Washington, DC

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

---

Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


08/09/2023

---

Date

Finality of Decision

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

Since this decision changes the classification of the appealed position, it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the fourth pay period after the date of this decision, as permitted by 5 CFR 511.702(a). As discussed in this decision, our findings also 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 and a Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken. The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Program Manager (HR), GS-0340-13, but he believes it should be classified at the GS-14 grade level. The position is assigned to the Directorate of Human Resources (DHR), U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) Wiesbaden, U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM), Department of the Army (DA), in Wiesbaden, Germany. 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 his employing agency’s classification review process and compares his position to a higher graded Program Manager (HR) PD assigned to another location within his agency. 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 (PCSs) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Since comparison to PCSs is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others that may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding his appeal. Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the appellant’s concerns regarding the agency’s classification review process are not germane to the classification appeals 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 his position so similar to others that they all warrant the same classification, he may pursue the matter by writing to his headquarters human resources office. In doing so, he 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 his, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to him the differences between his position and the others.

The appellant believes his official PD of record (number JDXAIG210035) is inaccurate because it does not reflect the full scope of duties and responsibilities of his position. Specifically, he states it does not include responsibilities for the Workforce Development Division established on January 1, 2021, which functions directly under his oversight and has increased the scope and depth of his position in the areas of host nation labor law, training, development and career coaching. He also states that his PD does not reflect his work for the Commander’s Ready and Resilient Council (CR2C) and with the Community Ready and Resilient Integrator (CR2I), GS-0101-12, position.[1] In a memorandum dated March 15, 2022, the appellant’s supervisor, Deputy to the Garrison Commander (DGC), validates that the scope and depth of the appellant’s position duties meets the factor levels described in the GS-14 grade level PD submitted by the appellant to OPM. Implicit in his statement is that the appellant’s position should be graded at the GS-14 level. 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 that the appellant’s PD is not completely accurate because it describes duties the appellant does not perform. For instance, where work is contracted out, the appellant does not approve or disapprove “plans and recommendations as to whether to accomplish work in-house or by contract.” He also does not review “reports of contractor progress and quality of performance and approves [plans] for required inspections.” He does not make decisions on the “acceptability, rejection, or correction of work products or services, and similar matters which may affect payment to the contractor.” These and other contracted work functions noted in the PD are assigned to site specific Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) or the primary COR at IMCOM Europe regional headquarters. The appellant does not develop garrison-level policies as indicated in his PD. Rather, he develops and/or updates local DHR policies based on DA regulations. Our fact-finding does not show that the appellant conducts or has participated in special studies. Therefore, although he provides feedback to higher-level management on the health and status of programs using data gathered through program reviews and trend analysis, he does not do this through “special studies” as indicated in his PD. Also, as stated in his PD, the appellant is not responsible for advising or guiding “garrison and tenant managers.”

Our review disclosed that the PD does not accurately reflect the percentage of time spent by the appellant performing supervisory and related managerial duties, which we find constitutes 100 percent of his work rather than simply 30 percent as noted in the PD. Therefore, for the preceding reasons 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 mission of the USAG Wiesbaden is to integrate, synchronize, deliver services, and provide infrastructure to enable readiness, theater-wide mission command, and support to contingency operations. The DHR at the USAG Wiesbaden provides the full spectrum of Human Capital Program Management and Human Resource (HR) services to soldiers, civilians, families, and retirees to enable readiness for a self-reliant and globally responsive all volunteer Army.

The appellant heads the DHR currently staffed by 72 employees covered by either the General Schedule (GS) or Local National (LN) pay systems, working in five separate divisions: the Military Personnel Division (MPD); the Administrative Services Division (ASD); the Workforce Development Division (WFD); the Army Continuing Education System (ACES) Division; and the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Division. These divisions carry out various programs designed to support the well-being and personal development of those who comprise the installation and garrison community. Some of these programs include the Soldier for Life, Transition Assistance Program (TAP); USAG Wiesbaden Civilian Leader Development Program; the Host Nation (HN) Apprenticeship and Intern Program; the Military Personnel Management Program; the ACES Program; the Alcohol, Drug and Abuse Program; and the Administrative Services Program which includes records management, mail and distribution, Army correspondence, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act and other management information services.

