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

Michael J. Robinson
Human Resources Assistant (Military)
Enlisted Placement Management Branch
Enlisted Distribution Division (PERS-40)
Career Management Department (PERS-4)
Navy Personnel Command
Bureau of Naval Personnel
Department of the Navy
Millington, Tennessee
Human Resources Assistant (Military)

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



As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate which 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 PD within 30 days of the date of this decision to the OPM Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) Atlanta office.


On August 6, 2015, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) Atlanta office accepted a classification appeal from Mr. Michael J. Robinson.  On August 18, 2015, we received the complete agency administrative report (AAR).  The appellant’s position is currently classified as Human Resources Assistant (Military), GS-203-6, and is located in the Enlisted Placement Management Branch (PERS-4013), Enlisted Distribution Division (PERS- 40), Career Management Department (PERS-4), Navy Personnel Command (NAVPERSCOM), Bureau of Naval Personnel, Department of the Navy (DON), in Millington, Tennessee.  The appellant believes his position should be classified as Human Resources Specialist (Military), GS-201-9.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).


The appellant asserts he made several attempts to have his position description (PD) reviewed by his agency since 2010.  In January 2012, a desk audit was conducted by his servicing human resources (HR) office which resulted in no change to the classification of the position.  In 2014, the appellant appealed the classification of his position to the Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service (DCPAS).  The appellant did not contest the series of his position and only disagreed with the agency’s evaluation of Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position.  On February 13, 2015, DCPAS issued a decision sustaining the classification of his position.  The appellant subsequently filed a classification appeal with OPM disputing the title, series and grade of his position. 

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about the evaluation of his position by his agency and by the DCPAS.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the appellant’s concerns regarding his agency’s classification review process are not germane to this decision.

The appellant believes his current PD (number 15837) is inaccurate because it does not reflect the extent of the work he performs.  However, his immediate supervisor has certified to its accuracy.  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 based on 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 to and performed by the appellant. 

Our review disclosed the appellant’s PD is not completely accurate.  Specifically, under Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position, the appellant’s work does not require knowledge of, and skill in applying, a “comprehensive body of rules, procedures and technical methods to address manning and placement requirements,” for the reasons discussed later in this decision.  Therefore, the appellant’s PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy as addressed on pages 10-11 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

Position information

The Enlisted Placement Management Branch (PERS-4013) plans, coordinates and directs Naval manning activities and acts as the Manning Control Authority (MCA) for assignment of active duty and full time support enlisted personnel.  All command activities are assigned to either one of two MCAs: Fleet (MCAF) or Bureau (MCAB).  MCAF directs the manning levels for all sea and fleet operational commands, as well as all shore duty activities that directly support operational readiness.  MCAB is responsible for the manning and placement functions for all other shore duty activities relating to infrastructure, training, recruiting, and joint commands.  PERS-4013, as representative for the MCAs, must balance the manning needs of the commands with current and projected personnel resources.  PERS-4013 is separated into three sections: Placement Support, Rating Support, and Distribution Support, which are broken into Units.

The appellant serves as one of two civilian placement coordinators (i.e., MCA agent) in the Shore Placement Unit.  As such, he serves as a liaison and works with over 200 assigned commands in monitoring and maintaining the accuracy of their personnel data as it relates to job placement.  In doing this, he supports his assigned commands in identifying personnel needs and achieving proper job placement authorizations.  In addition, he is the primary point of contact for manning related inquiries.  He accomplishes these responsibilities by reviewing electronic personnel files to identify and correct discrepancies in military members’ information as it relates to job placement.  He also conducts Enlisted Distribution Verification Report (EDVR) reviews (i.e. “scrubs”) to verify the manning level information and associated data contained in these reports are accurate.  As the primary point of contact for addressing placement issues for his assigned commands, he prepares responses to Enlisted Manning Inquiry Reports (EMIR) messages sent to him involving a unit’s concerns regarding significant personnel shortages.  He communicates with MCA representatives and Type Commanders (TYCOMs) to respond to other manning related concerns via phone calls, emails and messages.  Furthermore, he utilizes manning distribution databases which contain enlisted manning level information to make recommendations for solutions to outstanding placement deficiencies, such as those including unplanned personnel losses and order cancellations.  Also, as requested he provides assignment briefings and/or training to command manning personnel. 

