Click here to skip navigation
An official website of the United States Government.
Skip Navigation

In This Section

Classification & Qualifications Appeal Decisions

Washington, DC

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

[appellant's name]
Police Officer (Instructor)
GS-083-9
[Appellant’s organization/location]
Commander Navy Installations Command
Department of the Navy
Police Officer (Instructor)
GS-083-9
C-0083-09-04

Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance

05/08/2014


Date

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

As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellant’s 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 appellant’s PD to reflect our findings.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected position description and a Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken.  The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the OPM office which adjudicated this appeal. 

Decision sent to:

[Name and address of appellant’s representative]

[Name and address of appellant’s servicing human resources office]

 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Civilian Human Resources)

1000 Navy Pentagon

Room 4D548

Washington, DC  20350-1000

 

Director, Workforce Relations and Compensation Division

Department of the Navy

Office of Civilian Human Resources

614 Sicard Street SE, Suite 100

Washington Navy Yard, DC  20374-5072

 

Director, Office of Civilian Human Resources

Department of the Navy

614 Sicard Street SE, Suite 100

Washington Navy Yard, DC  20374-5072

 

Compensation and Classification Program Manager

Office of Civilian Human Resources

Department of the Navy

614 Sicard Street S.E., Suite 100

Washington Navy Yard, DC  20374-5072

 

Chief, Classification Appeals Adjudication Section

Department of Defense

Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service

4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 05G21

Alexandria, VA  22311

Introduction

On August 7, 2013, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Agency Compliance and Evaluation-San Francisco, accepted a classification appeal from [name of appellant] filed on his behalf by his designated union representative.  On November 13, 2013, we received the agency’s complete administrative report.  The appellant’s position is currently classified as Police Officer (Instructor), GS-083-9.  However, he believes his position should be classified as Training Administrator, GS-1712-11.  The appellant works in the [name and location of appellant’s organization].  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112(b) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.). 

General issues

The appellant disagrees with the accuracy of his PD [number] stating it does not sufficiently describe all of his duties and responsibilities, particularly his administrative tasks supporting the training program.  However, the appellant’s first and second level supervisors have certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s PD.  A PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign work.  A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by the employee.  Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal on the basis of the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee.  An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD.  This decision is based on the work currently assigned and performed by the appellant. 

Our review disclosed the appellant’s standard agency PD is inaccurate under Part I., “Introduction” because the referenced Integrated Security Solutions (IS3) organization which supported training programs for CNIC Naval activities was abolished in 2009.  It was succeeded by “Non-Guard Services” which in turn was abolished in December 2013.  Moreover, with abolishment of IS3 there are no longer Site Managers or alternates as mentioned in the PD.  Part II., “Major Duties and Responsibilities” is also inaccurate because the appellant no longer serves as the Firearms Range control officer operating the range program.  Those duties are now performed by a Range Safety Officer working in another section of the [name of appellant’s unit].  Additionally, the discussion in the PD of “Factor 1 – Knowledge Required” is inaccurate because it states “Expert knowledge of professional instructional methods and theories used in a formal Police Office Training environment.”  As discussed later in this decision, we find the position does not require professional knowledge of the theories, principles, and techniques of education and training.  Also, the appellant does not “Develops Performance Objectives and Standards” to aid in identifying training needs and requirements for each student, and he does not design In-Service training courses to correct deficiencies in student performance.  We also find the PD does not adequately address the variety of administrative tasks he performs in support of [name of installation] law enforcement training program.  Therefore, the appellant’s PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 10-11 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings. 

Position information

As one of two instructors assigned to the [appellant’s unit], the appellant instructs or assists in instructing, as needed, up to eighteen law enforcement related training courses attended by personnel assigned to the [name of installation] full-time Naval Security Force (NSF), and part-time Auxiliary Security Force (ASF) and Reserve Security Force (RSF), totaling approximately 247 staff members.  Many courses are presented several times per year, and include initial and annual law enforcement sustainment training (AST); an initial three week ASF academy course specifically presented to new members of the ASF; short initial and sustainment courses in Active Shooter, Basic Life Support, Emergency Vehicle Operator, Non-Lethal Weapons, Oleoresin Capsicum Spray (pepper spray) Recertification Course, Basic Traffic Accident Investigation, Driving Under the Influence/Field Sobriety Test (DUI/FST), Radar, and Field Training Officer (FTO).  He is also involved in preparing study guides and knowledge assessment materials for some of the preceding courses (e.g., AST, FTO), as well as the Patrol Qualification System (PQS). 

The CNIC and the Center for Security Forces (CENSECFOR) develop standardized subject curricula and power point slides and lesson plans for many of the preceding courses, e.g., ASF, AST.  Courses may be supplemented and adjusted based on local training needs and State and local law enforcement requirements.  The appellant is responsible for selecting appropriate training techniques and methods to teach course curricula so students can meet minimum initial and sustainment training standards and certifications.  He prepares lesson plans, instructor guides and training materials for some courses (e.g., Radar) including PowerPoint presentations and role-playing exercises.  He also researches current developments in the field of law enforcement to provide applicable local and State updates for courses, e.g., DUI/FST course.  He recommends curricula modifications including law and regulation updates, as well as changes or adjustments in methods of course presentation to accommodate local [name of installation] law enforcement training needs, student group availability, and training priorities.  The supervisor reviews and approves some course adjustments, while others must be submitted to the Southwest regional training office and/or CNIC for final approval. 

The appellant performs a variety of administrative tasks supporting the law enforcement training program.  These include scheduling recurring courses and practical exercises, some of which are offered three to four times per year, and weekly compiling data for completing twenty-three different automated reports.  These reports  update and track the status of required law enforcement training by student name and course which is distributed to Patrol Watch Supervisors, the Assistant Security Officer, (appellant’s immediate supervisor), and [appellant’s unit] Division Chiefs.  In addition, each month he prepares and sends to the Southwest Region a consolidated [name of installation] law enforcement training report addressing the status and completion of training/certification by course and student name at [name of installation].  The appellant also maintains and updates individual training records for assigned [name of installation] law enforcement personnel, and monitors achievement of training objectives (e.g., course completions) against established law enforcement training requirements.  He also compiles information from various training course source documents for inclusion in the annual law enforcement training plan for the calendar year. 

