Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
Counseling Services
Marine and Family Programs Division
Assistant Chief of Staff, Marine Corps
Community Services
United States Marine Corps
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,
California
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, 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 currently classified as Family Advocacy Program (FAP) Specialist, GS-0101-11, but she believes it should be classified to the GS-12 grade level. The position is assigned to the Behavioral Health Branch-Counseling Services, Marine and Family Programs Division, Assistant Chief of Staff, Marine Corps Community Services, United States Marine Corps (USMC), at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, California. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
The appellant believes she is performing work similar to higher-graded positions assigned to other service branches of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to other positions, which may or may not have been properly classified, as a basis for deciding her appeal.
Like OPM, the appellant’s employing agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. The agency also has responsibility for ensuring its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. Because she believes she is performing work similar to higher-graded positions assigned to other DoD branches, she may pursue this matter by writing to the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service if she considers her position so similar to those positions that they all warrant the same classification. She should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question. If the positions are found to be basically the same as hers, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to her the difference between her position and the others.
The appellant’s position serves as a “Clinical Counselor” for the FAP, which is designed to promote healthy relationships among Marines and their families through prevention, identification, assessment, advocacy, reporting, and response to issues related to child abuse, domestic abuse, and problematic sexual behavior in children and youth (PSBCY). In accordance with Marine Corps Orders (MCO) 1754.11A and other agency policies and instructions, the FAP provides services such as crisis intervention, clinical counseling, and coordinated community response to ensure the safety and well-being of affected individuals. The appellant’s position is directly supervised by the Counseling Services Manager, a GS-0101-13 position.
The appellant’s position serves as a licensed professional counselor and therapist for the FAP. She applies a wide range of professional methods, techniques, and tools to provide services designed to identify, intervene, assess, treat, and prevent offenses of family violence and abusive behavior of the Marines and family members attached to the MCB. She provides clinical assessment, case management, treatment planning, counseling, and community liaison and outreach services. Clients are assigned on a random basis to clinical counselors and are normally in the FAP for approximately eight to nine months. The appellant estimates she is responsible for 20-25 clients at a time.
As part of intake, the appellant performs comprehensive and complex risk assessments of adults and children, conducting clinical interviews and administering questionnaires and other measurement devices to assess overall emotional, functional, and psychological conditions. She screens clients by collecting information on family, drug and alcohol, social, and other histories in addition to relevant secondary information. Professional instruments used include, but are not limited to, Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Scale, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, Columbia Suicide Rating Scale, Campbell Danger Assessment, and Spouse/Intimate Partner Physical Maltreatment Checklist. The appellant prepares written reports based on knowledge obtained of the client’s background and history. She identifies appropriate treatment for clients. In addition, the appellant conducts individual, family, and group therapy sessions. She performs follow-up evaluations to ensure the treatment plan is implemented and that the family has accessed appropriate and related services. The appellant provides ongoing risk and case management to evaluate and ensure adequate levels of services. She also makes appropriate referrals to other community or professional organizations as necessary.
In accordance with MCO 1754.11A, an incumbent of the appealed position must meet applicable State requirements as a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT), Licensed Psychologist, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, or Licensed Professional Counselor. As a LMFT, the appellant completed State requirements including a combination of conditions related to education (obtain a master’s or doctoral degree in marriage and family therapy or related field), experience (at least 3,000 hours of supervised experience over a minimum of 104 weeks), examination (pass the State’s law and ethics exam and LMFT clinical exam), and registration (as an Associate Marriage and Family Therapist while accruing supervised hours).
The appellant’s official position description (PD), number 9090, and other material of record furnish much more information about her duties and responsibilities and how they are performed. The appellant and supervisor certified to the accuracy of the duties described in her official PD. We also find the major duties described by her PD are adequate for classification purposes, and we incorporate it by reference into this decision. In reaching our classification decision, we carefully considered all information provided by the appellant and agency including her official PD. In addition, we conducted a telephone audit with the appellant and telephone interview with the immediate supervisor.