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency, including the official PD, which although not completely accurate, we find sufficient for classification purposes and have incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his current supervisor (Supervisory Human Resources Specialist (Military), GS-201-12), as well as several follow-up discussions with both.   

Series, title, and standard determination

The appellant disagrees with the agency’s assignment of his position to the HR Assistance Series, GS-203.  This series covers one-grade interval administrative support positions that supervise, lead, or perform HR assistance work.  It requires substantial knowledge of civilian and/or military HR terminology, requirements, procedures, operations, functions, and regulatory policy and procedural requirements applicable to HR transactions.  The work does not require the broad knowledge of Federal HR systems or the depth of knowledge about HR concepts, principles, and techniques that are characteristic of  positions in the HR Management Series, GS-201.  HR Assistants provide support for HR Specialists in using information systems and in delivering services in the various specialty areas of HR.

The appellant believes his work warrants classification to the GS-201 series, which covers two-grade interval administrative positions that manage, supervise, administer, advise on, or deliver HR management products or services.  He believes the GS-201 series is appropriate because he is "responsible for managing/monitoring over 200 Naval shore duty commands" and encounters placement and assignment problems on a daily basis which require him to make decisions based on authorized billets, mission priorities, and distribution policies and practices.  He also indicates that his job requires him to "manage enlisted manning assignments," "review assigned commands to ensure fit and fill level are met," "take action to meet command Billets Authorized requirement levels," and "evaluate command's manning level in regards to members and their qualifications as it relates to making recommendation to assign them to a command."  The record shows the appellant does not perform program management duties such as planning and scheduling work to meet program goals and general objectives established at higher echelons or make decisions on or proposals to higher-level management on the level and mix of resources (e.g., staff and money) needed by the program.  The appellant does not make manning decisions or independent determinations of members' qualifications; rather, he provides information on qualified staff available for placement in his serviced activities.  Thus, we find the appellant overstates the difficulty and responsibility of the work he performs.

We must determine whether the appellant’s work is covered by an administrative or support series.  Some tasks are common to both administrative and support occupations, i.e., between assistants classified in one-grade interval administrative support occupations and specialists classified in two-grade interval administrative occupations.  The Job Family PCSs for Administrative Work in the HR Management Group and for Assistance Work in the GS-200 Group discuss how to distinguish between specialist and assistant work.  Guidance on distinguishing between administrative and support work is also contained in The Classifier’s Handbook.

Support work usually involves proficiency in one or more functional areas or in certain limited phases of a specified program.  The work usually does not require knowledge of interrelationships among functional areas or organizations.  Employees performing support work follow established methods and procedures.  Specifically, HR assistants have boundaries narrowly restricting their work.  They use a limited variety of techniques, standards, or regulations.  The problems HR assistants deal with are recurring and have precedents.  These limitations impact the breadth and depth of knowledge required, the complexity of problem solving, the applicability of guidelines, and the closeness of supervisory controls.

On the other hand, administrative work primarily requires a high order of analytical ability combined with a comprehensive knowledge of (1) the functions, processes, theories, and principles of management, and (2) the methods used to gather, analyze, and evaluate information.  Administrative work also requires skill in applying problem-solving techniques and skill in communicating both orally and in writing.  HR specialists use broad HR management knowledge, concepts, and principles to perform a wide variety of work in one or more HR specialty areas. 

The record shows that the primary purpose of the appellant’s position is to function as liaison to command MCAs for maintaining manning profiles as accurately as possible, identifying needs promptly, and providing information that will support the prioritization of job requisitions.  His work is limited to obtaining facts relevant to the problem, reviewing the adequacy of the facts in light of established precedents, and making recommendations for resolution of routine manning problems.  The paramount knowledge required to perform the work is knowledge of military HR terminology, requirements, procedures, and operations; NAVPERSCOM regulatory policies; and MCA procedural requirements applicable to military HR placement and manning transactions.  Recruitment sources for the appellant’s position as described by the appellant’s supervisor would include individuals who possess knowledge of manning distribution databases and other software systems to obtain data needed to review command placement problems, and the ability to communicate both orally and in writing using different modes of communication such as email, telephone and written messages, to effectively respond to manning related inquiries received from assigned commands.

