Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
U.S. Coast Guard Academy
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
New London, Connecticut
Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
04/09/2021
Date
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 U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.
Introduction
The appellant’s position is currently classified as Program Specialist (Marketing), GS-0301-13 and is assigned to the Admissions Division (AD), U.S. Coast Guard Academy (CGA), U.S. Coast Guard (CG), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New London, Connecticut. The appellant believes her position should be classified as Lead Program Specialist (Marketing), GS-0301-14. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
General issues
The appellant makes various statements about the agency’s evaluation of her position and compares her PD to higher-graded positions inside and outside her agency. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make an independent decision on the proper classification of her position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing the current duties and responsibilities to OPM standards 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 others, which may or may not be classified correctly, as a basis for deciding her appeal. Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellant’s agency in classifying her position are not germane to the classification appeal process.
Like OPM, the appellant’s agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. If the appellant considers her position so similar to others in her agency that they all warrant the same classification, she may pursue the matter by writing to her headquarters human resources office. In doing so, 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 differences between her position and the others.
The appellant references an increase in the volume of work she performs. However, volume of work cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).
The appellant describes intermittent and short-term duties and responsibilities (e.g., leading/directing the work of intermittently assigned student interns and volunteers) and duties and responsibilities not currently assigned to her position (i.e., leading/directing the work of lower-graded AD peers and Federal Contractors and oversight of the e-commerce system) as support for the requested changes to the classification of her position. However, only duties which are currently assigned, observable, identified with the position’s purpose and organization, and expected to continue or recur on a regular basis over a period of time, such as one year, can be considered when determining the grade of a position (Handbook, Chapter 3; and 5 U.S.C. 5112).
The appellant places emphasis on Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) work performed by her as support for the requested change to the classification of her position. However, COTR duties can be assigned to any Federal position with the technical knowledge and skill necessary to determine if contracted work is being performed appropriately. For example, a certified Electrician COTR may monitor contracted electrical work, or a Computer Programmer COTR may monitor contracted computer repair and upgrade work. Thus, COTR duties are an extension of the existing knowledge and skill required to perform the primary work of the position to which the COTR duties are assigned. Consequently, there is no specific guidance for grading COTR duties, and they must be evaluated against the appropriate PCS for the position to which the COTR duties are assigned.
The appellant also believes she is entitled to back pay retroactive to the fall of 2015. However, a Federal employee is not entitled to back pay for periods of misclassification. The U.S. Comptroller General states: “This rule was reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, at 406 (1976), where the Court stated that "... the federal employee is entitled to receive only the salary of the position to which she was appointed, even though she may have performed the duties of another position or claim that she should have been placed in a higher grade." See also Wilson v. United States, 229 Ct.Cl. 510 (1981). Consequently, backpay is not available as a remedy for misassignments to higher level duties or improper classifications. Regina Taylor, B-192366, Oct. 4, 1978. (CB decision B-232695, December 15, 1989).
Both the appellant and her supervisor question the accuracy of the appellant’s official PD number 00037071. 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 employee.
Our review disclosed the appellant’s PD contains duties and responsibilities which overstate the authority of the position and/or are not currently assigned to the position. For example, the PD states the appellant is responsible for providing oversight to CGA’s e-commerce system, which supplies recruiting materials through a national network of about 1,000 employees, volunteers, Coast Guard Recruiting Offices, and CGA’s Auxiliary National Supply Center. However, responsibility for oversight of the e-commerce system rests with AD’s GS-0301-09 Program Specialist.
The PD states the appellant “coordinates with CGA leaders to determine enrollment objectives.” However, the appellant does not perform this duty. Instead, this responsibility rests with CGA’s Superintendent, who coordinates with the appellant’s supervisor and higher-level CG management to determine CGA’s annual enrollment objectives.
The PD states the appellant establishes resource requirements, independently assigns priorities, timetables, and resources to carry out plans. However, the appellant is not responsible for establishing resource requirements, nor is she responsible for assigning priorities, timetables, and resources to carry out various plans. Instead, although the appellant may recommend or suggest resources, priorities, and timetables, these responsibilities rest with the CGA Administrator, Director, and the DDA.
The PD states the appellant plans, establishes, and directs programs encompassing large, difficult, and diverse AD projects and develops short and long-range strategic goals and detailed plans for implementation. However, although the appellant provides recommendations and coordinates with the supervisor to develop and implement short and long-range strategic goals, she is not responsible for planning, establishing, or directing agency programs affecting CGA and/or AD projects. Instead, this responsibility rests with the supervisor or higher-level agency management.
