or at Mobile Examining Test (MET) sites.  The ITAs supervised by the appellants primarily administer the student ASVAB at secondary and post-secondary schools, MET sites and at other designated sites (e.g., Job Corps Centers) in support of the STP.  The student ASVAB is a major component of the CEP.  It provides a counseling tool for guiding students in their academic and vocational program and may provide test scores for those individuals who may wish to apply to the military services.  The appellants may conduct the ASVAB and special purpose tests only as required.  Further, on a needed basis they may also conduct the student ASVAB and other work performed by their subordinate employees.[3]

The appellants are responsible for developing testing schedules for applicants testing at the MEPS, and work with the ESS and/or the TC to determine the availability of ITAs for assignment to school testing schedules.  They coordinate with postsecondary school officials to develop or update memorandums of agreement (MOA) for use of testing facilities and ensure the MOAs are routed through the chain of command.  They provide initial and ongoing training to MEPS testing personnel and ensure only authorized and properly trained personnel handle accountable test materials.  They also provide training to any newly appointed ITAs for all duties related to the STP to include test security and handling, test administration and material distribution.  They ensure the ITAs understand their roles in administration and the prevention of test compromise or loss.  They review and inspect MET sites and evaluate ITA performance and conduct test inventories to include test materials stored at ITA residences and/or MET sites. 

The appellants provide advice to higher-level management on testing policies and procedures as requested.  They report any test loss, breach in security, or compromise in test validity as required by regulation.  They reconcile and report basic test session statistics regarding the work performed by the testing section and prepare correspondence to respond to taskings as required.  They develop and/or annually update testing standard operating procedures and are responsible for resolving test administration problems encountered by their staff.  

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 incorporate by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal, we conducted a group telephone interview with all nine appellants and a follow up interview with the groups’ designated spokesperson.  We also conducted separate telephone interviews with each of their current or former supervisors (i.e., MEPS Operations Officers or MEPS Executive Officers).  

[2] The record shows the appellants were initially assigned to different PDs (i.e., PD numbers BGP20041, BGP20057, BGP20081, and BGP200810) copies of which were submitted with the AAR.  However, by June 2020, the agency ensured all appellants were assigned to the same standard PD number BGP200810.  

[3] This occurs particularly during shortage or absence of staff, thus we find this work is not grade controlling (Introduction, section III.J), and we have not separately evaluated it.  Even assuming the appellants performed these duties on a regular and recurring basis, the work is classified no higher than GS-07 grade level work and does not impact the title, series and grade of their position.     

Series, title and standard determination

The agency classified the appellants’ position in the Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series, GS-0301, titling it Test Control Officer and the appellants do not disagree.  The purpose of this series is to cover two-grade interval administrative work for which no other series is appropriate.  We concur with the agency’s series determination.  Since there are no titles specified for positions in the GS-0301 series the agency may construct a title in keeping with the work performed.  The appellants’ supervisory responsibilities fully meet the coverage requirements for titling as a supervisor addressed in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG).  As discussed in section III.H.2b of the Introduction and in the titling instructions in the GSSG, the use of the word “Officer” may be added to the basic title of the position to denote supervisory responsibility. 

There are no published grading criteria for positions classified in the GS-0301 series.  The standard directs that positions classified in this series are to be evaluated by reference to an appropriate multi-series guide or, if none is applicable, a standard for a specific occupational series that involves analogous knowledges and skills.  The standard also states that positions classified in this series that meet the criteria of the GSSG for evaluation as supervisors are to be evaluated by the GSSG.  The agency evaluated the grade of the appellant’s position by application of the Administrative Analysis Grade Evaluation Guide (AAGEG) and the GSSG. 

