Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
Air Combat Command
U.S. Department of the Air Force
Fort Moore, Georgia
Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
03/13/2025
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).
The appellant’s position is classified as Supervisory Meteorological Technician, GS-1341-11, but he believes it should be classified at the GS-12 grade level. The position is assigned to the 18th Combat Weather Squadron (CWS), Air Combat Command (ACC), U.S. Department of the Air Force (DAF) at Fort Moore (formerly Fort Benning), in Columbus, Georgia. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
The appellant states his Air Force Standard Core Personnel Document (SCPD) number 9SR71, is accurate. The Acting Commander for the 18th CWS certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s SCPD of record. Additionally, the appellant’s immediate supervisor, Director of Operations, (Major USAF) for the 18th CWS, asserted to the accuracy of the appellant’s SCPD during his interview with OPM. The appellant’s position is assigned to Operating Location (OL)-D which services Fort Moore’s army aviation and resource protection units. The primary purpose of the appellant’s position is to serve as a first-level supervisor. As such, he provides technical and administrative supervision to three Meteorological Technician, GS-1341-09 positions (referred to as weather forecasters) responsible for conducting weather operations and producing mission-tailored meteorological products and services primarily to Army units. At the time the appellant submitted his appeal to OPM, he also supervised one Electronics Technician, GS-0856-09 position responsible for maintaining systems and equipment used for detecting, measuring, recording, and displaying meteorological conditions. However, in July 2024, the position was moved to the OL in Fort Novosel, thus the appellant no longer supervises the position.
The appellant plans, organizes, and directs the activities of OL-D Fort Moore. He accepts, amends, or rejects work presented by his employees as necessary, and makes certain that all meteorological products and services (e.g., weather warnings, watches, advisories, forecasts) comply with regulatory requirements and meet customer needs. He initiates requests for additional resources including personnel, overtime, equipment, supplies, and space to meet work goals and objectives. He meets with installation customers and coordinating officials to assess customer satisfaction and explain organizational policies and procedures. He researches, analyzes, and applies applicable guidelines to resolve problems that arise, and makes recommendations for unresolved or questionable problems to appropriate officials. He provides advice to his supervisor on significant issues and problems related to work performed by the OL-D (e.g., customer using national weather reports as opposed to those issued by the OL-D). Furthermore, he assesses, revises, and develops standard operating policies and procedures as needed to improve the quality, timeliness and efficiency of work. He reviews weather actions of the OL-D at critical points to confirm accuracy of work products (e.g., did lightning occur according to forecast), and to collect metrics required for trend analysis by the CWS and ACC. He participates in special projects (e.g., creating and leading tornado and hurricane exercises for emergency management office). In addition, he identifies and initiates special projects (e.g., creation of webpage for delivery of weather reports to customers).
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official SCPD, which we find to be accurate and have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his immediate supervisor.
Series, Title, and Standard Determination
The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Meteorological Technician Series, 1341, titling it Supervisory Meteorological Technician and evaluated the position by application of the grading criteria in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG). The appellant does not dispute these determinations. The appellant’s supervisory responsibilities fully meet the GSSG coverage requirements for titling and evaluation as a supervisor. Further, as stated in the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Technical Work in the Physical Sciences Group, GS-1300, the prefix “Supervisory” must be added to the basic title of “Meteorological Technician” positions classified using the GSSG. Therefore, we concur with the agency’s title, series, and standard determination.
The SCPD allocates ten percent of the appellant’s time to performing mission execution forecasts and mission watches, and other technical work. However, only duties occupying at least 25 percent of an employee’s time on a regular and recurring basis can affect the grade of a position (Introduction, section III.J), thus we have not evaluated this work. The appellant adds that he often performs technical work performed by the weather forecasters when it is very busy, in the absence or shortage of weather forecasters, or during a weather emergency requiring that everyone available assist. However, worked performed on a temporary basis or in the absence of another employee cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (Introduction, Section III.J., and The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5). Moreover, even assuming the appellant performed technical work on a regular and recurring basis, the work is classified no higher than GS-09 grade level and does not impact the classification of the position. The appellant’s supervisory duties occupy the majority of his time and represent the highest level of work assigned to his position. Therefore, we have evaluated the grade of the position’s supervisory duties below by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG to those factor levels in dispute.