The PD states the appellant is responsible for planning, directing, and implementing CGA’s marketing and technology budget and for reallocating funds or making resource recommendations for new initiatives affecting enrollment outcomes, such as college readiness, propensity to serve, perceptions of college affordability, affirmative action case law, financial aid regulations, employment forecasts, competitor strategies, and emerging majors and fields. However, responsibility planning, directing, and implementing CGA’s marketing and technology budget and/or for reallocating CGA funds affecting AD programs and projects rests with the appellant’s supervisor and the CGA Funds Manager.
Based on the preceding discussion, the appellant’s PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.
Position information
The CGA is the only institution of higher education within DHS. CGA has an annual enrollment of approximately 300 students from the United States and its territories and nations of strategic interest to CG and/or DHS (e.g., Panama, Honduras, Philippines, Mexico, Bahamas, Palau, and Federated States of Micronesia) seeking a bachelor-of-science degree and commission as an ensign in the CG. CGA’s AD is responsible for developing and managing programs, processes, and projects designed to attracting, informing, and orienting CGA cadet recruits. The appellant’s position reports directly to AD’s DDA and is responsible for providing administrative and technical support to AD’s marketing program.
The appellant spends approximately 95 percent of her time coordinating with the DDA to develop and implement marketing programs, processes, and tools for AD and performing COTR duties which include, but are not limited to, developing and recommending sequential and non-sequential marketing plans, communication plans, and action plans, which are used by AD and CGA management to identify procedural issues and challenges and to predict annual enrollment requirements. She also coordinates with the DDA and other DA and CGA staff to develop CGA’s brand identity and core message, and develops and manages various AD websites, such as YouVisit.com, CAPPEX.com, edu/RISE, edu/genesis, and Edu/admissions workshop.
The appellant uses a variety of communication methods and tools (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, blogs, instant messaging, Chat, online college search platforms, personalized web content, landing pages, direct mail, social media, virtual reality (VR) tours, television, newspaper, periodicals, and radio ads) to reach out to prospective students and families. She also manages AD’s direct mail distribution system and develops recommendations for improving and expanding the system.
The appellant manages the admissions image library and oversees the e-commerce system, which supplies recruiting materials to a variety of employees, volunteers, CG recruiting offices, and Auxiliary National Supply Centers. She leads ongoing development and updates of and audits and analyzes various AD websites; and provides technical assistance and advice to system administrators and operators of CGA web sites. She develops and recommends editorial and image standards for AD web communications; drafts AD marketing and communication policies and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP); and advises school-related social media content managers regarding the quality and relevance of site content. She also provides advice and recommendations concerning best practices for the development and implementation of CGA’s web presence.
The appellant reviews emerging communication technologies, platforms, and practices for potential CGA use and makes recommendations to the DDA. She performs cost/benefit analysis for various AD marketing tools, methods, processes and coordinates with DDA to prioritize tasks, develop timetables, and to obtain necessary resources. She also serves as the senior specialist on the Integrated Product Team responsible for developing specifications and selection criteria for new products under consideration for CGA use.
She utilizes key recruitment information sources (e.g., the College Board, American College Testing (ACT), College Bound Selective Service, National Research Center for College and University Admissions, and Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education) to identify demographic trends, search for students, define the attributes of targeted populations, evaluate markets and schools, and benchmark against cohorts and competitors. She also uses predictive models and analytical projections to monitor a variety of recruitment-related data (e.g., the size, composition, and conversion rates of inquiry and applicant recruitment pools) and develops data-based predictions and recommendations regarding the development and implementation of new marketing approaches to the DDA to help meet recruitment goals.
She evaluates and recommends professional photographers and videographers; works with design firms, photographers, and copywriters to develop recruitment publications and promotional items; and facilitates access to locations and individuals for photo and video shoots on and off campus. She also coordinates with contractors and various CGA and AD personnel to develop media products designed to effectively attract qualified cadet recruits.
She coordinates with the DDA and other CGA and AD personnel to develop and provide training (e.g., effective communication, customer service, and computer system operation) for applicable agency employees and volunteers and acts as system administrator for many of AD’s electronic systems and services. She also coordinates the participation of a variety of agency and non-agency staff and organizations, e.g., AD staff, Federal contractors, CGA communication staff, Information Technology (IT) staff, Government Publishing Office (GPO), U.S. Postal Service, CG Recruiting Command, and social media managers in the CG involved in AD’s marketing and communication activities.