The AAGEG provides grade level criteria for nonsupervisory staff administrative, analytical, planning, and evaluative work at grade GS-09 and above.  This guide is designed to evaluate staff analytical, planning, and evaluative work concerned with the administrative and operational aspects of agency programs and management.  The guide may also be used to evaluate staff analytical duties of positions primarily engaged in line management or program administration.  The work for positions graded by this guide typically require a high degree of qualitative and/or quantitative analytical skills and evaluation techniques.  However, our fact-finding disclosed that the appellants’ position is not required to perform nonsupervisory staff administrative, analytical, planning, and evaluative work or program analysis work as intended for positions evaluated using the AAGEG.  These responsibilities are assigned to agency program managers at higher echelons of the appellants’ organization (i.e., HQ USMEPCOM).  Therefore, the AAGEG is not appropriate for evaluating the grade of the appellants’ position. 

We find the appellants’ program oversight and coordination duties are inherent in their supervisory and managerial functions.  For instance, planning and overseeing the work performed by subordinates in support of the ETP and STP goals; improving ways to perform the work done by members of the unit sections; providing test session and other appropriate test data or basic statistics to higher-level management; and offering advice and/or making recommendations regarding testing policies and procedures to higher-level management officials.  In addition, the appellant’s test control and security duties are directly related to testing administration and security and are a key part of their related managerial responsibilities.  We conclude the appellants spend all of their time performing supervisory or related managerial responsibilities to oversee the operation of their testing sections and the work performed offsite by the ITAs in support of the STP.  Therefore, we have determined the grade of their position solely by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG. 

Grade determination

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

The appellants disagree with their agency’s GSSG assignment of Level 1-2 for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect, and Level 6-2 for Factor 6, Other Conditions, contending they meet four out of eight Special Situations under this factor.  Initially the appellants also disagreed with their agency’s point assignment of 205 points for Level 5-3 for Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed, because their agency erred in the assignment of points given to Level 5-3.  However, during the acceptance process of this appeal the appellants’ agency corrected the error in point assignment, appropriately assigning 340 points for Level 5-3.  During the group interview, the appellants stated they no longer dispute Factor 5 since the points assigned to Level 5-3 have been corrected.  The appellants also do not dispute the agency’s assignment of Level 2-1 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting; Level 3-2(c) for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised; Level 4A-2 for Factor 4, Personal Contacts; and Level 4B-2 for Factor 4, Purpose of Contacts.  After careful review, we concur with the agency’s assignment of the undisputed factors and therefore have not addressed them separately in the discussion below.  Our review of the contested Levels for Factor 1 and Factor 6 follows.

Factor 1, Program scope and effect

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

1. Scope

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

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

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

The scope of the appellants’ position meets Level 1-2.  Our review disclosed that the work directed covering the highest grade of testing administration functions is performed by Testing Clerks, GS-0303-05, performing one-grade-interval complex clerical, not technical work.  This is relevant because at Level 1-3 the lowest type of work described for coverage is “technical” while “complex clerical” is not recognized.   

As defined in the Introduction, clerical work typically involves general office or program support duties such as preparing, receiving, reviewing, and verifying documents; processing transactions; maintaining office records; locating and compiling data or information from files; keeping a calendar and informing others of deadlines and other important dates; and using keyboards to prepare typewritten material or to store or manipulate information for data processing use.  The work requires a knowledge of an organization’s rules, some degree of subject matter knowledge, and skill in carrying out clerical processes and procedures.  On the other hand, technical work is typically associated with and supportive of a professional or administrative field.  It involves extensive practical knowledge, gained through experience and/or specific training less than that represented by college graduation.  Technical employees carry out tasks, methods, procedures, and/or computations that are laid out either in published or oral instructions and covered by established precedents or guidelines.  Work in these occupations may involve substantial elements of the work of the professional or administrative field but requires less than full knowledge of the field involved.  Depending upon the level of difficulty of the work, these procedures often require a high degree of technical skill, care, and precision.

The Miscellaneous Clerk and Assistant Series, GS-0303, covers clerical, assistant, or technician work in a one-grade interval pattern and includes work that requires knowledge of the procedures and techniques involved in carrying out the work of an organization and involves application of procedures and practices within the framework of established guidelines.  Positions classified to the GS-0303 series that involve the performance of clerical or assistance work are evaluated by use of the Grade Level Guide for Clerical and Assistance Work (Guide).  As described in the Guide, clerical work requires knowledge of the clerical requirements and processes involved in maintaining the functional programs of the unit.  On the other hand, assistance or technical work requires working knowledge of the work processes and procedures of an administrative field (e.g., office administration, communications, and security) and the missions and operational requirements of the unit.