The appellant’s position does not require applying the full depth and breadth of analytical, research and writing skills indicative of administrative positions.  Typical of GS-203 work, he resolves conventional manning problems, questions or situations in conformance with established policies and procedures as described previously.  In contrast to administrative occupations, the appellant does not have to apply a high level of analysis or judgment to make the decisions on the information gathered to resolve his particular situation at hand.  Due to the nature of the work, the appellant is not required to make placement decisions based on his research.  His work is limited to sharing personnel data with command MCAs to assist them in making informed choices.  The problems he encounters are recurring and have precedents.  Consequently, the appellant’s position is properly classified to the GS-203 series and must be evaluated by applying the grading criteria in the Job Family PCS for Assistance Work in the Human Resources Group, GS-200 (GS-203 JFS).  The basic title for this occupation is Human Resources Assistant with parenthetical title “Military” since the work of the position involves support of military HR programs and functions.

Grade determination

The GS-203 JFS is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, under which factor levels and accompanying point values are assigned for each of the nine factors.   Under the FES, each factor-level description demonstrates the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  If a position fails to meet the criteria in a factor-level description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a lower level unless an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency.  Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some aspects and still not be credited at a higher level.  

Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position

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

At Level 1-4, work requires knowledge of, and skill in applying, an extensive body of HR rules, procedures and operations to perform a wide variety of interrelated and/or non-standard HR support work.  HR assistants at this level plan, coordinate, develop facts and/or resolve support problems in one or more HR specialties.  They use personal computers with office applications to perform operations or to prepare complex documents containing tables or graphs and use online HR resources to obtain information accessible over the Internet as needed.  A work illustration in the GS-203 JFS of an HR Assistant (Military) at Level 1-4 describes a position having knowledge of, and skill in applying, an extensive body of military HR rules, procedures, and operations concerning military promotion requirements to make initial recommendations on eligibility for promotion.  Skill and knowledge applied at this level is also sufficient to identify discrepancies in selectee records, screen district officer lists and develop lists of all enlisted personnel and commissioned officers eligible for promotion based on date of rank and schedule of pending promotion board, reconcile headquarters promotion eligible lists, and coordinate with headquarters and selectees to resolve outstanding issues.

At Level 1-5, work requires knowledge of, and skill in applying, a comprehensive body of HR rules, procedures, and technical methods sufficient to carry out limited projects, analyze a variety of routine facts, research minor complaints or problems that are not readily understood, and summarize HR facts and issues.  A work illustration in the GS-203 JFS of an HR Assistant (Military) at Level 1-5 describes a position having knowledge of, and skill in applying, a comprehensive body of military HR rules, procedures, and technical methods sufficient to research appeals or other inquiries relating to the validity of efficiency or fitness ratings to establish the conditions existing at the time the rating was rendered.  The employee studies the military personnel records of both the member being rated and rating officials, Board testimony and proceedings, Inspector General's investigations and reports, and organizational records, duty code books, medical records, and similar documents.  The employee also analyzes the information in relation to the requirements, spirit, and intent of governing regulations, and determines the propriety (or lack thereof) of the rating of record.

The position meets Level 1-4.  Like the work illustration at Level 1-4, the appellant applies extensive knowledge of MCA and NAVPERSCOM policies, procedures and operations to provide relevant facts and information regarding placement requirements and to make job placement recommendations.  For instance, when notified by a command of significant enlisted personnel shortages, the appellant reviews data regarding the number of enlisted naval personnel available who meet eligibility criteria and applies this knowledge to make recommendations for manning requests.  Similar to the work illustration, he is responsible for identifying discrepancies in military members’ electronic personnel files, reconciling information applicable to the individuals’ work records, and making corrections as appropriate.  The appellant also performs reviews of current command EDVRs, corrects data errors, and ensures that personnel events are reported as they occur so that manning data is accurately reflected at all times.  Also, like at Level 1-4, the appellant’s work requires him to plan, coordinate, develop facts and resolve support problems.  For instance, he coordinates with each command to conduct timely, proper, and accurate validations of its EDVR and responds to manning related inquiries by providing manning related information pertaining to the problem presented to him.  A typical situation may involve a delay in the planned movement of a sailor to a different command due to sudden unavailability of the scheduled replacement (e.g. due to sickness), thus causing a manning gap if not filled timely.  In this situation, the appellant would propose options for correcting and eliminating the gap.  Options may include delaying or cancelling the move or finding a different eligible military member to fill the job.