As the head of the DHR, the appellant manages, directs, and administers the operations of the DHR. As stated in his PD of record, he provides both technical and administrative supervision to administrative, professional, and technical positions engaged in the directorate operations. He is first-level supervisor to all division chiefs. These positions include an Education Services Specialist, GS-1740-13, a Program Manager (Workforce Development), CI-0340-08 (LN position comparable to GS-13), a Supervisory Management and Program Analyst, GS-0343-12, a Supervisory HR Specialist, GS-0201-13, and an Army Substance Abuse Program Manager, GS-0101-13. He performs supervisory duties as stated in his PD, and also provides expert advice to his Division Chiefs on a full range of technical matters pertinent to the programs of the DHR. With the exception of two positions, he is second-or third-level supervisor for the positions within the DHR.

The appellant oversees the operations of the directorate and assesses program requirements of its subordinate divisions. He uses program and statistical data and other information to provide feedback on the effectiveness and status of programs to the DGC and/or the Garrison Commander (GC). He participates in executing garrison strategic plan goals and objectives (i.e., Lines of Effort (LOE)) for managed programs. Within prescribed budget parameters, he oversees the amount of financial resources devoted to each division. He responds to significant mandated implementation or changes in organizational structures such as the recent establishment of the WFD. He develops local guidance for the operations of the directorate in accordance with IMCOM policies and DA regulations. Further, he proposes changes in program practices and procedures and/or reviews changes proposed by subordinate supervisors and presents those proposals to higher-level management. He provides advice to the DGC on policies and issues relating to human resources programs, services and actions (e.g., hiring and pay). We address the appellant’s duties in more detail in the series, title, and standard determination section of this decision.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and the agency including his official PD which, although not completely accurate, we find sufficient for purposes of classification when relied upon in conjunction with information obtained from our fact-finding. Therefore, we have incorporated the PD by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his immediate supervisor (i.e., Program Manager (DGC), GS-0340-15) and followed-up with requests to the appellant for additional information. 

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Program Management Series, 0340, titling it Program Manager (HR) and evaluated the position by application of the grading criteria in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG). The appellant does not dispute these determinations. However, our fact-finding does not support placement of the appellant’s position in the Program Management Series, 0340. For the reasons discussed below the appellant’s position is appropriately placed in the Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series, 0301.

The Program Management Series, 0340 covers all classes of positions the duties of which are to manage or direct, or to assist in a line capacity in managing or directing, one or more programs, including appropriate supporting service organizations, when the paramount qualification requirement of the positions is management and executive knowledge and ability and when the positions do not require competence in a specialized subject-matter or functional area. Positions in which specialized subject-matter or functional competence is a necessary qualification requirement are classifiable to whichever specialized or general series is most appropriate.

The Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series, 0301, includes positions the duties of which are to perform, supervise, or manage nonprofessional, two-grade interval work for which no other series is appropriate. The work requires analytical ability, judgment, discretion, and knowledge of a substantial body of administrative or program principles, concepts, policies, and objectives. The purpose of the 0301 series is to cover two-grade interval specialized work for which no appropriate occupational series has been established and which is not elsewhere classifiable. The essential criteria for classifying positions in this series are: (1) the primary work of the position is of an administrative, two-grade interval nature; and (2) the primary work of the position is not classifiable in any other series.