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including his official PD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant, his first and second-level supervisors, and the Operations Chief, Commander, [name of region], to gather more information about the region’s law enforcement training program. 

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency has classified the appellant’s position in the Police Series, GS-083, but he believes it should be classified in the Training Instruction Series, GS-1712.  The GS-1712 series covers positions concerned with administration, supervision, training program development, evaluation, or instruction in a program of training when the paramount requirement of the work is a combination of practical knowledge of the methods and techniques of instruction and practical knowledge of the subject-matter taught.  Positions in this series do not have either a paramount requirement for professional knowledge and training in the field of education, or mastery of a trade, craft, or laboring occupation.  Positions in both this series and the professional series in this group involve career patterns that are primarily in the field of education and training.  Positions involving education and training work are normally classified in the appropriate subject-matter series when the paramount qualification requirements for the work and the career patterns for the position are primarily in the subject-matter field rather than in the education and training field.  Positions involving education and training work requiring subject-matter knowledge are classified in GS-1712 series when the career patterns of the positions are primarily associated with the field of education and training, when instruction is the highest level skill required, or when no appropriate subject-matter series has been established. 

The GS-083 series includes positions the primary duties of which are the performance or supervision of law enforcement work in the preservation of the peace; the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes; the arrest or apprehension of violators; and the provision of assistance to citizens in emergencies, including the protection of civil rights.  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 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. 

Classification guidance in the Introduction and The Classifier’s Handbook states that for positions whose duties fall in more than one occupational group, the most appropriate series for the positions depends on consideration of a number of factors.  For many positions, the grade controlling duties will determine the series.  Sometimes, however, the highest level of work performed does not represent the most appropriate series and the series can be determined only after considering the paramount qualifications required, sources of recruitment and line of progression/promotion, the reason for establishing the position, organizational function, and the background knowledge required. 

The record shows the paramount knowledge required and used by the appellant to perform his primary duties involves knowledge of a body of laws and regulations, law enforcement operations, practices and techniques requiring training and background experience in police work.  He applies that knowledge in providing initial and sustainment/recertification instruction to [name of installation] full-time NSF, and part-time ASF and RSF personnel in a wide range of police officer line and auxiliary operations and tasks.  Furthermore, the appellant must possesses knowledge of related Federal, Department of Defense (DOD), Navy, State, county, municipal laws and ordinances, [appellant’s unit] practices and procedures to develop and prepare lesson plans and training materials.  To facilitate his instruction responsibilities, he previously acquired while on military active duty supplemental practical knowledge of teaching techniques by attending various instructor training courses certifying him as a Master Training Specialist (9502), and served as a law enforcement instructor at the Naval Technical Training Center.  Additionally, while in his current civilian position he attended in March 2010 numerous “train the trainer” short courses covering instruction techniques for various courses taught a [name of installation] including Non-Lethal Weapons, DUI/FST, Anti-Terrorism, and Basic Traffic Accident Investigation. 

Although this position is established to provide the services of a course instructor, our fact-finding confirmed the primary knowledge requirement, career patterns, principal sources of recruitment, occupational lines of progression and promotion, and organizational function are in the subject-matter field of law enforcement.  Background information indicates the appellant possessed extensive law enforcement experience when recruited for the appealed position, i.e., U.S Navy Master-at-Arms.  That knowledge and experience was identified by his supervisors (whose own active duty positions are in the law enforcement/security fields) as necessary to provide the best qualified candidates to present comprehensive initial and sustainment law enforcement training to military and civilian law enforcement officers, ASF staff, and reservists assigned to patrol and watch duties at [name of installation].  The supervisors stated that supplemental training in instruction techniques could be acquired through attendance at the Basic Instructor Course (9502) if the individual selected had not already received such training.  As noted above, the appellant attended 9502 instructor training while on active military duty.  The supervisors indicated that absent the appellant’s law enforcement subject-matter expertise gained through experience and training in that field, he would be unable to effectively instruct in the technical aspects and related practical applications of the law enforcement courses delivered at [name of installation].  In addition, management’s intent in establishing the position is demonstrated by the fact the agency has established a career ladder for the position in the GS-083 series ranging from entry level GS-6, and progressing through GS-7, 8, and 9.  Finally, the principal mission and function of the [appellant’s unit] is not simply to provide training services, but rather to provide overall physical and law enforcement security for [name of installation] and the training function directly supports that mission by training officers to effectively furnish security for the installation. 

While the appellant does not perform duties typical of active police officers (i.e., protect life, property, and the civil rights of individuals), and is not required to be in police officer uniform or carry a fire arm, his work involves providing training in the occupational knowledge and technical elements of police work.  To perform those duties he must possess and apply specialized knowledge of the police occupation, a range of Federal, State, county, and municipal laws and ordinances, and agency rules and regulations relating to law enforcement.  Such knowledge is typical of positions classified in the Police Series GS-083.  Like police officers, the appellant must have in-depth knowledge of the rights of suspects, the laws of search and seizure, constraints on the use of force (including deadly force) and the civil rights of individuals, in order to teach initial and sustainment courses covering all of those topics.  In addition, he must be knowledgeable of standardized procedures and law enforcement operating techniques to provide practical application of these topics, e.g., search and seizure and use of force.  Although the appellant is not engaged in patrol duties and/or traffic control, he must apply knowledge of the specialized methods and operating techniques for those tasks to teach the AST and ASF courses, Basic Traffic Investigation Course, Radar Certification Course, DUI/FST Course, the Oleoresin Capsicum Spray Recertification Course, Small Arms Marksmanship, etc. 