Comparable to Level 1-4, he uses a variety of computer software systems and programs to perform research related to enlisted manning levels (i.e., Fit and Fill levels), training requirements, and billet alignments.  The appellant also uses the Assignment Readiness Information System (ARIS) to reference general command manpower information and alignment structure status.   In addition, the appellant may use databases such as the Web Enabled Placement Portal (WEPP) to obtain personnel occupational data (e.g., occupation codes and ratings) to support solutions for different manning situations that affect his assigned commands.

The position does not meet Level 1-5.  Although the appellant has extensive knowledge of procedures and operations concerning job placement requirements, he is not responsible for making technical ratings or assignment decisions to fill job requisitions.  This responsibility is vested in higher level positions within the organization (i.e., Rating Specialists) who evaluate personnel assignment actions in specific career fields based on the Navy Manning Plan (NMP).  The NMP is based on a system of “fair share” manning levels and requires a comprehensive understanding of HR rules, procedures and technical methods to determine ratings.  Instead, his work is limited to gathering manning and placement data to provide command MCAs and assist them in making optimum manning decisions.  Also, unlike this level, due to the nature of the appellant’s work he is not responsible for researching minor problems that are not readily understood.  Instead, the manning inquiries and the problems he encounters are recurring, well defined and have precedents.  Such inquiries often involve situations relating to unplanned losses, unmet training requirements, unfilled assignments due to order cancellations, and pending operational hold requests. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 1-4 and 550 points are assigned. 

Factor 2, Supervisory Controls

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

At Level 2-3, the highest level described in the JFS under this factor, the supervisor discusses issues and defines objectives, priorities and deadlines.  HR assistants independently plan the work, carry out successive steps of assignments, resolve problems, and make adjustments using established practices and procedures.  In addition, they recommend alternative actions to the supervisor; handle problems and/or deviations that arise in accordance with instructions, policies and guidelines; and refer new or controversial issues to the supervisor for direction.  The supervisor reviews works products for technical soundness, appropriateness, and conformity to policies and requirements.

The position meets but does not exceed Level 2-3.  Like this level, the nature of the appellant’s work, combined with his experience and technical knowledge of PERS-4013 operations and functions, allows him to work independently with little or no day-to-day supervision.  Comparable to this level, his work is directed by guidelines and processing procedures and he completes his work according to standing priorities, schedules and deadlines.  Similar to this level, the supervisor defines the continuing assignments and provides information on matters such as new tasks, changes in requirements, or implementation of new policy.  Typical of Level 2-3, the appellant receives guidance from his immediate supervisor in fairly limited situations that may involve unique situations that do not have clear precedents.  For example, as the point of contact for his assigned commands, he may receive inquiries directly from a commanding officer at the 0-6 level.  In this instance, the appellant will route his response through his supervisor before sending.  Otherwise, the appellant’s work does not receive a detailed review by the supervisor as these duties are, as at Level 2-3, handled in accordance with established instructions, policies and guidelines.

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

Factor 3, Guidelines

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

At Level 3-2, HR assistants use a number of established procedural guidelines such as operating procedures and manuals, references, and work samples.  They use judgment in locating and selecting appropriate guidelines, manuals, references, and procedures for application to specific cases, and refer significant proposed deviations or situations to which guidelines cannot be applied to the supervisor or a higher-graded coworker.

At Level 3-3, HR assistants use guidelines that have gaps in specificity and are not applicable to all work situations.  The employee selects the most appropriate guideline and decides how to complete the various transactions.  Assistants use judgment to devise more efficient methods for procedural processing, gather and organize information for inquiries, or resolve 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 position meets Level 3-2.  Like this level, available guidelines provide sufficient information and guidance for the appellant to complete most of his work, like the PERS-4013 Enlisted Manning Policy and Procedures Manual, which provides policies and procedures for executing placement and associated manning functions.  Other guidelines include various NAVPERSCOM policies and instructions found in the Naval Military Personnel Manual, as well as other operational manuals (e.g., EDVR User's Manual).  Similar to Level 3-2, the appellant must select the appropriate guidance based on the circumstances of the specific requisition and use judgment to apply criteria or established precedents.  Also like this level, matters that require significant deviation from the guidelines are referred to his supervisor.