As described in the Testing Clerk, GS-0303-05 PD and confirmed during our review, testing clerks perform the following functions:  brief applicants, distribute and proctor examinations; score exams; perform quality control of examination and applicant information; send results to appropriate personnel; perform data entry of results and information into the appropriate accession reporting system; ensure security and accountability of all accountable test materials when conducting test sessions; assist in conducting test material inventories as required; operate a variety of office automation equipment and answer phone, email queries from recruiters, liaison and other MEPS personnel; and perform other similar clerical functions.  In addition, the agency asserts that (and confirmed by the appellants) that the E-5/E-6 military personnel supervised by the appellants perform similar duties to that of the Testing Clerks equivalent to GS-05 grade level work.  Thus, consistent with clerical positions in the GS-0303 series and evaluated by the Guide, the work performed by the Testing Clerks, GS-0303-05 (and equivalent graded positions) is clerical in nature.  The work requires knowledge of clerical requirements and processes involved in maintaining the testing administration functions of the MEPS in support of the ETP and the STP.  Therefore, the work primarily directed by the appellants is one-grade interval work of a comparable level of complexity to “complex clerical” addressed at Level 1-2.  It does not require knowledge of work processes and procedures of an administrative or professional field typical of technical work. 

Regarding the geographic coverage of the appellants’ MEPS offices, they have provided statistical data to show they service very broad geographic areas including large metropolitan areas and States, i.e., OMB Bulletin No. 18-04, dated September 14, 2018, with Subject: “Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas [MSA], Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas.”  However, while MEPS offices are located throughout the United States (in 43 States) and Puerto Rico, each MEPS is assigned an AOR (testing boundaries) by state(s) and county and is also responsible for all student testing from schools located within the same state(s) and counties.  We find that while some of the MEPS have a broader geographical AOR, like Level 1-2 the functions or services provided support the testing activities comprising a typical agency MEPS field or area office.   

The scope of the appellants’ position does not meet Level 1-3.  Unlike this level, the appellants do not direct a program segment which performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work.  In contrast to Level 1-3, the services provided are not complex administrative or technical or professional services and do not directly affect a large or complex multi-mission military installation.  Furthermore, unlike Level 1-3, the program segment and work directed does not cover most of an area’s taxpayers or businesses, with coverage compared to a small city.  The MEPS does not provide services directly to the public.  The ASVAB and other special purpose tests are given to a limited number of individuals who have been recruited by the military services and students participating in a CEP.  While some of the MEPS have broad geographical coverage, scope is not only measured by the breadth of the geographic coverage but also by the complexity of the work directed which we have identified above as primarily complex clerical in nature. 

Scope is evaluated at Level 1-2.

1. Effect 

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

At Level 1-2, the services or products support and significantly affect installation level, area office level, or field office operations and objectives, or provide services to a moderate, local, or limited population of clients or users.

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

The appellants’ position meets Level 1-2.  Like this level, the testing functions performed within the appellants’ testing sections significantly affect the operations and established testing objectives of the field office/area office MEPS in support of the ETP and STP.  The MEPS administers the ASVAB and provides test results which are needed by the military services to qualify individuals for enlistment and placement in military occupational specialties.  In addition, the testing functions performed support the STP which provides secondary and post-secondary schools and students assistance in curriculum planning, vocational and career counseling.  Comparable to Level 1-2, testing services are provided to only a limited population of applicants and students.  Our fact-finding disclosed that during fiscal years 2018 and 2019 the group averages for the total number of individuals tested by the appellants’ MEPS (students and recruits) was 15,481 and 16,088 respectively.  Testing is only provided to individuals recruited by the military services for enlistment into the military and reserve components and to students from participating schools in the CEP.  Moreover, our review disclosed that both the ETP and the STP have projected annual goals in terms of numbers of recruits and students to be tested each year, thus testing services focus on meeting specific annual thresholds.