As discussed above, unlike positions classified in the GS-1712 series (or a professional series in the GS-1700 Education Group), the career pattern of the appellant’s position is not primarily associated with the field of education and training.  Rather, the appellant’s training duties are an auxiliary function which supports and enhances the line operations of the [appellant’s unit].  The paramount qualification requirement for his work, occupational field and career pattern for the position, recruitment sources, and the organizational function of the [appellant’s unit] all show that to instruct law enforcement courses the primary knowledge needed is in the subject-matter fields of police/law enforcement. 

For the preceding reasons we find the appellant’s position is properly classified in the Police Series, GS-083.  Official position titles are prescribed by the classification standard for a selected series or by the general titling instructions in the Introduction.  As prescribed in the Grade Evaluation Guide for Police and Security Guard Positions, GS-083 and GS-085, Police Officer or Detective is the established title for nonsupervisory positions in the Police Series, GS-083.  The detective title is for positions primarily concerned with police investigations involving violations of criminal or other laws.  Therefore, the title Police Officer is assigned.  However, the Grade Level Guide for Instructional Work (GLGIW) which we have applied below for grading purposes in this decision indicates the parenthetical title “(Instructor)” may be added to instructional positions like the appellant’s assigned to a subject-matter series.

The Introduction notes that where work assigned to a position is covered by a classification standard for a particular occupational series, the duties should be evaluated using the grade level criteria in that standard.  However, where grading criteria is absent or not appropriate, the work should be evaluated using an appropriate general classification guide, or with criteria in a standard for related kinds of work.  In the appellant’s case, because he does not perform line police work and the guide for evaluating Police, GS-083, contains no grading criteria for evaluating instructional duties in that series, we have applied the criteria in the GLGIW to grade that aspect of the appellant’s position. 

On behalf of the appellant, his representative states the grade of his position should be determined using the Grade Evaluation Guide for Positions of Managers of Operating Education Programs.  As stated in that guide, it applies to positions having primary managerial responsibility for planning, developing, directing, and conducting operating education and training programs that provide for the educational development or advancement of the individuals enrolled.  Illustrative types of positions evaluated under the guide include:  (1) the principal of an elementary or secondary school for children; (2) the manager of the education and training program in a correctional institution; (3) the director of an adult education program for an Indian community; (4) the education program manager in a residential facility providing education and job training for disadvantaged youths; and (5) the director of an education services center at a military installation that provides self-development programs of continuing adult education and training for military personnel, dependents, and other civilian personnel.  The guide states it covers positions in several different occupations, but most of the positions are in the professional Education and Vocational Training Series, GS-1710, and that nonsupervisory instructors and specialists are covered by the GLGIW.  As discussed in the Introduction, professional work requires knowledge in a field of science or learning characteristically acquired through education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s or higher degree with major study in or pertinent to the specialized field (e.g., Education), as distinguished from general education.  Work is professional when it requires the exercise of discretion, judgment, and personal responsibility for the application of an organized body of knowledge that is constantly studied to make new discoveries and interpretations, and to improve data, materials, and methods. 

The appellant’s position does not meet any of the illustrative types of positions listed above warranting application of the guide, and he does not have the scope of program authority contemplated in the guide.  Additionally, his organization and structure of his assignments do not require a professionally qualified employee possessing a bachelor’s or higher degree in the field of education.  Instead, as previously addressed his position is classified in a nonprofessional series (i.e., GS-083) based on the duties and responsibilities assigned and the qualifications required to do the work.  Therefore, application of the grading criteria in the guide is inappropriate in evaluating the appellant’s position, and the GLGIW is used to evaluate the grade of his instructor duties. 

We have separately determined the grade of the administrative tasks the appellant performs in support of the law enforcement training program because they take up to 35 percent of his work time.  Our fact-finding disclosed this work is one-grade interval technical work rather than two-grade interval administrative work.  Unlike two-grade interval administrative work defined in the Introduction, his support tasks do not involve the exercise of analytical ability, judgment, and the application of a substantial body of knowledge of the principles, concepts, and practices applicable to one or more fields of administration or management.  Although administrative positions do not require specialized education, they do involve the type of skills (analytical, research, writing, judgment) typically gained through a college level education, or through progressively responsible experience.  As opposed to the appellant’s position, employees engaged in administrative work are concerned with analyzing, evaluating, modifying, and developing the basic programs, policies, and procedures which facilitate the work of Federal agencies and their programs.  In contrast to two-grade interval administrative work, the appellant’s tasks support [name of installation] law enforcement training program.  Like technical work defined in the Introduction, they involve extensive practical knowledge gained through experience and/or specific training less than that represented by college graduation.  Given the appellant’s substantial active duty Navy training and practical experience working in military law enforcement training programs, he meets this requirement.  Like one-grade interval technical work, he carries out tasks, methods, procedures, and/or computations whose requirements are laid out in various Navy law enforcement training publications and regulations, and covered by established precedents or guidelines. 

Although neither grade nor series controlling, to evaluate the appellant’s training program support tasks we have cross-referenced to the grading criteria in the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Assistance Work in the Human Resources Management Group (AWHRM), GS-0200, which specifically covers technical support work in the one-grade interval Human Resources Assistance Series, GS-0203.  As part of that evaluation we have referenced specific factor-level work illustrations in the JFS for duties performed by Human Resources (HR) Assistants, GS-0203, specializing in human resource development. 

Grade determination

Evaluation of Instructor Duties

The grade level criteria in the GLGIW are divided into two parts:

Part I covers instructor work involving the following activities:

-  Preparing daaily work plans based on general course outlines and established learning objectives.  Plans cover instructional methods and techniques, training materials and aids, time schedules, etc.

-  Training in traditional classroom situations or in self-paced learning programs where the instructor guides students in the use of special learning techniques.

-  Evaluating the progress of students and advising and assisting them to improve their performance.

Part II covers instructional specialist work such as:

-  Ascertaining needs for training and education, usually through surveys or job analysis.

-  Determining the objectives and scope of the courses, the subjects to be covered, and the criteria for evaluation.

-  Developing, revising, or adapting courses and instructional materials and guides.

-  Evaluating education and training programs and recommending needed changes and improvements.