The GSSG is a cross-series guide used to determine the grade level of supervisory positions in the GS. 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 appellant disagrees with the agency’s GSSG assignment of Level 3-2c for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, and Level 6-3 for Factor 6, Other Conditions on the basis that he meets four out of eight Special Situations under this factor. He does not disagree with the agency’s assignment of Level 1-2 for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect, Level 2-1 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting, Subfactor Level 4A-2 (Nature of contacts) and Subfactor Level 4B-2 (Purpose of Contacts) for Factor 4, Personal Contacts, and Level 5-5 for Factor 5, Difficulty of Work Directed. After careful review, we concur with the undisputed factor levels assigned by the agency for Factors 1, 2, 4, and 5, and therefore have not addressed them separately in the discussion below. Our evaluation with respect to the disputed Factors 3 and 6 follows.
Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised
This factor covers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities which are exercised on a recurring basis. To be credited with a level under this factor, a position must meet the authorities and responsibilities to the extent described for the specific level.
Level 3-2 is credited if either Level 3-2a, 3-2b, or 3-2c is met. The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 3-2c, but he believes his position meets Level 3-3b. Each factor level is predicated on the preceding factor levels having been fully met, therefore, we must first compare the appellant’s position to the authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2, prior to consideration of subsequent factor levels. Level 3-2a addresses production oriented work and Level 3-2b applies to situations where work is contracted out, neither applicable to the appellant’s position, thus we will not address these levels. At Level 3-2c, the position must have responsibility for carrying out at least three of the first four and a total of six or more of the ten authorities and responsibilities listed in the GSSG. Our analysis of the ten authorities and responsibilities follows:
Responsibility 1 is credited. It involves planning work to be accomplished by subordinates, setting and adjusting short-term priorities, and preparing schedules for completion of work. The appellant performs these duties.
Responsibility 2 is credited. It involves assigning work to subordinates based on priorities, selective consideration of the difficulty and requirements of assignments, and the experience and capabilities of the employee. The appellant assigns work to his employees taking into consideration the preceding factors.
Responsibility 3 is credited. It involves evaluating work performance of subordinates. The appellant directly evaluates the work performance of his subordinates.
Responsibility 4 is credited. It involves giving advice, counsel, and instruction to employees on both work and administrative matters. The appellant instructs his subordinate employees on technical meteorological methods and procedures and administrative matters.
Responsibility 5 is credited. It involves interviewing candidates for positions in the unit, and recommending appointment, promotion, or reassignment to such positions. The appellant interviews candidates and makes recommendations for the preceding actions.
Responsibility 6 is credited. The appellant hears complaints from employees, and refers group grievances and more serious unresolved complaints to a higher level supervisor or manager, and/or to a comparable individual at the Civilian Personnel Office (CPO) or other appropriate office.
Responsibility 7 is credited. The appellant effects minor disciplinary measures, such as warnings and reprimands, recommending other action in more serious cases.
Responsibility 8 is credited. The appellant identifies developmental and training needs of employees, providing or arranging for needed development and training.
Responsibility 9 is credited. It involves finding ways to improve production or increase the quality of the work directed. The appellant finds ways to increase the quality and effectiveness of mission-tailored weather products produced by the OL-D.
Responsibility 10 is credited. The appellant develops performance standards for his subordinates.
The appellant is responsible for carrying out the first four and all ten authorities and responsibilities listed at Level 3-2c. Therefore, the position meets Level 3-2.
To meet Level 3-3, a position must meet either 3-3a or 3-3b as described below:
At Level 3-3a, a position exercises delegated managerial authority to set a series of annual, multi-year, or similar types of long-range work plans and schedules for in-service or contracted work. These positions assure implementation (by lower and subordinate organizational units or others) of the goals and objectives for the program segment (s) or function(s) they oversee. They determine goals and objectives that need additional emphasis; determine the best approach or solution for resolving budget shortages; and plan for long range staffing needs, including such matters as whether to contract out work. These positions are closely involved with high level program officials (or comparable agency level staff personnel) in the development of overall goals and objectives for assigned staff function(s), program(s), or program segment(s). For example, they direct development of data; provision of expertise and insights; securing of legal opinions; preparation of position papers or legislative proposals; and execution of comparable activities which support development of goals and objectives related to high levels of program management and development or formulation.
The appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-3a. Unlike this level, he does not have the managerial authority to set a series of annual, multi-year, or similar types of long-range work plans and schedules for in-service or contracted work, nor is he closely involved with agency-level officials in the development of the overall goals and objectives for his organization. The intent of Level 3-3a, in its reference to assuring program implementation by lower and subordinate organizational units, is to credit significant decision-making involvement in agency-wide staffing, budgetary, policy, and regulatory matters. However, the appellant serves as a first-level supervisor for an OL without subordinate organizational units or subordinate supervisors envisioned for an organizational setting at Level 3-3a and he does not exercise the significant and extensive program authority defined at this level. This responsibility is vested to higher echelons at the ACC level. Therefore, he does not meet Level 3-3a.
To meet Factor Level 3-3b, a position must exercise all or nearly all of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor and, in addition, at least eight of the fifteen responsibilities listed at Level 3-3b. Our analysis of those responsibilities follows:
Responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 refer to situations where work is accomplished through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or other similar personnel. Further, the supervisor’s organizational workload must be so large and the work so complex that it requires using two or more subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel to direct the work. The appellant is a first-level supervisor and given that the organizational workload (i.e., three employees performing GS-09 base level work) is not so large or so complex as to require using subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel to direct the work, his position is not credited with responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8.
Responsibility 2 is not credited. It involves exercising significant responsibilities in dealing with officials of other units or organizations, or in advising management officials of higher rank. Although the appellant has frequent contact with officials of higher rank to discuss their missions so that weather support products can be tailored according to the needs of their units, and provides information to Army Commanders on the products and services produced by the OL-D, he does not exercise significant responsibility in dealing with officials of other units or organizations, or in the capacity of an advisor to management officials of a higher rank as intended by responsibility 2.
Responsibility 4 is not credited. It involves direction of a program or major program segment with significant resources (e.g., one at a multi-million dollar level of annual resources). The appellant does not direct or has over the funding for programs or major program segments. The level of discretion and control expected by responsibility 4 rests at higher echelons of the organization.
Responsibility 7 is credited. The appellant makes or approves selections for subordinates nonsupervisory positions.
Responsibility 9 is not credited. The appellant does not hear and resolve group grievance or serious employee complaints expected by responsibility 9. These matters are referred to the appropriate office (e.g., CPO, ER, Wing) for resolution.
Responsibility 10 is not credited. It involves reviewing and approving disciplinary actions (e.g., suspensions) involving nonsupervisory subordinates. Although the appellant can make recommendations for serious disciplinary actions such as suspensions, he does not have the final authority to approve them.
Responsibility 11 is not credited. The appellant does not make decisions on training that is non-routine, costly or controversial in character. These decisions are made at the Squadron level. His authority does not exceed that described in responsibility 8 of Level 3-2c, which is credited to a supervisor who identifies developmental and training needs of employees, providing or arranging for needed development and training.
Responsibility 12 is not credited. It involves determining whether contractor performed work meets standards of adequacy necessary for authorization of payment. The appellant does not supervise work performed by contractors.
Responsibility 13 is not credited. The appellant exercises the authority to approve expenses like within-grade increases and extensive overtime (given available funding), but he does not approve employee travel. This responsibility lies with the Squadron Commander.
Responsibility 14 is credited. It involves recommending awards or bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by higher level officials, supervisors, or others. In appellant’s case these types of recommendations are subject to approval by the Wing Commander.
Responsibility 15 is not credited. It involves finding and implementing ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to production, promote team building, or improve business practices. This would apply to large organizations e.g., in a large production or processing unit. The nature of the work supervised by the appellant does not lend itself to this type of work. The appellant’s authority in this area would not exceed that described in responsibility 9 of Level 3-2c, which is credited to a supervisor who finds ways to improve production or increase the quality of the work directed.
The appellants’ position exercises all of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor, but only two of the authorities and responsibilities under Level 3-3b. As the appellant’s position does not meet at least eight of the authorities and responsibilities under Level 3-3b, his position does not meet Factor Level 3-3.
This factor is credited at Level 3-2c and 450 points are assigned.