The effect of the appellants’ position does not meet Level 1-3.  Unlike this level, the activities and functions accomplished by the appellants and their testing sections do not directly and significantly impact a wide range of DoD activities, the work of other agencies or the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry), or the general public.  Instead, the work effects the ability of military recruitment activities to qualify individuals for enlistment into the military services and the CEP provisions available to students.  The effect of the testing program administered to a limited population of potential recruits is not comparable to agency programs widely impacting the general public, e.g., tax collection, Federal law enforcement or air traffic control.  Furthermore, unlike Level 1-3, the testing services are not equivalent to the Level 1-3 illustration involving essential support operations equal to, for example, providing the full range of personnel, supply management, and budget services involving a large, complex, multi-mission organization. 

Effect is evaluated at Level 1-2. 

Both scope and effect are evaluated at Level 1-2, thus this factor is credited at Level 1-2 and 350 points are assigned. 

Factor 6, Other conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities.  Conditions affecting work for which the supervisor is responsible (whether performed by Federal employees, assigned military, contractors, volunteers, or others) may be considered if they increase the difficulty of carrying out assigned supervisory or managerial duties and authorities.

If the level selected under this factor is 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, and if three or more of the eight Special Situations described are met, the original level selected is increased by one level.  If the level selected is 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations do not apply and the original level selected is credited.  

The agency evaluated Factor 6, Other conditions, at Level 6-2 based on the work supervised involving technician and/or support work at the GS-05 level.  The appellants do not contest this portion of the agency’s determination.  However, they believe one level should be added to Level 6-2, crediting their position with Level 6-3 based on meeting four of the eight Special Situations under this factor.  We concur with the agency’s assignment of Level 6-2 so will not address it separately.  However, we note and as previously addressed in this decision, the primary work directed by the appellants is complex clerical work at the GS-05 level.

Special Situations

Supervisory and oversight work may be complicated by special situations and/or conditions.  The conditions described are (1) Variety of Work, (2) Shift Operations, (3) Fluctuating Work Force or Constantly Changing Deadlines, (4) Physical Dispersion, (5) Special Staffing Situations, (6) Impact of Specialized Programs, (7) Changing Technology, and (8) Special Hazard and Safety Conditions.  Special situations are credited only if they significantly complicate a position’s supervisory and oversight duties and responsibilities.  Our evaluation with respect to the four Special Situations the appellants believe should be credited to their position follows.

Shift Operations

This situation is credited when the position supervises an operation carried out on at least two fully staffed shifts. 

The MEPS operates on a five-day work week excluding Federal holidays and Headquarters, Sector, and Battalion approved non-processing days.  The appellants similarly describe the functions of their testing sections taking place between the operating hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.  A specific, ordered chain of events must take place in order to process applicants into the Armed Services.  Thus, the sections of the MEPS (i.e., testing, medical and processing) have certain section operating hours and schedules.  For example, because applicants should meet aptitude qualification, (i.e., have a passing score on the ASVAB for their respective Service), the applicant is scheduled to take a “night ASVAB” prior to a medical examination the next day.  Thus, while the appellants’ testing sections operating hours extend to 8:00 p.m. due to ASVAB testing generally starting at 4:00 p.m., the other sections of the MEPS have earlier closing business hours.

Within the test section’s operating hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., there are two overlapping tours with two or three full-time permanent employees per tour working flexible hours (i.e., eight, nine or ten hours per day).  Employees on the first tour work the following schedules:  6:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., 6:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m., 7:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m., 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.  Employees on the second tour have the following schedules:  9:30 a.m.-8:00 p.m., 10:30 a.m.-7:30 p.m., 11:00 a.m.-7:30 p.m., 11:30 a.m.-8:00 p.m., and 12:00 p.m. -8:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday.  As there is no testing conducted on Friday nights, the testing staff works during the first tour until completion of their work hours, may work a set morning schedule, or the TCO may use Friday afternoons to conduct roundtable discussions or training.  The employees are also rotated between the two tours to ensure training and proficiency requirements are maintained. 