Instructional specialist work may include emphasis on such areas as curriculum development, course resources (e.g., facilities, audiovisual aids, and other training devices), computer assisted or programmed instruction, and educational tests and measurements.  Persons performing instructional specialist work may provide assistance to instructors on both resource and instructional matters. 

The appellant's duties include all of those associated with Part I.  In addition, as described under particular grade level criteria in Part I, he is also involved in course modification for certain law enforcement subjects taught at [name of installation].  The appellant’s position does not meet the coverage requirements for application of the grading criteria of Part II, instructional specialist positions.  Unlike instructional specialists, he does not conduct surveys or job analysis to ascertain the needs for law enforcement training at [name of installation].  On the contrary, law enforcement training requirements and certifications are mandated by CINC, CENSECFOR, and the Naval Education Training Center, and any needs surveys and identification of new course requirements are determined by those higher level commands.  In addition, the training objectives and scope of courses, topics and subjects covered at [name of installation], and criteria for evaluating course content is also determined by the preceding organizations rather than the appellant.  Although the appellant has been involved in modifying or adjusting certain courses to meet local staffing needs, he has not developed, revised, or adapted courses and instructional materials to the extent typical of instructional specialists; particularly concerning application to broader education and training programs including multiple courses and curricula overseen by numerous course directors as described under Part II grading criteria.  Finally, while the appellant monitors the status and completion of prescribed law enforcement training at [name of installation], unlike instructional specialists he does not perform overall evaluation of the education and training program, recommending needed changes and improvements.  Such evaluations are periodically conducted by visiting staff from U.S. Fleet Forces Command and [name of region] as part of their scheduled security program assessments.  Therefore, we have applied the grading criteria of Part I to the appellant’s instructor duties. 

Part I discusses distinctions between grade levels of work based upon two factors:  (1) Nature of Assignment which encompasses such aspects as the knowledge, skill, and ability required to perform work, and the complexity and difficulty of the duties and responsibilities assigned; and (2) Level of Responsibility which includes independence, availability of guidelines, and the kinds of contacts required to perform the work. 

Nature of Assignment

At the GS-9 level, courses taught cover a wide variety of topics in well-established areas of a subject-matter field.  They include course taught by a technical service school in the fundamentals and skills of a technical occupation; courses taught at the secondary through basic undergraduate levels; or all subjects taught at an elementary school level.  They require thorough familiarity with the assigned subject-matter area and use of a wide range of teaching methods or tools depending on the students’ learning requirements.  They are usually well structured and have ample training materials.  These courses generally involve instructional problems that require organization, illustration, and interpretation of course material in order to reach and motivate students who may pose typical problems of communication and motivation, e.g., diverse ages, backgrounds, and levels of interest in the course.  GS-9 instructors need to give concrete expression to the abstract principles and concepts taught at this level.  They make recommendations for changes which involve substantive rather than procedural matters.  Obtaining and adapting current instructional material is typical of this level.  An example of instruction at this level would include a broad course in the fundamentals and basic skills of an occupation such as computer operation or engineering drafting. 

At the GS-11 level, courses taught cover advanced technical systems or subject-matter areas comparable to the upper-division undergraduate level.  These courses are not in standardized or pre-structured form, and they typically have source materials problems, e.g., source materials may be excessively numerous, may be difficult to locate, or may be difficult to adapt.  GS-11 instructors are responsible for overall maintenance of their assigned courses, and determine the need for and initiate changes/updates in course content.  They participate substantially in course development or modification.  GS-11 instructors frequently demonstrate techniques to trainee instructors and evaluate the performance of lower level instructors. 

Some courses taught at the GS-11 level are similar to those taught at the GS-9 level, but GS-11 instructors are required to adapt or revise their courses because of subject-matter or student problems.  Subject-matter problems result from technological changes or new developments in the field and require frequent updating of knowledge and course content by instructors; student problems relate to students with complicated, specialized, or persistent learning difficulties requiring instructors to modify courses to meet the needs of the students. 

The appellant’s assignments fully meet the GS-9 level.  Like this level, he teaches comprehensive courses covering a wide variety of topics in the subject-matter field of law enforcement.  Comparable to the GS-9 level, like a technical service school [name of installation] ASF academy course is a three week course (120 hours presented 4-6 times per year) covering multiple law enforcement topics and practical exercises for new auxiliary law enforcement staff.  The course provides the fundamental concepts and basic knowledge and skills of law enforcement needed by auxiliary staff at an operating military installation.  In addition, the 40 to 64 hour AST initial and refresher courses for all [name of installation] law enforcement staff covers over 20 topics in the law enforcement field to ensure continuing knowledge and proficiency. 

Like the GS-9 level, the appellant teaches courses similar to those presented in a basic undergraduate curriculum in law and justice at a community college with emphasis on the conceptual and practical aspects of police work.  For example, the three-week ASF academy course includes topics such as the legal principles and conduct of searches/inspections and seizures, crowd behavior and dynamics, use of force/deadly force and non-lethal weapons, all aspects of marksmanship and weapons use and maintenance, dealing with explosive threats, controlling traffic, introduction to response protocols, police information and communication systems, unarmed self-defense, terrorism awareness, apprehending and transporting offenders, CPR/AED/First Aid, physical training and many others.  Some of the field practical exercises augmenting classroom training include Unarmed Self Defense Skills, Expandable Baton class, Cuffing Positions, Team Control and Baton Techniques, Handguns Practical Weapons, Traffic Stops and watch and patrol procedures.  AST course topics include Professionalism and Standards of Conduct, Hazmat, Anti-Terrorism Level I, Evidence Collection at Crime Scene, Interpersonal Skills, Report Writing, Building Entry Techniques, Search and Seizure, Lawful Apprehension, Listening and Communication, Crowd and Mob Control, Surveillance Techniques, Active Shooter, Bomb Threats, Narcotics and Drugs of Abuse Identification, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), Standing Watch/Patrol and Hand and Arm Signals, and Receipt of Detained Person.  FTO training topics include subjects such as Role of the FTO, Introduction to Remedial Training and True Motivators, Communication Models, and Leadership, and completing Training Observation Reports. 