She also performs the full range of COTR duties for contracted AD projects. As a COTR, the appellant acts as a technical liaison between various Federal contractors and agency Contracting Officers (COs) and is responsible for ensuring satisfactory performance and timely delivery of services as set forth in assigned contracts. She performs contract pre-award tasks, such as preparation of work statements, and arranges for and coordinates the use of Government resources. She provides technical guidance concerning the performance requirements for AD contract work, and receives, reviews, and submits a variety of contract-related data, documents, and reports (e.g., progress reports, selected invoices, and final reports) to the CO for consideration and action. She also uses her experience and technical judgment as a Program Specialist (Marketing) to help the CO monitor the performance and progress of contracted work. She may also make recommendations to the CO for changes to specific project contracts, based on her experience and knowledge in the area of Cadet recruitment and educational services.
The appellant spends approximately 5 percent of her time providing technical support for the development of AD’s portion of CGA’s annual budget which includes performing evaluations and analysis of various performance data and information associated with currently allocated budgetary funds; tracking and reporting on various performance measures; and providing technical information and recommendations to her supervisor regarding the possible reallocation of established budgetary funds. She also monitors implementation of portions of the budget directly affecting AD projects assigned to her; identifies research requirements; and gathers and analyzes information used by AD management to develop recruitment strategies and formulate budgets necessary to plan and operate CGA’s recruitment program and provides reports and updates to the DDA.
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and her agency, including her 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, her immediate supervisor, and the servicing Human Resources Specialist, as well as subsequent telephone and e-mail communications.
Series, title, and standard determination
The agency classified the appellant’s position to the Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series, GS-0301, and evaluated the work of the position by application of the Administrative Analysis Grade Evaluation Guide (AAGEG) and after careful consideration, we concur. Although the appellant does not disagree with the classification of her work to the GS-0301 Series, she believes her position should be evaluated by application of Part II of the General Schedule Leader Grade Evaluation Guide (GSLGEG) because she contends she spends at least 25 percent of her time providing team leadership to a variety of agency and non-agency personnel, i.e., one GS-09 Program Specialist (Marketing), one NF-4 Marketing Support position, up to three AD student interns, a fluctuating number of volunteers, and Federal contract employees.
However, Section 7106(a)(2)(B) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) states, in relative terms, that management has the authority to assign work (including work leader duties), to make determinations with respect to contracting out, and to determine the personnel by which agency operations shall be conducted. Therefore, the composition of the workforce and official delegation of “Lead” responsibilities to the appellant’s position is a management prerogative.
Part II of the GSLGEG is used to classify positions whose primary purpose is, as a regular and recurring part of their assignment and at least 25 percent of their duty time, to lead a team of other General Schedule (GS) employees in accomplishing two-grade interval work that meets at least the minimum requirements of Part II. Team leaders usually also participate in the work of the team by performing work that is of the same kind and level as the highest level of work accomplished by the team led. Team leaders work with team members to achieve specific tasks, produce work products and services and meet program and production goals. Typically, a team leader assists the team through knowledge and application of leadership and team building skills and techniques such as group facilitation, coordination, coaching, problem solving, interpersonal communication, integration of work processes and products, obtaining resources and liaison with the supervisor. Team leaders covered by this guide are also accountable for outcomes and results, e.g., timely delivery of quality work products and services produced by the team led. To be titled and graded by application of the GSLGEG, team leaders must perform a total of fourteen of the twenty leadership duties listed in the guide.
As noted above, the appellant believes the primary purpose of her position is the performance of team leader work and that she spends at least 25 percent of her time performing team leader duties and responsibilities, such as assigning work, reviewing the work of other employees, and providing technical guidance and direction to a variety of agency and non-agency personnel.
The DDA certifies that prior to 2019 the primary purpose of the appellant’s position was the technical and administrative leadership of AD’s marketing team (i.e., one Program Specialist (Marketing), GS-0301-09, one NF-4 Marketing Support position, up to three student interns, and a fluctuating number of intermittently scheduled part-time volunteers), which occupied at least 25 percent of her overall time. While the DDA did not specifically indicate the position should be classified as a “Lead” at that time, we note that in contrast to Part II’s coverage requirements which specify that team leaders lead GS employees (plural) accomplishing two-grade interval work, according to the current organization chart only one two-grade interval position is led (Program Specialist (Marketing), GS-0301-09), and the guide does not recognize leading student interns and volunteers.