This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities. There are two steps involved in assigning a level under Factor 6: (1) select the highest level that the position meets, and (2) if the level selected in step 1 is either 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, refer to the Special Situations section of Factor 6. If the position meets 3 or more of the situations, then a single level is added to the level selected in the first step. If the level selected under step 1 is either 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations section does not apply, no level is added to the one selected in step 1, and the original level selected is credited.
The agency evaluated Factor 6, Other conditions, at Level 6-3a based on the work supervised involving technical work at the GS-09 level. The appellant does not contest this portion of the agency’s determination. However, he believes one level should be added to Level 6-3, crediting his position with Level 6-4 based on meeting four of the eight Special Situations under this factor. We also concur with the agency’s assignment of Level 6-3a. This level requires coordination of administrative, technical, or complex technician work comparable to GS-9 or 10, where the coordination is similar to that described at Level 6-2a, i.e., ensuring consistency of product and conformance with formal standards or agency policy. The appellant carries out this level of coordination over the work of three GS-9 employees whom he directly supervises. Since assignment of Level 6-3 is not in dispute, we will not address it separately. Our evaluation of the four Special Situations the appellant believes he meets follows.
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 appellant believes should be credited to position follows.
This situation is credited when more than one kind of work, each kind representing a requirement for a distinctly different additional body of knowledge on the part of the supervisor, is present in the work of the unit. Additionally, to credit "Variety" (1) both technical and administrative responsibility must be exercised over the work, and (2) the grade level of the work cannot be more than one grade below the base level of work used in Factor 5.
At the time the appellant submitted his appeal to OPM, he supervised positions in more than one series of work which required distinctly different bodies of knowledge (i.e., three GS positions in the Meteorological Technician Series 1341, and one GS position in the Electronics Technical Series 0856. However, he only provided administrative supervision to the Electronics Technician, GS-0856-09 position. To meet this situation, the position is expected to demonstrate full technical competence with the range of the assignments and to develop approach for resolving problems. Work performed by the Electronic Technician was considered satisfactory by the evident uptime of equipment. For technical advice the technician would contact the Technical Sergeant with electronics expertise or the government contractor owning the equipment to be fixed. Since the appellant did not have full technical responsibility over the work exercised by the Electronics Technician, GS-0856-09, this situation would not have been met. Regardless, this Special Situation is inapplicable to the appellant’s position as he no longer supervises the electronics technician position and the position will not be replaced. Therefore, this situation is not met.
This situation is credited when the position supervises an operation carried out on at least two fully staffed shifts.
The established operating hours for the OL-D according to organizational policy are from Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m.- 12:00 a.m. The appellant is required to notify the field of any operational hour changes for the OL-D. At the present time, the OL-D operates from 7:00 a.m.- 11:00 p.m., and as needed to cover missions scheduled between 11:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m. Within the current operating hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., there are two employees scheduled to work a tour from 7:00 a.m.- 3:00 p.m. (the busiest time), and one employee scheduled to work another tour from 3:00 p.m.- 11:00 p.m. The appellant states that the employees can also “flex” their work hours (e.g., if coverage was needed from 11:00 p.m. to midnight) in order to meet the demands of the work. The appellant is assigned to a Flexible Work Schedule (i.e., Maxiflex), but generally works from 8:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.
Although the appellant describes supervising at least two shifts (and in the past three shifts), traditionally “shifts” have a similar number of employees structured to operate in the same manner having a supervisor for each full eight-hour shift. The limited number of employees (i.e., one or two employees) assigned during each tour with one supervisor for the OL-D does not support the construct of two fully staffed shifts within the meaning of the GSSG. Rather, this type of structure is most appropriately considered as a broadened flextime construct where the appellant establishes the employee’s schedules designed to fit the needs of the OL-D activities including during the additional overnight hours as necessary. See Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions, October 1997, No. 20-09. Further, the appellant’s flexible work schedule allows him to adjust his work hours and provide coverage during parts of both employee tours, and during times which he deems most necessary. Our review also disclosed that the staff of the OL-D, full performance grade level forecasters who have many years of experience and work independently, and may contact the appellant as needed by phone or text messages for situations requiring supervisory approval. Our review does not support that the appellant supervises an operation carried out by two fully staffed shifts making his supervisory and oversight duties more complex and difficult. Therefore, this situation is not met.