Like GS-9 level assignments, due to his experience and training the appellant is thoroughly familiar with the subject-matter area of law enforcement including the operating procedures of police work, and he uses a wide range of teaching methods and tools to support students’ learning requirements.  These include lectures, group discussions, role-playing, experiments (i.e., sobriety testing), and practical exercises and demonstrations.  He also employs training tools such as visual aids, study guides, PowerPoint presentations, dummies, simulations, weapons, patrol vehicles, handcuffs, and examination of representative “crime scene” rooms.  Because higher level commands (e.g., CNIC, CENSECFOR, Navy Safety Center) are responsible for developing most training course curricula including course objectives presented at operating installations, comparable to the GS-9 level the appellant’s courses are usually well structured and have ample training materials. 

Similar to the GS-9 level, courses taught by the appellant generally involve instructional problems (e.g., how best to present conceptual legal principles, or determining the most effective practical exercise for illustrating a concept or procedure) requiring organization, illustration, and interpretation of course material in order to reach and motivate students who may pose typical problems of communication and motivation.  The appellant indicated that students frequently have varying skill levels or degrees of motivation due to their backgrounds, and degree of interest in course content.  In such circumstances, the appellant must apply motivational techniques to emphasize the goals and importance of the course and its benefit for the student.  With students experiencing difficulty in learning or grasping topic concepts, the appellant provides individual remedial training and/or organizes a topic in a way that presents additional illustrations or adds sequences to reinforce the training experience.  Because course core topics contain abstract principles and concepts, like the GS-9 level the appellants must develop background material and interpretive illustrations to concretely demonstrate the concepts presented.  For instance, course topics dealing with search/seizure and detention may present conceptual difficulties, so the appellant supplements material by referring to relevant current and historical events, legal research, and case law to expand on the subject. 

Like the GS-9 level, the appellant is involved in making recommendations for changes which involve substantive rather than procedural matters, and obtains and adapts current instructional material for some courses.  For example, with the concurrence of the [name of position] he adapted the AST course to accommodate local NSF staffing and patrol requirements by developing a student study guide and test based on course objectives, lesson plans, and PowerPoint topics issued by CNIC.  Students are provided with copies of the study guide weeks in advance of attending the scheduled classroom portion of the course to familiarize them with course subject-matter, and help prepare them for the written test administered during the week-long classroom session.  He also prepared a student study guide for the four to twelve hour Radar course, and PQS evaluation and study material and forms for the four day FTO Academy Course.  Like the GS-9 level, the appellant obtains, adapts, and updates course material, especially when local laws and procedures affect the information presented in courses.  For instance, although the Department of Transportation controls and issues DUI regulations, States may use various methods such as measuring sobriety levels through blood, urine or breath tests.  However, Navy policy directs the usage of only breath testing.  Therefore, when presenting the DUI/Field Sobriety Course this information was added, and likewise for other courses he adapts content to reflect applicable State laws.  The appellant also periodically reviews the AST, ASF, FTO, Radar, and Active Shooter course curricula including lesson plans, subject topics, and instructor guides, recommending changes to the content that will make the material more understandable and clarify terminology.  Recommendations for changes are made to the proponent training commands and/or the Regional Training Academy.

The GS-11 level is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant does not teach courses covering advanced technical systems or subject-matter areas comparable to the upper-division undergraduate level, where courses are not in standard or pre-structured form and typically contain source materials problems.  Instead, as previously discussed, he teaches courses comparable to those in a basic undergraduate curriculum in law and justice at the community college level.  Although the appellant recommends changes, and updates, and modifies course content, the courses he teaches are structured and standardized based on higher command published curricula, course objectives, lesson plans, and PowerPoint topics.  In addition, while he makes substantive changes to courses including developing supplemental student study guides, unlike the GS-11 level he is not confronted with significant subject-matter problems due to technological changes or new developments in the field requiring frequent updating/revising of courses to meet new knowledge requirements.  In contrast to the GS-11 level, the record shows the students he teaches do not possess complicated, specialized, or persistent learning difficulties.  Thus he is not required to modify courses to meet the special learning needs of such individuals.   

Level of Responsibility

Instructors at the GS-9 level independently plan and carry out their training sessions within the prescribed course framework.  They resolve normal classroom problems and make outside contacts for supplemental information and materials.  On unusual matters or questions of program objectives and policy, they obtain guidance before taking action.  Recommendations for course modification are reviewed for consistency with overall course material, for technical accuracy, and for educational adequacy.  Courses of instructors at this level are audited and evaluated periodically by higher level instructors.  GS-9 instructors may participate in task analyses for determining training requirements or in special staff studies of training and testing materials, for which they receive specific guidance on coverage, methodology, approaches, and sources to use. 

Instructors at the GS-11 level receive course assignments with the course objectives, topics covered, and general content in a prescribed form, but they also typically participate in original course content development and in its subsequent modification.  Within the framework of approved course objectives and topics to be covered, GS-11 instructors use such methods as they believe will be most effective.  They determine the need for additional subject-matter information and may meet with representatives of outside organizations in order to obtain it.  They develop or adapt new or revised training or testing materials for formal course use.  These materials may be reviewed by the instructor’s supervisor for technical accuracy, consistency with course objectives, educational effectiveness, and program policy. 

The appellant’s level of responsibility meets the GS-9 level.  Like this level, he independently plans and carries out his training sessions within the prescribed course framework.  He resolves normal classroom problems and makes outside contacts to supplement course information and materials as needed, e.g., local city and county law enforcement personnel.  On unusual matters or questions regarding particular course objectives or overall training policy, he obtains guidance from his immediate supervisor or the [name of position] before taking action.  Like the GS-9 level, the supervisor or [name of position] reviews his recommendations for course modifications (as done with the AST course) to ensure consistency with overall course material and objectives, technical accuracy, and educational adequacy.  Similar to the GS-9 level, the supervisor assesses the quality of the appellant’s teaching or conduct of field exercises.  However, due to the appellant’s law enforcement military background and training experience this is only occasionally done.  The appellant is not involved in task analyses or special staff studies which are optional responsibilities at the GS-9 level. 