Sometime in 2019 the AD experienced a reorganization, which resulted in the reallocation of the work performed by many AD positions and the reassignment of all the positions on the appellant’s marketing team, including her position. As a result of the 2019 reorganization, all team leader duties and responsibilities were removed from the appellant’s position and reassigned to the DDA. The DDA’s reallocation of work associated with the appellant’s position changed the primary purpose of her position from the performance of team leadership to the performance of technical and administrative support for AD’s marketing program, with an emphasis on COTR duties. Nevertheless, the DDA states the appellant’s current position does not lead Federal contractors nor is the position responsible for the results of Federal contract work. Furthermore, although the appellant intermittently assigns work to student interns or volunteers and occasionally reviews final work products and/or provides technical advice to two of AD’s fulltime employees (i.e. the Program Specialist (Marketing) GS-0301-9 and the NF-4 Marketing Support position), the DDA estimates these tasks constitute no more than 15 percent of the appellant’s overall time. The DDA also states the appellant is not held accountable for the final work product of these employees. Instead, accountability for the final work products of the Program Specialist (Marketing) GS-0301-09, NF-4 Marketing Support position, student interns, and volunteers, rests with the DDA.
To be classified by application of Part II of the GSLGEG, team leadership must be the primary purpose of the position. However, the DDA removed team leader work from the appellant’s position during AD’s 2019 reorganization. As a result, the focus of the appellant’s work changed from providing team leadership, to providing technical and administrative support to the marketing program and performing COTR duties for the many Federal contracts which she was assigned to monitor.
The appellant asserts that, although she is no longer officially responsible for team leadership, she is still considered a subject matter expert (SME) for CGA marketing and is called upon to perform ad-hoc reviews of technical issues or work products for various AD employees. However, for purposes of classification OPM can only consider duties which are currently assigned, observable, identified with the position’s purpose and organization, and expected to continue or recur on a regular basis over a period of time (Handbook, Chapter 3; and 5 U.S.C. 5112). Since team leadership duties and responsibilities are no longer assigned to the appellant’s current position, they are not the primary purpose of the appellant’s current position. Moreover, contrary to the GSLGEG, we find that at no time did the appellant lead a team consisting of more than one GS employee accomplishing two-grade interval work (excluding student interns and volunteers).
Part II of the GSLGEG also requires the regular performance of at least 14 of the team leader duties listed in the guide. However, although the appellant performs ad-hoc reviews of completed work products and provides intermittent technical guidance and direction to AD employees and volunteers, the DDA estimates she spends no more than 15 percent of her time performing such duties. Thus, not only are these duties performed on an irregular basis but, even if regularly performed, they would not meet the 25 percent requirement for coverage of Part II of the GSLGEG.
Furthermore, the DDA states the appellant’s current position is not accountable for the work products of AD employees and volunteers or Federal contractors. Instead, the DDA is accountable for AD employees and volunteers, and Federal contractors and the CO are accountable for Federal contract workers. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion the appellant’s position does not meet the requirements of Part II of the GSLGEG.
The Position Classification Flysheet for the GS-0301 series states that positions in that series are to be evaluated by reference to an appropriate multi-series guide or, if none is applicable, a standard for a specific occupational series that involves analogous knowledges and skills. We find that the grade of the appellant’s position is best evaluated by reference to the grading criteria in the AAGEG as addressed below. There are no titles prescribed for positions in the GS-0301 series. Therefore, the agency may construct a title, including the addition of a parenthetical title, by following the titling guidance in the Introduction.
Grade determination
The AAGEG uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors. Under the FES, each factor level 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 an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency. Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some respects 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 Guide.
The agency credited Level 1-8 for Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position; Level 2-4 for Factor 2, Supervisory Controls; Level 3-4 for Factor 3, Guidelines; Level 4-5 for Factor 4, Complexity; Level 5-5 for Factor 5, Scope and Effect; Level 6-3 for Factor 6, Personal Contacts; Level 7-c for Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts; Level 8-1 for Factor 8, Physical Demands; and Level 9-1 for Factor 9, Work Environment.