The position does not meet Level 3-3.  Unlike this level, the appellant has access to established policies, procedures and precedents to assist him in the monitoring of his assigned command personnel readiness posture.  Although the appellant may have to choose between a number of guidelines, these guidelines are specific to the inquiry and do not require, as typical of Level 3-3, that he devise new or more efficient methods or processes.  In contrast, Level 3-3 is assigned when an individual must react, i.e., make decisions about the work, despite the lack of guidelines.

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

Factor 4, 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, the work consists of related steps, processes, and standard explanations of methods or programs in a human resources (HR) function.  HR assistants at this level make decisions on appropriate actions from various choices and differences among easily recognizable situations and use information that is factual in nature.  HR assistants recognize different processes required to assist customers and HR specialists, and act or respond differently in factual ways depending upon the variety of organizations served, the variety of positions filled, and similar factors.


At Level 4-3, the work consists of different and unrelated steps in accomplishing HR assignments and processes.  HR assistants at this level consider factual data, identify the scope and nature of the problems or issues and determine the appropriate action from many alternatives.  Assistants identify and analyze HR issues and/or problems to determine their interrelationships and to determine the appropriate methods and techniques needed to resolve them.

The appellant’s position meets Level 4-2.  Like at this level, the appellant performs work that consists of related steps, processes, and standard explanations of methods in military HR manning and placement functions.  For instance, he reviews information related to manning levels obtained through various online manning distribution data sources to communicate with assigned commands, answer manning inquiries, and make recommendations for the movement and placement of a military member to a billet.  He also monitors assigned command activity personnel files on a continuing basis to identify discrepancies and make corrections to data, to include expired gains and losses, erroneous Projection Rotation Dates (PRD) and other data that may affect the placement of an enlisted member to a job.  Also, like this level, the appellant makes decisions on appropriate actions from various choices and differences among easily recognizable situations and uses information that is factual in nature.  For instance, the appellant reviews personnel information from various sources such as the EDVR, the NMP, and Enlisted Manning Inquiry Reports (EMIRs) on the quantity, quality, and priority status of personnel and makes recommendations that meet personnel requisitions.  Comparable to Level 4-2, the appellant recognizes different processes required to assist command MCAs and responds differently in factual ways depending upon the job requisition to be filled.  For instance, he will use the EDVR to compare manning levels to actual authorized levels when addressing issues concerning placement shortfalls and review factors such as education and/or training completed, as well as previous assignments and current availability of a military member, to offer options regarding job placements to assist activities in managing enlisted personnel and eliminate existing manning gaps.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 4-3.  Unlike this level, due to the repetitive nature of the appellant’s assignments which do not encompass different and unrelated steps, he is not responsible for analyzing data or identifying the scope and nature of problems or issues.  Rather, his work focuses on using standard distribution sources and reviewing reports for purposes of identifying missing information affecting billet assignments rather than analyzing data.  Other work includes identifying missing or incorrect information by reviewing military members’ files and reporting/requesting changes or updates.  These and other decisions typical of the appellant’s work require considerations of readily identifiable steps to communicate with command representatives, obtain additional or missing information, and present recommendations to support the manning readiness of the units within his assigned commands.

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 assignments, and the effect of work products or services both within and outside the organization.

At Level 5-3, the highest level described in the JFS, the work involves treating a variety of routine problems, questions, or situations using established procedures such as rating employees in specific lower-grade jobs, for promotion on the basis of their relative abilities, as well ranking employees into categories.  The employee applies appropriate standards in determining titles, grades, and series codes of lower graded positions and counsels employees on a variety of minor disciplinary problems.  The work 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 GS-203 PCS of a Level 5-3 HR Assistant (Military) describes a position where the work involves reviewing military records and other case documentation on actions that may affect the career of the military member.  The employee ensures documentation is procedurally correct and complete, and adheres to military policy and regulation.  The employee also summarizes relevant facts and issues regarding a proposed action.  The work requires outlining options and recommending appropriate action.  Cases include allegations of inequitable, prejudiced, or similar treatment having major effects on career or service where unfavorable outcomes may result in military member’s career separation and loss of status. 