The appellant’s level of responsibility does not meet the GS-11 level.  Although he adapts courses to meet local training needs and law enforcement staffing requirements, unlike the GS-11 level most of the courses taught contain command furnished course objectives, lesson plans, topics in PowerPoint format, with some including instructor guides.  In contrast to the GS-11 level, the appellant does not typically participate in original course development and subsequent modification.  Such projects are performed by higher command level training organizations, e.g., CINC, CENSECFOR, and Regional Training Command.  Moreover, his assignments and methods of instruction are more specifically prescribed as compared to the GS-11 level.  Although he determines the need for additional subject-matter information and sometimes makes outside contacts to obtain it (e.g., [name of county] County Sheriff’s Department on illegal drugs and domestic violence issues), this effort is limited and performed within the context of GS-9 level course assignments rather than, for example, more complex courses covering advanced technical systems such as maintenance and repair of major aircraft systems characteristic of the GS-11 level.  While the appellant has occasionally developed subject-matter tests for a particular course (e.g., AST), this is not done on a regular and recurring basis. 

Summary

By application of the two factors in the GLGIW, both the appellant’s nature of assignments and level of responsibility meet the GS-9 level.  Therefore, his instructional work is graded at that level.

Evaluation of law enforcement training administrative support duties

The JFS for AWHRM, GS-0200, covering the HR Assistance, GS-0203 series, uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level in a standard 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 the deficiency is balanced by an equally important aspect that meets a higher level.  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 JFS. 

Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts an employee must understand to do acceptable work (e.g., steps, procedures, practices, rules, policies, theories, principles, and concepts), and the nature and extent of the skills necessary to apply that knowledge.

At Level 1-3, HR Assistants have knowledge of, and skill in applying, a standardized body of HR rules, procedures, and operations sufficient to:  (1) perform a full-range of support assignments; (2) provide support to HR specialists involved in one or more specialties such as classification, employee benefits, or military; (3) use personal computers to prepare HR documents with complicated formatting, e.g., headers and footers; and (4) use personal computers and software programs in an office environment to extract, revise, or sort information from files, records, or databases. 

A work illustration in the JFS of  HR  development work assigned Level 1-3 describes a position requiring knowledge of, and skill in applying, a standardized body of HR rules, procedures, and operations concerning HR development sufficient to:  (1) process training requests and training contracts; (2) coordinate notification of employees approved for training; (3) verify that training was completed; (4) compile periodic training reports; and (5) provide general information about the courses available, dates to be held, etc. 

At Level 1-4, HR Assistants possess knowledge of, and skill in applying, an extensive body of HR rules, procedures, and operations sufficient to:  (1) perform a wide variety of interrelated and/or non-standard HR support work; (2) plan, coordinate, develop facts and/or resolve support problems in one or more HR specialties; (3) use personal computers with office applications to perform operations or to prepare complex documents containing tables or graphs; and (4) use online HR resources to obtain information accessible over the Internet, as needed.

A work illustration in the JFS of  HR development work assigned Level 1-4 describes a position requiring knowledge of, and skill in applying, an extensive body of HR rules, procedures, and operations concerning HR development sufficient to:  (1) assist employees in obtaining training and education; (2) select individuals for training on the basis of relatedness of subject-matter to the mission of the organization when courses are oversubscribed; (3) assure employees meet prerequisites for course, e.g., grade level and previous courses completed; (4) revise and administer questionnaires to survey employee interest in specific training/seminars; (5) interview interns and employees in upward mobility programs at various stages of their career development to verify progress, ascertain continued interest, and resolve problems; and (6) substitute similar courses to resolve conflicts in employee schedules. 

The appellant’s position meets Level 1-3.  Like this level, he applies knowledge of, and skill in applying a standardized body of rules and procedures governing law enforcement training and records to perform the full-range of training support assignments at [name of installation].  He uses his personal computer to prepare individual training documents, and employs the Law Enforcement Training Management Assistant (LETMA) software program to extract, revise, or sort information from training records and databases to track the status of individual training and the overall law enforcement training program.

The appellant’s work favorably compares to the Level 1-3 work illustration.  Like the illustration he processes training requests; coordinates notification of employees (law enforcement staff) of approved training either directly or through their assigned watch supervisors; regularly verifies that individual training is completed or notes shortfalls; compiles periodic training reports such as the weekly training status reports and monthly reports to the region; and provides general information about courses available including training requirements and delivery methods, course objectives and tasks, course schedules, etc., as reflected in the [name of unit] Detachment Annual Training Plan. 

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 1-4.  Unlike this level, his support duties do not require knowledge of, and skill in applying, an extensive body of rules and procedures covering the training program in order to perform a wide variety of interrelated or non-standard training support work.  Although he tracks training using the LETMA software program, he does not develop complex documents containing tables and graphs characteristic of Level 1-4. 

Unlike the Level 1-4 work illustration, the appellant is not responsible for assisting law enforcement staff in obtaining their initial and sustainment training.  Rather, he advises law enforcement staff supervisors of the training requirements, prerequisites, and time frames, who then advise their respective employees of their current training status including meeting training attendance deadlines.  In addition, the appellant does not select individuals for training because all law enforcement training is mandated by course and interval depending on the employee’s assigned position (e.g., NSF, ASF) so all must attend their required courses.  Unlike the work illustration, the appellant does not revise or administer questionnaires; interview employees in upward mobility programs to assess their progress in career development; or substitute courses to resolve conflicts in employee schedules. 

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

Factor 2, Supervisory controls

This factor covers the nature and extent of direct or indirect controls exercised by the supervisor, the responsibility of the employee, and the degree to which work is reviewed by the supervisor. 

At Level 2-3, the highest level for this factor described in the JFS, the supervisor makes assignments by outlining or discussing issues, and defining objectives, priorities, and deadlines.  The supervisor provides assistance in unusual assignments that do not have clear precedents.  The employee independently plans the work, resolving problems and carrying out successive steps of assignments.  The employee makes adjustments using established practices and procedures, recommending alternative actions to the supervisor, and handling problems and/or deviations that arise in accordance with instructions, policies, and guidelines.  The employee refers new or controversial issues to the supervisor for direction.  The supervisor reviews various HR products (e.g., job vacancy announcements, PDs) for technical soundness, appropriateness, and conformity to policies and requirements. 