Series, title, and standard determination
The appellant does not question the agency’s series determination for her position. The GS-0101 Social Science Series covers positions the duties of which are to advise on, administer, supervise, or perform research or other professional and scientific work in one or any combination of the social sciences when such work is not classifiable in other series of this occupational group. Because the duties and responsibilities of the appealed position require performing professional work in the social sciences, we agree the appellant’s position is properly allocated to the GS-0101 series. Since OPM has not specified titles for positions in the GS-0101 series, the agency may construct a descriptive title by following guidance in the Introduction.
The GS-0101 series does not contain grade-level criteria. When no directly applicable grade-level criteria have been published, other occupational series standards covering work as similar as possible are used for evaluation purposes based on cross-series comparison. The agency evaluated the appellant’s position solely by applying the grade-level criteria in the Primary Standard for the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which is the “standard-for-standards” that serves as the basic tool for maintaining alignment across occupations by ensuring grading criteria in PCSs for specific occupations are consistent. However, the Introduction specifically instructs that the Primary Standard may not be used alone to classify a position. It may be used for supplemental guidance in classifying a position or in evaluating an individual factor, but only in conjunction with other FES standards. In the appellant’s case, we evaluated her duties by cross-series comparison to the PCS for the Social Work Series, GS-0185, which includes positions that require application of a professional knowledge of the principles and practices of social work in performing assignments such as providing direct services to individuals and facilities. Similarly, the duties and responsibilities of her work require applying professional knowledge in the behavioral and social sciences to, for example, assess a client’s background, manage cases, and conduct in-depth individual and group counseling. In the absence of a directly applicable occupational series standard, we conclude the grade-level criteria in the GS-0185 PCS are appropriate to use as cross-series comparison for grading the appellant’s position.
Evaluation using the GS-0185 PCS
The GS-0185 PCS uses two basic elements to define assignment characteristics, assignment content and supervisory control. Two basic variables that affect the grade levels of positions are (1) the character of the caseload and (2) the freedom of practice characteristic of performance. The first refers to the difficulty of problems present in the assignment and the degree of professional skill and judgment required by the social work decisions and services they involve. The second reflects the recognition of the social worker’s competence through decreased supervisory controls that allows independent performance of work. These variables are considered in concert when making grade-level determinations.
At the GS-11 level, social work assignments involve intensive social work services requiring the exercise of mature professional judgment and the flexible use of a wide range of social work skills. This level represents performance of services in serious and complicated cases with demonstrated effectiveness based on sufficient training and experience to require a minimum of supervisory control and guidance and permit independent exercise of authoritative judgment. GS-11 social workers carry full professional responsibility for cases presenting a wide range of psycho-social and environmental problems with no limitations as to the difficulty of services that would be performed. Illustrative of such difficult cases are situations involving sociopathic personalities and family groups who react to their circumstances with impulsive behavior that may be self-destructive or depredatory. Such a person may be a delinquent, a source of family and child-rearing problems, or a center of disturbance and deterioration in school and neighborhood groups, etc., because of his chronically defective behavior. Such personalities are hard to reach and the problems around them are difficult to deal with and challenge social work methods and techniques of bringing individuals to want and use help in achieving self-satisfying and socially satisfactory lives. At the GS-11 level, social workers make independent professional decisions and recommendations for agency actions that can have serious impact on the life of the person served, as, for example, in separating members of families, approving adoptive parents and placement of children, placing delinquents in protective custody, recommending placement of a patient in a nursing home rather than return to his own family, etc.
Regarding GS-11 assignments, difficult professional services to clients with serious problems are not an incidental part of the workload but are regularly performed on a continuing basis with infrequent recourse to supervisory guidance. The supervisor is kept informed of the progress of the work and is available for consultation on substantive problems. The GS-11 social worker is accountable for identifying problems that should be brought to the attention of the supervisor, and for taking the initiative in determining that the supervisor should be consulted and the purpose of the conference. At the GS-11 level, social workers independently give interpretations of case histories to other professionals or persons involved in the case and make recommendations that can be relied on for soundness of judgment and maturity of insight on problem cases. GS-11 social workers characteristically participate actively in program planning and in the development and maintenance of public understanding and sound working relationships with local agencies and community resources. Positions normally do not have significant program management responsibility at the GS-11 level.