ITAs do not work from the MEPS and do not have a regularly scheduled tour of duty.  They work from their residences and travel to schools generally within 100 miles of their residences.  ITAs mostly work during morning hours and start and end times vary depending on how far away the testing site is from their residences.  Most of the appellants work an Alternative Work Schedule (AWS), which includes flexible work schedules such as Maxiflex or Flexitour.  These types of schedules allows them to adjust their work hours and provide section coverage during parts of both employee tours at the MEPS; travel to schools and MET sites when needed (e.g., to evaluate ITA performance); and work during night testing hours or other periods needing additional support.  

During each of the tours, the testing section staff performs specific functions that must be conducted during certain days and times.  For example, employees working the first tour generally focus on administering special purpose tests, scoring tests, doing “high school pulls,” and attending to same day processor applicants which typically takes place on the first workday of each week.  Employees working the second tour typically prepare for night testing, register applicants and oversee and monitor test sessions, or vice versa depending on the night testing workload, and they may also complete tasks that must be ready by the morning (e.g., test scoring and recording). 

While the appellants describe supervising employees during “two fully staffed shifts” involving a “morning and evening or night shift,” a shift has traditionally been defined as consisting of a full eight-hour tour of duty, e.g., day, evening, and night shifts.  As discussed in the Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions, October 1997, No. 20-09, the GSSG was developed during a time when compressed work schedules, flexitime, and similar work scheduling options were well-established and widely used.  Therefore, using the term “shift,” without reference to compressed work schedules or flexitime must be carefully considered by OPM in applying the GSSG. 

Shifts traditionally have a similar number of employees structured to operate in the same manner having a supervisor for each full eight-hour shift.  However, the overlapping nature of the MEPS employees’ schedules consisting of eight, nine, or ten hours per day designed to as a whole accomplish all the functions of the section, and the limited number of employees (i.e., two or three testing clerks, one TST, one or no E-5/E-6, and only one TCO per MEPS) assigned, does not support the construct of two fully staffed shifts within the meaning of the GSSG.  Instead, this type of structure is most appropriately considered as a broadened flextime construct with the established employee schedules designed to fit the needs of the testing section’s activities during the additional operating hours.  In addition, our review did not show that the appellants’ supervisory work is made more difficult because of overlapping tours.  The appellants’ flexible work schedules allows them to adjust their work hours and provide section coverage during parts of both employee tours, and during times which they deem most necessary.  Our review also disclosed that not only are the tours overlapping, the full time permanent testing staff at the MEPS are generally experienced, work independently, and may contact the TCO as needed by phone, email or text messages for situations requiring supervisory approval or when there is no designated employee or available management official (e.g., TST or Operations Officer) who may assist the employee in a particular matter.  Therefore, this situation is not met.   

Fluctuating Workforce or Constantly Changing Deadlines

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

The appellants’ full-time permanent subordinate workforce at the MEPS is normally stable in size and not affected by seasonal variations. However, the appellants assert having a fluctuating workforce of ITAs makes supervision more difficult.  They explain that because the position does not provide a stable number of work hours or benefits like those provided to permanent employees, there is constant turnover and hiring of ITAs resulting in the need for continuous training, completing in-processing paperwork, and adjusting assignments to ensure the student testing mission is met despite the shortage in staff.  However, special situations deal with various conditions not credited fully in applying earlier portions of the GSSG.  For example, Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, covers the demands of work planning, scheduling, identifying and providing for needed developmental training and instruction, and similar inherent supervisory duties and responsibilities such as those described by the appellants.  Thus, the appellants may not rely on these same demands already credited to their position to justify the crediting of a similar special situations to their position.  Moreover, the demands described by the appellants involve an impact in the volume of their work (i.e., number of times they conduct training, observe performance, engage in hiring actions, etc.,), rather than impacting the nature of their work and level of responsibility.  For instance, in this case training is not tailored to fit special circumstances, instead the appellants provide the same training every time there is a newly hired ITA.  The issue of volume of work is listed as a factor which cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5). 