The appellant’s position meets but does not exceed Level 2-3.  Like this level, his immediate supervisor makes support assignments by outlining or discussing issues, and defining objectives, priorities, and deadlines, e.g., extracting specific training data from current records to respond to regional training command inquiries.  The appellant independently plans his training support work, resolving most problems that arise, and adjusting automated training record tracking and data retrieval procedures, as needed.  He may recommend an alternative action to retrieve data when tasked by his supervisor, and generally handles problems in accordance with current instructions, training polices, and guidelines.  The supervisor reviews the appellant’s training support work for technical soundness, appropriateness, and conformance with published training polices and requirements. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 2-3 and 275 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Guidelines

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

At Level 3-2, the employee uses a number of established, procedural guidelines such as work samples, references, and operating procedures and manuals.  The employee uses judgment in locating and selecting appropriate guidelines, manuals, references, and procedures for application to specific cases.  The employee refers significant proposed deviations or situations to which existing guidelines cannot be applied to the supervisor or higher-grade co-worker. 

At Level 3-3, the employee uses guidelines that have gaps in specificity and are not applicable to all work situations.  Guidelines often lack specificity or are not completely applicable to the work requirements or circumstances.  The employee selects the most appropriate guideline and decides how to complete the various transactions.  This includes using judgment to devise more efficient methods for procedural processing; gathering and organizing information for inquiries; and/or resolving problems referred by others.  In some situations, guidelines do not apply directly to assignments and require the employee to make adaptations to cover new and unusual work situations. 

The appellant’s position meets Level 3-2.  Like this level, he uses various agency references, and operating procedures and manuals governing training administration to track the status of individual course requirements.  He uses judgment in locating and selecting the proper reference for particular courses specifying course pre-requisites, training intervals, and required time frames for student attendance and completion.  The appellant refers any significant deviations from existing guidelines to his supervisor or the director of the regional training academy. 

The position does not meet Level 3-3.  Unlike this level, guidelines used are specific and typically applicable to most situations.  Consequently, the appellant is not required to apply the level of judgment and interpretation characteristic of Level 3-3. 

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

Factor4, Complexity

This factor covers the nature, number, variety, and intricacy of tasks, steps, processes, or methods in the work performed; the difficulty in identifying what needs to be done; and the difficulty and originality involved in performing the work. 

At Level 4-2, work consists of related steps, processes, and standard explanations of methods or programs in a HR function.  The employee makes decisions on appropriate actions from various choices and differences among easily recognizable situations, and uses information that is factual in nature.  He/she recognizes different processes required to assist customers and HR specialists, and acts or responds differently in factual ways depending upon the variety of organizations served, the variety of positions filled, and similar factors. 

A work illustration in the JFS of HR development work at Level 4-2 describes a position that provides basic information to employees concerning HR development such as approval for training, changes in schedules, course availability, and course dates.  The employee maintains career development files, manual and/or electronic training records, and training funds/accounts.  The employee determines easily recognized differences in situations such as changes in training schedules or course availability; processing procedures for different types of training or education; and processing procedures for training funds and other accounts. 

At Level 4-3, work consists of different and unrelated steps in accomplishing HR assignments and processes.  The employee analyzes factual data, identifies the scope and nature of problems or issues, and determines the appropriate action from among many alternatives.  The employee identifies and analyzes HR issues and/or problems to determine their interrelationships, and to determine the appropriate methods and techniques needed to resolve them. 

A work illustration in the JFS of HR development work at Level 4-3 describes an employee who assists employees in obtaining training and education.  He/she assures employees requesting training have met the prerequisites, and resolves conflicts in employee schedules by selecting course substitutions.  The employee interviews interns and employees in upward mobility programs to assess progress and resolve any problems, and assists specialists as they meet with supervisors to determine training needs of their organization.  The HR Assistant at this level determines interrelationships and appropriate methods and techniques to identify and resolve problems employees or supervisors have in selecting or obtaining training. 

The appellant’s position meets Level 4-2.  Like this level, his training support work consists of related steps and processes to track the status of law enforcement training, and he furnishes standard explanations to law enforcement supervisors on the course requirements for law enforcement staff.  Similar to Level 4-2, he makes decisions on appropriate training actions to take affecting such matters as class scheduling and student attendance, using information that is factual in nature.  He recognizes different processes required to assist students and supervisors in meeting prescribed training, responding differently in factual ways depending upon the varying and separate training requirements for types of law enforcement staff, e.g., NSF, ASF. 

The appellant’s position favorably compares to the Level 4-2 work illustration.  Like the illustration, he furnishes basic information to law enforcement staff and supervisors on prescribed training, course scheduling, availability, and course dates.  He maintains both manual and electronic training records, and recognizes differences in situations such as changes in training schedules and courses. 

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 4-3.  Unlike this level, his work does not consist of different and unrelated steps in providing support to law enforcement training at [name of installation].  His work does not require that he analyze factual data, identifying the scope and nature of training problems and their interrelationships, and determining the best action to take from among many alternatives. 

Unlike the Level 4-3 work illustration, because all training is prescribed for law enforcement personnel he does not select course substitutions; interview interns and employees in upward mobility programs to assess their progress; or assist HR development specialists as they meet with supervisors to determine training needs of their organizations.  On the contrary, all law enforcement staff training requirements are mandated by higher level Navy training commands thus flexibilities for selection are very limited. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 4-2 and 75 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and effect

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

At Level 5-2, work involves technical services and practices such as screening job applicants on minimum qualifications for initial entry onto a competitor inventory, or verifying job content in establishing identical additional jobs.  Work also involves applying specific rules or procedures to complete actions in the HR organization.  Work at this level affects the accuracy and reliability of further efforts to perform HR functions within the organization.  Work affects the accuracy of employee records and personal data maintained by the HR office. 