At the GS-12 level, social worker positions are of two general types: (1) supervisory positions that include full technical and administrative responsibility for the accomplishment of the work of a unit of three or more subordinate professional workers when the base level of work supervised fully meets the description of grade GS-11 in this standard; and (2) positions which are classified at this level in recognition of program responsibilities which are significant enough to justify grade GS-12 with or without the presence of professional subordinates.
Illustrative of positions of the second type are those of social workers in charge of the social work program at a separate installation or similar organizational component where they are responsible for development and maintenance of professional standards of service, initiating and effecting changes in methods that will promote efficient practice, and coordination of social work services with other programs of service to the same group of clients. Such positions typically are responsible for representing the social work program at conferences and in contacts with other agencies and the public. Work is subject to regulation and procedural direction from the program directors in the central office of the agency and to the local management control of the directors of the institutions such as hospitals and clinics and correctional institutions. Another illustration of the second type describes social workers responsible for serving various beneficiary groups scattered over a large geographic area when assignments include direct social work practice in cases with complex problems, organization of community services on behalf of beneficiaries, development and coordination of procedures for the use of these community services by related staffs and satellite facilities, and development and maintenance of working relationships and agreements with other organizations having responsibilities for the same groups of people.
Basic responsibility for a program of social work services does not justify classification at the GS-12 level unless there is substantial accountability for program effectiveness, modification of service patterns, and promoting acceptance of the social work function. As distinguished from GS-11 positions responsible for providing continuing social work services at a field location, positions classified at the GS-12 level on the basis of program responsibilities characteristically combine program development and evaluation with service functions.
The appellant’s position meets the GS-11 level. Like this level, her position operates with wide latitude and independent professional judgment to provide counseling and other services to FAP clients dealing with a broad range of psycho-social and environmental stressors. Her work requires using a wide range of professional methods, techniques, and tools to perform work including, but not limited to, comprehensive psycho-social assessments and diagnostic skills involving the emotional pathology and psychodynamics within the family environment. The FAP ensures reports of domestic and child abuse are assessed for risk of further abuse, making certain victims receive a clinical assessment and supportive services while offenders receive a clinical assessment, appropriate treatment, and ongoing treatment monitoring. Clients typically have already exhibited violent or aggressive behaviors and are taking part in the FAP involuntarily, having been referred to it by Command leadership as a result of intervention from child protective services, law enforcement officials, child development centers, hospitals, etc. As at the GS-11 level, the appellant deals with clients who have issues involving domestic violence, child abuse, and/or problematic sexual behavior along with co-occurring issues such as substance abuse, depression, anxiety, stress, and suicidal ideation.
The appellant conducts initial and ongoing clinical and risk assessments of alleged abusers, victims, and family members to assess the risk of re-abuse and communicate any increased level of risks to appropriate agencies for action when appropriate. Her assessment work involves interviews, reviews of pertinent records and information obtained from collateral contacts, psycho-social assessments, and assessments of basic health, safety, development, and special and mental health needs. The appellant applies motivational interviewing techniques to conduct needs assessments and persuade clients to share information regarding the incident, history of abuse and relationships, childhood trauma, current stressors, etc. In addition, she reviews relevant information from legal, investigatory, educational, and social services agencies to identify risk levels, safety needs, and treatment recommendations as well as to compile information for presentation to the Clinical Supervisor for review and approval and/or the installation’s Incident Determination Committee (IDC). The IDC, which was established to review reports of child abuse and unrestricted reports of domestic abuse, determines whether alleged reports meet the DoD’s definition of abuse and warrant entry into the USMC FAP headquarters’ central registry of child abuse and domestic abuse incidents. The appellant also utilizes crisis intervention skills to intercede in violent or other high stress situations, contacting law enforcement or other authorities when necessary.