The appellant agrees with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and after careful consideration of all available information, we concur. However, the appellant disagrees with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 2 and 3, believing they should be evaluated at Levels 2-5 and 3-5. Therefore, our analysis focuses on Factors 2 and 3.
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 2-4, within the framework of priorities, funding, and overall project objectives (e.g., cost reduction, improved effectiveness and efficiency, better workload distribution, or implementation of new work methods), the employee and supervisor develop a mutually acceptable project plan which typically includes identification of the work to be done, the scope of the project, and deadlines for its completion. Within the parameters of the approved project plan, the employee is responsible for planning and organizing the study, estimating costs, coordinating with staff and line management personnel, and conducting all phases of the project. This frequently involves the definitive interpretation of regulations and study procedures, and the initial application of new methods. The employee informs the supervisor of potentially controversial findings, issues, or problems with widespread impact. Completed projects, evaluations, reports, or recommendations are reviewed by the supervisor for compatibility with organizational goals, guidelines, and effectiveness in achieving intended objectives. Completed work is also reviewed critically outside the employee's immediate office by staff and line management officials whose programs and employees would be affected by implementation of the recommendations.
At Level 2-5, the highest level for this factor described in the guide, the employee, as a recognized authority in the analysis and evaluation of programs and issues, is subject only to administrative and policy direction concerning overall project priorities and objectives. At this level, the employee is typically delegated complete responsibility and authority to plan, schedule, and carry out major projects concerned with the analysis and evaluation of programs or organizational effectiveness. The employee typically exercises discretion and judgment in determining whether to broaden or narrow the scope of projects or studies. Analyses, evaluations, and recommendations developed by the employee are normally reviewed by management officials only for potential influence on broad agency policy objectives and program goals. Findings and recommendations are normally accepted without significant change.
Level 2-4 is met. Like Level 2-4, the appellant and her supervisor identify projects and studies and develop mutually acceptable plans, which include potential issues and problems, overall objectives, resources, milestones, reporting dates and mechanisms, and deadlines for completion. Similar to Level 2-4, the appellant works within established project and program parameters to independently plan, organize, and conduct all phases of the project, including interpreting marketing and recruitment regulations, conducting related studies, analysis, cost estimates, and reviewing and recommending new products, services, and methods. Comparable to Level 2-4, completed work, evaluations, reports, and recommendations are reviewed for compatibility with applicable guidelines and program goals and objectives by the DDA and other AD and CGA officials who may be affected by implementation of the findings of the appellant’s studies and analysis and associated recommendations.
Level 2-5 is not met. Unlike Level 2-5, the appellant’s position is not delegated complete responsibility and authority to develop and implement studies and projects. Instead, these are mutually developed with input from the supervisor. Moreover, the DDA requires the appellant to attend regular meetings to provide the status of projects and studies and the methods for achieving program objectives. The appellant also receives assignments and information from the DDA and must obtain authorization from him prior to initiating projects, implementing recommendations, or obligating the agency to the expenditure of resources, such as manpower or money. Thus, the parameters of the appellant’s authority are narrower and more defined than that described at Level 2-5, which is only subject to administrative and policy direction concerning overall project priorities and objectives. Unlike Level 2-5, the DDA is responsible for performing a technical review of the appellant’s work and to ensure work products and recommendations are compatible with applicable guidelines and program goals and objectives. The work is reviewed from a technical standpoint and is more focused and specific than would be expected of a Level 2-5 review, which only requires the work be reviewed for potential influence on broad agency policy objectives and program goals.
This factor is credited at Level 2-4 and 450 points are assigned.
Factor 3, Guidelines
This factor covers the nature of guidelines and the judgment needed to apply them.
At Level 3-4, guidelines consist of general administrative policies and management and organizational theories which require considerable adaptation and/or interpretation for application to issues and problems studied. At this level, administrative policies and precedent studies provide a basic outline of the results desired, but do not go into detail as to the methods used to accomplish the project. Administrative guidelines usually cover program goals and objectives of the employing organization, such as agency controls on size of work force, productivity targets, and similar objectives. Within the context of broad regulatory guidelines the employee may refine or develop more specific guidelines such as implementing regulations or methods for the measurement and improvement of effectiveness and productivity in the administration of operating programs.