Fluctuating Workforce or Constantly Changing Deadlines
Fluctuating Work Force is credited when the workforce supervised by the position has large fluctuations in size (e.g., when there are significant seasonal variations in staff). 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 appellant does not claim that he supervises a large fluctuating workforce. However, he asserts that he faces constantly changing deadlines. His reasons for meeting the constantly changing deadlines situation is based on having constant changes for request for weather support, e.g., when there is change request for weather briefing a half-an-hour earlier than originally scheduled requiring the appellant to reprioritize the work of the OL-D. While we understand that these types of changes impose an additional burden on the appellant and his employees, this is an issue known to the organization and anticipated to occur to some degree based on mission requirements and weather changes during the activities carried out by its customers. Furthermore, the demands for reprioritizing the products or services to while adding more work to be done does not impact the nature of the appellant’s supervisory work and level of responsibility. Moreover, the appellant may not rely on the same demands already credited to his position as a supervisor (i.e., assigning work to subordinates based on priorities) to justify the crediting of a similar special situation to his position. Our review does not show that the appellant is confronted with work assignments, goals and deadline changes that are frequent, abrupt, and unanticipated requiring him to adjust operations under pressure of continuously changing and unpredictable conditions. Therefore, the constantly changing deadlines situation is not met.
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 appellant states that the OL-D is faced with frequent technology changes increasing the requirement for him to provide extensive training and guidance to his subordinates. For example, he mentions the ongoing transition from the Joint Environmental Toolkit (JET) to the Bridging Environmental Intelligence Responsive Operational Support Portal (BIFROST) as the primary resource for meteorological dissemination of weather support products. Training for this system upgrade is currently being provided by AF Weather through Teams meetings. The appellant also mentions the replacement of an old satellite with the Mark IVB weather satellite currently in use. The appellant and his employees are kept current on how this satellite operates through monthly updates from AF Weather. The appellant also mentions the forthcoming integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to AF weather products. In addition, he states that he created a webpage to provide weather observations and forecasts for its customers replacing paper dissemination of this information and provided training to his subordinate employees.
The nature of the technology issues experienced by the OL-D cannot be construed as the impact of changing technology within the meaning of this Special Situation. For instance, dealing with database, system, or satellite upgrades 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. Rather, the technology changes the appellant faces involve upgrades to systems for which necessary training was provided by the organization, and replacement of satellite for which updates are provided on a regular basis to the OL-D for its awareness. Further, the webpage that the appellant created does not constitute a change in technology, but rather a different form to communicate weather information more effectively to installation customers and others. Projects of this nature are inherent to the appellant’s supervisory responsibilities to increase the quality of the work directed. Moreover, any training or guidance provided by the appellant to his subordinate employees for the type of technology changes previously described are intrinsic to his position and would not exceed supervisory responsibilities already credited to the classification of his position under Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, which covers the demands of identifying and providing for needed training and instruction.
Regarding the upcoming integration of AI technology, we have not considered this example because the implementation of this change in technology has not yet taken place and its impact on the appellant’s supervisory duties and responsibilities is unknown. This situation is not met.
The appellant’s position does not meet three of the eight special situations identified, thus no additional level is warranted. Factor 6 is credited at Level 6-3 and 975 points are assigned.
By application of the GSSG, we have evaluated the appellant’s supervisory duties as follows:
|
Factor |
Level |
Points |
|
1. Program Scope and Effect |
1-2 |
350 |
|
2. Organizational Setting |
2-1 |
100 |
|
3. Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised |
3-2 |
450 |
|
4. Personal Contacts |
|
|
|
Nature of Contacts |
4A-2 |
50 |
|
Purpose of Contacts |
4B-2 |
75 |
|
5. Difficulty of Typical Work Directed |
5-5 |
650 |
|
6. Other Conditions |
6-3 |
975 |
|
Total Points |
2650 |
|
The total of 2650 points falls within the GS-11 grade range (2355-2750) on the point-to-grade conversion chart in the GSSG. Therefore, the appellant’s position is graded at the GS-11 level.
The proper series and grade of the appellant’s position is GS-1341-11, with title of Meteorological Technician with prefix “supervisory” added.