The position meets Level 5-3.  Like at this level, the appellant’s work involves treating a variety of routine problems, questions, or situations using established manning and placement rules and procedures.  For example, an EMIR is provided to the appellant to notify him of an enlisted personnel shortage that has a significant effect on the unit readiness to perform its mission requirements (e.g., unfilled mission critical occupation).  The appellant reviews the report and applies NAVPERSCOM (PERS-4013) projection rules and procedures involving the number of qualified available personnel to recommend priority consideration of personnel requisitions.  Comparable to the work illustration at Level 5-3, his work involves reviewing information in military members’ records to ensure proper information has been recorded relating to the member’s assignment and work experience, education requirements, and completed training requirements, to be used by those charged with the equitable distribution of sailors (i.e., Detailers).  Their determinations on job assignments are made using the information the appellant is responsible to maintain accurate and complete.  Thus, comparable to the illustration at Level 5-3, the results of the appellant’s work affect the quality and adequacy of employee records, program operations and services provided by the units of PERS-4013, in that his work affects the quality of the candidates being referred for assignments and/or job placements.

This factor is evaluated at Level 5-3 and 150 points are assigned.

Factors 6 and 7, Personal Contacts and Purpose of Contacts

Personal contacts include face-to-face and telephone contacts with persons not in the supervisory chain.  Levels described under this factor are based on what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with those contacted, and the setting in which the contact takes place.  These factors are interdependent.  The same contacts selected for crediting Factor 6 must be used to evaluate Factor 7.  The appropriate level for personal contacts and the corresponding level for purpose of contacts are determined by applying the point assignment chart for factors 6 and 7.

Personal Contacts

At Level 2,  which is the highest level described in the JFS, the HR assistant has contact 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 in the same location. 

The position meets but does not exceed Level 2.  In addition to contacts typical of Level 1 with other placement coordinators and coworkers from other units, the appellant’s personal contacts also include individuals outside the immediate office such as MCAs and other command representatives, and executive officers. 

Purpose of Contacts

At Level b, which is the highest level identified in the JFS, the purpose of contacts is 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 position meets but does not exceed Level b.  The purpose of the appellant’s contacts ranges from exchanging factual information to responding to issues relating to manning and placement problems.  He works with people who are typically working toward the same goals and have cooperative attitudes and influences them to take action based on his recommendations and/or based on NAVPERCOM procedures.  For example, similar to level b, the appellant’s contacts from his assigned commands have cooperative attitudes to resolve errors found in the EDVR scrubs that will serve to make proper placement determinations; however, he has to persuade each command activity to conduct timely, proper, and accurate validations of its EDVR to ensure the NAVPERSCOM receives the most accurate enlisted demand information possible. 

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

Factor 8, Physical Demands

This factor covers the requirements and physical demands placed on the employee by the work assignments.

At Level 8-1, which is the only level described in the JFS, the work is primarily 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 position meets but does not exceed Level 8-1, since it is primarily sedentary and does not involve any special physical effort. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 8-1 is 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, which is the only level described in the JFS, the work environment consists of an office setting that is adequately lighted, heated, and ventilated.  The work involves everyday risks or discomforts requiring normal safety precautions.

The position meets but does not exceed Level 9-1, which describes a typical office environment.

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


Factor Level Points
1.  Knowledge Required by the Position 1-4    550
2.  Supervisory Controls 2-3    275
3.  Guidelines 3-2    125
4.  Complexity 4-2      75
5.  Scope and Effect 5-3    150
6. &7. Personal Contacts and Purpose of Contacts 2-b      75
8.  Physical Demands 8-1        5
9.  Work Environment 9-1        5
Total 1,260

The total of 1,260 points falls within the GS-6 range (1,105 to 1,350) on the grade conversion table in the JFS.


The position is properly classified as Human Resources Assistant (Military), GS-203-6.




Back to Top

Control Panel