Furthermore, our review disclosed the turnover among the intermittent personnel is an issue known to the organization and anticipated to occur to some degree due to the nature of the position having limited work hours (no set schedule) and with compensation only for the time actually employed.  However, “large fluctuations” in size (i.e., where there are significant seasonal variations in staff ) as defined by the GSSG typically involves demanding and concentrated recruitment and related functions, extensive training or similar preparatory requirements, and planning for and implementing large scale but temporary staff gains, e.g., Forest Service seasonal hiring.  Our review did not show the workforce fluctuations in ITA personnel are comparable to “large seasonal variations in staff” or have an equivalent impact on the appellants’ supervisory demands as those intended under this situation.  Therefore, the fluctuating workforce situation is not met.

The appellants’ reasons for meeting the constantly changing deadlines situation are based on having short turnaround times for adjusting assignments, e.g., when there is a last-minute change made by the school requiring them to find another employee to fill-in (or filling-in themselves) in order to meet the goals of the STP.  While we understand that these types of changes impose an additional burden on the appellants to fill in gaps in support of student testing goals, these are intrinsic program issues dealt by the ESS, TC in coordination with the TCO.  The appellants have not established that they are confronted with work assignments, goals and deadline changes that are frequent, abrupt, and unanticipated requiring them to adjust operations under pressure of continuously changing and unpredictable conditions. Therefore, the constantly changing deadlines situation is not met.   

Physical Dispersion

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

The appellants believe the physical dispersion situation should be credited to their position because the ITAs carry out a substantial portion of the workload at locations geographically dispersed from the MEPS.  The conditions described by the appellants which make their day-to-day supervision difficult involve having to travel outside the MEPS to provide training and/or observe and evaluate performance and/or to fill-in where there is a shortage in staff to administer student tests. 

The appellants provide initial, quarterly, and annual training to all newly appointed GS-04 ITAs.  Initial training is provided on basic job task requirements using Training Standardization Job Task Sheets and observing and evaluating them performing these tasks generally within 30 to 60 days of appointment.  The ITAs also receive training on test security, controlled test material handling, and test administration when they are hired and on a quarterly basis.  In the case of student testing, a recruiter or school staff members may proctor the test and the ITA performs the following tasks:  prepares test materials prior to a test session; distributes test materials to students; ensures student’s social security numbers on USMEPCOM forms and the test answer sheet are the same; instructs students on testing procedures; starts, observes, times, and ends tests; and ensures all test materials and scratch paper are collected and accounted before packaging and mailing to the MEPS for scoring.  The ITAs communicate with the appellants by telephone, text, email for questions, and the appellants communicate with them in person when training, observing, and evaluating their performance during the year.

While we recognize that a substantial portion of the workload (i.e., student testing) is carried out by GS-04 ITAs at schools and MET sites located within the AOR of the testing section but physically removed from the MEPS, this situation is met when physical dispersion adds to the difficulty of day-to-day supervision; e.g., managing teams of subordinates at dispersed worksites where work planning and oversight is complicated by the need to arrange for the staged movement of equipment, supplies, and personnel to accomplish phased projects or managing fully staffed ongoing work operations at multiple sites.  As described above, the work tasks performed by the ITAs are standard and routine in nature and not subject to close daily supervision or extensive day-to-day training.  Thus, the physical dispersion of the ITAs does not add to the difficulty of the appellants’ day-to-day supervision within the meaning of this special situation.  Therefore, this situation is not met. 

Changing Technology

This situation is credited when work processes and procedures vary constantly because of the impact of changing technology, creating a requirement for extensive training and guidance of subordinate staff. 

The appellants provided a list of Windows-based and internet-based computerized adaptive tests (e.g., Win-CAT, iCAT, CEP iCAT) administered at the MEPS and other sites.  They also provided names and descriptions of various management and information systems used in performing the duties of their position.  For example, the United States Military Integrated Resource System (USMIRS) purposed for accessing recruits and reporting recruit accession data; the Enterprise Monitoring and Management Accounts (EMMA) used for vetting employee certifications; the Automated Time and Attendance and Production System (ATAAPS) used for processing employee timesheets; the Defense Travel System (DTS) used for reviewing and approving mileage reimbursements; USA Staffing used for processing hiring actions, and SharePoint used for reporting on operational tasks.  The nature of the technology issues they face  involves changes in systems and databases used including login procedures, automated software updates, user manual updates, internet errors, network system crashes, iCAT platform issues occurring during testing (e.g., page errors, pages not displaying, uploading problems), and “seeded questions” (i.e., additional questions incorporated in service specific tests).  The appellants assert experiencing changes in all systems requires them to provide training without prior guidance or training given to them, thus making their work difficult while administering applicant testing. 