A work illustration in the JFS of HR development work at Level 5-2 describes a position that screens training requests for deficiencies; and provides information regarding the availability of specific courses, numbers of employees completing training, or how to prepare training requests.  The work affects the accuracy and reliability of training reports and training vendors’ bills and ability of employees to acquire training courses and education. 

At Level 5-3, work involves treating a variety of routine problems, questions, or situations within the HR office.  Work also involves resolving problems using established procedures such as rating employees in lower-grade jobs for promotion; ranking employees into categories; applying appropriate standards in determining the titles, grades, and series codes of lower-grade positions; and counseling employees on a variety of minor disciplinary problems.  Work at this level has a direct effect on the quality and adequacy of employee records, program operations, and services provided through the HR office.  Work also affects the social and economic well being of persons serviced through the HR office. 

A work illustration in the JFS of HR development work at Level 5-3 describes a position that prepares and presents classroom instruction for a limited number of basic subjects.  The employee determines whether proposed training will affect employee qualifications or eligibility for entry into other support or assistant positions or career patterns.  Work affects the quality of the training program and employee qualifications or eligibility for future positions. 

The appellant’s position meets Level 5-2.  Like this level, his work involves a variety of technical services including maintenance of records supporting the law enforcement training program.  He applies specific rules and procedures governing prescribed training to ensure law enforcement staff are advised of and attend required training courses, and that individual training records are accurate and regularly maintained and updated.  Similar to Level 5-2, the appellant’s work affects the accuracy and reliability of further efforts to perform training support functions within his organization. 

Similar to the Level 5-2 work illustration, the appellant screens individual training records for discrepancies, provides information to law enforcement supervisors regarding the availability of specific courses and status of employee attendance, and regularly informs his supervisor on the number of employees completing training within prescribed time frames.  The appellant’s work affects the accuracy and reliability of numerous individual and program training reports, and the ability of law enforcement personnel to timely acquire mandated training courses. 

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 5-3.  Unlike this level, the scope and effect of his work does not encompass the types of problems, questions, or situations described in the JFS, nor does it affect overall program operations as reflected at Level 5-3.  As opposed to the Level 5-3 work illustration, given that all training is required of law enforcement staff he does not deal with any proposed training affecting employee qualifications or eligibility for entry into other support positions.  We have evaluated the appellant’s role in presenting training in our previous discussion of his instructor duties and responsibilities. 

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

Factor 6, Personal contacts, and Factor 7, Purpose of contacts

Factor 6 addresses the regular and recurring contacts with individuals outside the supervisory chain, and Factor 7 addresses the purpose of those contacts.  These two factors are calculated together to recognize their interrelationship.  Final point credit is determined by identifying where the evaluation of each factor intersects in the Point Assignment Chart in the JFS. 

Personal Contacts

At Level 2, the highest level for this factor described in the JFS, the employee has contacts with employees and managers in the agency, both inside and outside the immediate office or related units, as well as applicants, retirees, beneficiaries, and/or the general public, in moderately structured settings.  Contact with employees and managers may be from various levels within the agency, such as headquarters, regions, districts, field offices, or other operating offices at the same location. 

The appellant’s position meets but does not exceed Level 2.  Like this level, the appellant has contacts with employees and managers both inside and outside the Security Office in a moderately structured setting, including regional training and headquarters training command staff, e.g., Regional Training Academy, CENSECFOR Naval Education Training Center. 

Purpose of contacts

At Level A, the purpose of contacts is to acquire, clarify, or exchange facts or information needed to complete assignments.  At Level B, contacts are made to plan, coordinate, or advise on work efforts, or to resolve issues or operating problems by influencing or persuading people who are working toward mutual goals and have basically cooperative attitudes. 

The appellant’s position meets Level A.  Like this level, his contacts are made to clarify or exchange law enforcement training data and information to complete periodic training status reports or clarify new course requirements and changes.  The position does not meet Level B because his contacts are not made to plan, coordinate, or advise on his work, or to resolve training program issues or operating problems where he must influence or persuade others. 

Factors 6 and 7 are evaluated at Levels 6-2 and 7-A respectively and a total of 45 points is assigned. 

Factor 8, Physical demands

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

At Level 8-1, the only level for this factor described in the JFS, the work is sedentary.  Some work may require periods of standing at a counter.  Employees frequently carry light items such as employee files or pamphlets.  The work does not require any special physical effort.  The appellant’s position meets Level 8-1.  Like this level, his work is sedentary while performing training administrative support duties although he may carry light items such as training files.  His duties require no special physical effort. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 8-1 and 5 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. 

At Level 9-1, the only level for this factor described in the JFS, the work area is adequately lighted, heated, and ventilated.  The work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts that require normal safety precautions.  The appellant’s position meets Level 9-1.  Like this level, he performs training administrative support duties in an adequately lighted, heated, and ventilated office.  His work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts requiring normal safety precautions. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 9-1 and 5 points are assigned.

Summary of FES factors

Factor Level Points
1.  Knowledge Required by the Position 1-3 350
2.  Supervisory Controls 2-3 275
3.  Guidelines 3-2 125
4.  Complexity 4-2 75
5.  Scope and Effect 5-2 75
6. & 7.  Personal Contacts/Purpose of Contacts 6-2/7-A 45
8.  Physical Demands 8-1 5
9.  Work Environment 9-1 5
Total 955

 

A total of 955 points falls within the GS-5 range (855-1100) on the Grade Conversion Table in the GS-0200 JFS.  Therefore, the appellant’s training administrative support duties are graded at the GS-5 level. 

Summary

By application of the GLGIW the appellant’s instructor duties are evaluated at the GS-9 level.  By application of the JFS for AWHRM, GS-0200, the appellant’s law enforcement training administrative support duties are evaluated at the GS-5 level.  Based on application of mixed-grade position criteria as stated in Chapter 5 of The Classifier’s Handbook, the final grade of the position is GS-9. 

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Police Officer (Instructor), GS-083-9.

 

Back to Top

Control Panel