At Level 3-5, guidelines consist of basic administrative policy statements concerning the issue or problem being studied, and may include reference to pertinent legislative history, related court decisions, state and local laws, or policy initiatives of agency management. The employee uses judgment and discretion in determining intent, and in interpreting and revising existing policy and regulatory guidance for use by others within or outside the employing organization (e.g., other analysts, line managers, or contractors). Some employees review proposed legislation or regulations which would significantly change the basic character of agency programs, the way the agency conducts its business with the public or with private industry, or which modify important inter-agency relationships. Other employees develop study formats for use by others on a project team or at subordinate echelons in the organization. At this level, the employees are recognized as experts in the development and/or interpretation of guidance on program planning and evaluation in their area of specialization (e.g., work force management, contingency/emergency planning, position management, work measurement, or productivity improvement).
Level 3-4 is met. Like this level, the appellant interprets and applies general AD, CGA, and agency guidelines and policies (e.g., COTR Assignment Memos, SUPTINST 5295 and 5270.1B, and CGA Annual recruiting plan), as well as Federal recruitment regulations governing college students (e.g., 14 U.S.C 468, and National Association for College Admissions Counseling - “Code of Ethics and Professional Practices”) to develop strategies and methods used to identify, inform, and attract cadet recruits and to market CGA as a preferred educational experience. Like Level 3-4, there are some instances where available guidelines lack sufficient detail or specificity regarding the issue or situation facing the appellant. In these instances, the appellant must adapt available guidelines in order to apply them to specific processes, issues, and conditions experienced in her work. Comparable to Level 3-4, the appellant’s actions are governed by established program goals and objectives and she cannot change the overall intent or broaden the parameters of guidelines she adapts. For example, the appellant coordinates with the DDA to develop AD’s annual recruiting plan (ARP). Once approved, the appellant uses the ARP as a general guideline for marketing and recruitment processes and exercises independent judgment when applying the ARP to specific issues and problems encountered throughout the year. She also analyzes the overall effectiveness of each year’s ARP and develops best practices which she incorporates into subsequent ARPs.
Level 3-5 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant uses general guidelines (e.g. an annual recruiting plan) to develop strategies and methods used to identify, inform, and attract cadet recruits and to market CGA as a preferred educational experience. In some instances, the incumbent must interpret and modify current guidelines to apply to specific processes, issues, and conditions experienced in her work. However, the scope of guidelines developed or modified by the appellant do not significantly impact CGA programs nor do they significantly impact the way CG or DHS conducts its business. Unlike Level 3-5, the appellant does not review proposed legislation or regulations which would significantly change the basic character of CG programs or the way CG as an agency conducts business. Contrary to level 3-5, the appellant does not use judgment and discretion in determining the intent of agency policies and/or regulations used by employees in other organizational units within CG or for employees outside CG. Instead, policies and regulations interpreted by the appellant are specific to AD’s marketing program and are directly associated with CGA’s recruitment processes.
Unlike Level 3-5, the appellant’s current position does not include team leader duties and responsibilities. Therefore, she is not responsible for developing study formats for use by others on a project team or at subordinate echelons within AD. Instead, the appellant provides technical and administrative support to AD’s marketing program and uses her knowledge and experience in the area of AD marketing and recruitment to perform the full range of COTR duties for assigned Federal contracts associated with AD’s work. In contrast to Level 3-5, the appellant is not a recognized expert in the development and/or interpretation of guidance on program planning and evaluation for marketing and recruitment (e.g., work force management, contingency/emergency planning, position management, work measurement, or productivity improvement). Instead, she is considered a SME in the area of marketing and recruitment for the CGA.
This factor is credited at Level 3-4 and 450 points are assigned.
Summary
| Factor | Level | Points |
| 1. Knowledge Required by the Position | 1-8 | 1550 |
| 2. Supervisory Controls | 2-4 | 450 |
| 3. Guidelines | 3-4 | 450 |
| 4. Complexity | 4-5 | 325 |
| 5. Scope and Effect | 5-5 | 325 |
| 6. & 7. Personal Contacts and Purpose of Contacts | 6-3, 7-c | 180 |
| 8. Physical Demands | 8-1 | 5 |
| 9. Work Environment | 9-1 | 5 |
| Total Points | 3290 |
Total Points 3290
A total of 3290 points falls within the GS-13 range (3155 to 3600) on the grade conversion table in the AAGEG. Therefore, the position is graded at that level.
Decision
The proper series and grade of the appellant’s position is GS-0301-13. Selection of an appropriate title is at the agency’s discretion.