The nature of the technology issues experienced by the appellants cannot be construed as the impact of changing technology within the meaning of this Special Situation.  For instance, dealing with automated software updates and other similar changes as described above do not create a requirement for extensive training emanating from processes and procedures that vary constantly due to the impact of changing technology as intended by this situation.  Furthermore, for internet, network, server and similar IT issues employees may submit a ticket with their local IT or with the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) and in most cases may continue carrying out their operations using established manual processes.  For instance, in the event that the USMIRS is inoperable, applicant processing will continue manually (e.g., manually recording test results), subsequently entering data when processing returns to normal operations.  Regarding “seeded questions” which are incorporated into service-specific tests, this situation is not related to a change in technology and does not require the appellants provide training to their subordinate staff.  Instead, it requires the appellants and their staff be made aware of the incorporation of these questions into specific tests in order to provide applicants sufficient time to complete their testing prior to close of business.  Our review disclosed that no impediments have occurred in MEPSs meeting their projected testing schedules due to the incorporation of additional questions in tests.  Regarding the constant training the appellants claim they provide due to constant upgrades or changes, these types of training responsibilities are inherent to and would not exceed their supervisory responsibilities already credited to the classification of their position under Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, which covers the demands of identifying and providing for needed training and instruction. 

During the adjudication of this appeal, the appellants provided further information to support crediting this situation.  One example shows the WinCAT testing platform was going to be decommissioned and special purpose tests resident on the WinCAT platform were going to be transitioned to the iCAT platform before decommissioning the WinCAT.  As a result, in December 2020, an iCAT software update was released which made these tests available for administration via iCAT.  Other information provided shows the HQ USMEPCOM program manager provided updated user manuals and identified workaround solutions for issues (bugs) identified by the DMDC.  Subsequent information submitted in March 2021 by the appellants indicated the iCAT/PiCAT applications were successfully migrated to the cloud environment.  Other information provided by the appellants in January 2020 showed the agency was preparing for the imminent upgrade of USMIRS (USMIRS 1.1) and rolling out “Upskilling Pilot Courses” through Microsoft Teams virtual instructor led courses.  In March 2021, the appellants provided information showing the agency has now began rolling out the upgraded USMIRS 1.1. system.  Information also shows agency management has provided workaround solutions and interim procedures to be used for unavailable system functions during the implementation of this system.  However, we have not considered these examples because the implementation of these changes in technology are currently in progress and their impact on the appellants’ duties and responsibilities is unknown.  Further, while such shifts in technology may occur, our fact-finding does not indicate that these require modifying work procedures to accommodate them, nor that they require extensive additional supervisory training to implement them.  Therefore, this situation is not met. 

Because the appellants’ position does not meet three of the eight special situations identified, no additional level is warranted.  Factor 6 is credited at Level 6-2 and 575 points are assigned.

Summary

By application of the GSSG, we have evaluated the appellants’ supervisory duties as follows:

Summary
Factors	Level	Points
1. Program scope and effect	1-2	350
2. Organizational setting	2-1	100
3. Supervisory and managerial authority exercised	3-2c	450
4. Personal contacts	4A-2	50
Nature of contact	4B-2	75
5. Difficulty of typical work directed	5-3	340
6. Other conditions	6-2	575
Total		1940

The total of 1940 points falls within the GS-09 grade range (1855-2100) on the point-to-grade conversion chart in the GSSG.  Therefore, the appellants’ position is graded at the GS-09 level. 

Decision

The proper series and grade of the appellants’ position is GS-0301-09, with title at the agency’s discretion including denoting supervisory responsibility.   

 

 

Back to Top