Like the GS-11 level, the appellant develops comprehensive treatment plans to recommend counseling or treatment modalities, identifies referrals, and takes appropriate actions when severe or continuing abuse is identified. Also consistent with this level, she seeks guidance infrequently and only on substantive problems or situations. Treatment plans and assessments are reviewed and approved, prior to implementation, in the clinical case staff meeting (CCSM) in accordance with agency policies and instructions. FAP treatment may include individual, family, and/or couple counseling although group counseling is the preferred mode of intervention. As such, the appellant facilitates the 22-week domestic violence group workshop to teach participants appropriate coping and processing skills in relationships. Workshops are conducted two hours a week and typically include five to 12 participants. In addition, she conducts a four-hour orientation twice a month to motivate and communicate expectations to new workshop participants. Other duties include providing training to FAP staff on, for example, risk assessment protective factors and typology of abuse and performing monthly peer audits to determine the overall effectiveness, treatment results, and compliance with agency directives of FAP cases.
The appellant’s position does not meet the GS-12 level. She describes performing other assignments for the FAP, relating particularly to the PSBCY service. For example, she participated in the pilot group working with the DoD contractor responsible for designing a tool for child development centers to refer clients to the FAP; she prepared information for her peers to assess problematic sexual behaviors when working with families with children; and she will participate in the group working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Child and Youth Advocacy office to improve the service’s information system. Regardless, the PCS states that basic responsibility for a program of social work services does not equate to classification at the GS-12 level unless there is substantial accountability for program effectiveness, modification of service patterns, and promoting acceptance of the social work function. In considering whether such accountability is reflected in official classification documents as would generally be expected, we note her 2024 Civilian Performance Plan identifies the following critical elements: (1) ensure CCSMs are completed within 30 days and then monthly or quarterly as required thereafter; (2) complete two peer reviews on a monthly basis; (3) assist customers and communicate positively in a friendly manner, take action to solve problems quickly, and alert supervisor for help when problems arise; (4) ensure that all cases are within the IDC agenda within 60 days; and (5) adhere to credentialing guidelines. We also reviewed her official PD, which was certified by her and the supervisor as accurate; however, the appellant disagrees with the percentages assigned to her duties and responsibilities. Instead, she estimates she spends 30 percent of her time on performing risk and clinical assessments; 30 percent on compilation, analysis, and decision making (e.g., obtaining and analyzing relevant data to compile information to the IDC); 20 percent on treatment and case management; 10 percent on recordkeeping; five percent on training and education; and five percent on other duties. Nevertheless, neither her performance plan nor PD reflect substantial accountability for program effectiveness, modification of service patterns, and promoting the acceptance of FAP functions described at the GS-12 level. We conclude the appellant’s major duties and responsibilities involve neither supervisory nor program responsibilities characteristic of that level.
In addition, the appellant’s position is not responsible for identifying and evaluating program deficiencies, developing action plans to correct identified problems, or implementing corrective actions to improve the FAP’s effectiveness, efficiency, and resulting patient care delivery. Instead, our fact finding disclosed that the appellant’s immediate supervisor, i.e., the Counseling Services Manager, exercises such program responsibilities. For instance, her supervisor is accountable for the human resources program at the FAP including responsibility for planning, organizing, directing, managing, and evaluating the program. The supervisor is also the decision-making authority for developing and maintaining standards of service and effecting changes that will promote efficient practice and coordination of services. Along with our interviews, this is reinforced by the following statement in the PD for the Counseling Services Manager:
The primary purpose of this position is to provide program oversight and management and ensure that a comprehensive program for the assessment, prevention, intervention, and treatment of family violence is available.
In contrast to the GS-12 level, the appellant’s decision-making authority and program responsibilities are primarily limited to the delivery of direct care to assigned clients at her field location (i.e., the MCB) and do not extend outward to responsibility of the overall FAP. Consequently, she does not serve various beneficiary groups scattered over a large geographic area. In addition, she does not regularly represent the FAP at conferences and in contacts with other agencies and the public.
Therefore, the appellant’s work is properly graded at the GS-11 level by application of the grading criteria in the GS-0185 PCS.
The appellant’s position is properly classified as GS-0101-11. Selection of an appropriate title is at the agency’s discretion.