As stated above, positions in the Program Management Series, 0340, do not require competence in a specialized subject-matter or functional area. However, our review disclosed that the appellant applies more than management and executive knowledge and skills to supervise his staff and oversee the operations of the DHR. The appellant directly supervises and routinely engages with the five Division Chiefs of the directorate, whose positions are classified to various occupational series and, of those, two are professional positions (i.e., Education Services Specialist, GS-1740-13 and the Army Substance Abuse Program Manager, GS-0101-12). As noted in the appellant’s PD and supported by our fact-finding, he provides administrative and technical supervision to his staff including its professional employees. Our fact-finding shows that to provide technical supervision to his staff, he applies knowledge and skills in various specialized functional areas. For example, using knowledge of the Army’s TAP policies and procedures for separating and retiring soldiers, he made technical recommendations to the MPD Chief (i.e., Supervisory HR Specialist (Military), GS-0201-13, and to the Transition Services Manager (TSM), GS-0301-12, assigned to the MPD and who administers the program, regarding the development of an outreach plan designed to facilitate enrollment timeframe requirements for soldiers to enroll in the TAP no later than 365 days prior to their transition into civilian life. Prior to execution of the plan by the TSM, the appellant reviewed the work product for compliance with TAP program goals and objectives.

In another case, the appellant applied knowledge of sponsorship program functions including in-processing, out-processing, and onboarding and provided technical direction to the MPD Chief and other team members on ways to operationalize the program to improve the Permanent Change of Station (PCS) experience for soldiers and civilian employees transitioning to different units. Under the appellant’s oversight several PCS objectives were accomplished including the development and integration of virtual out-processing and tailored in-processing for senior field grade officers and senior noncommissioned officers. The appellant provides guidance to the ASD Chief (Supervisory Management and Program Analyst, GS-0343-12) and Postal Manager (Supervisory Postal Program Specialist, GS-0301-12) assigned to the ASD, in the functional area of postal operations for the garrison’s mail programs. For example, working with the Postal Manager in assessing current criteria for use of postage meters, and evaluating cost reimbursements thresholds and customer usage patterns, the appellant worked with the ASD Chief on a cost benefit proposal to lower the dollar amount requirement to be spent from $300 to $100. He also applied program data on historical trends and patterns and customer survey feedback to assess the quality and timeliness of postal services provided. He was involved in the decision-making from a technical standpoint for modifications to the Postal Center’s services. These included adjusting hours of operation and increasing the number of staff during each shift to test if a reduction in postal service delays and customer wait times could be achieved in support of mission and program objectives in customer service satisfaction.

The appellant routinely interacts with the WFD Chief (Program Manager (Workforce Development), C1-0340-08). The WFD was incorporated into the DHR in 2021, and as the head of the DHR, the appellant led its implementation including developing the chief’s PD, and a job and rating analysis used to aid in the selection of the chief position. The WFD carries out various civilian workforce development programs focused on leadership development, education, career planning, mentorship, performance management, as well as HN job-related programs and trainings and other learning activities. He applies workforce development principles, concepts, and techniques to provide technical oversight and makes decisions along with the WFD Chief to incorporate applicable programs to the division. For instance, he applied workforce development principles and concepts to identify position needs, the most effective type of instruction delivery methods and types of assessment/testing to be administered for the implementation of the HN Apprenticeship Program. This is a 3-4 year program focused on providing on-the-job training in specific occupations according to the needs of the garrison, as well as educational opportunities (e.g. in a vocational school) to support mission readiness and leader development goals of the Army. In this case, apprentices were placed in clerical and electrician positions and the division is currently expanding to trade jobs (i.e., plumbers). Furthermore, as the Goal Champion for Line of Effort 1, People, Workforce/Service Culture Campaign Goals of the garrison’s strategic plan, the appellant provides advice and technical oversight to working teams in workforce development principles for creating a qualified and effective workforce within the garrison.

Regarding the professional positions assigned to the ACES and ASAP divisions and supervised by the appellant, our fact-finding shows that given the nature of the actual work performed in those divisions, the appellant’s position does not require applying full knowledge in the education and social sciences fields to the same degree or extent as professional employees in those occupational series (i.e., in the Education Services Series, GS-1740 and Social Science Series, GS-0101) due to the limited scope of actual professional work performed within the divisions. Relating to the professional work performed by the ACES division, the PD assigned to the ACES Chief position (i.e., Education Services Specialist, GS-1740-13) describes the purpose of the position as an Education Services Officer with responsibility for planning and developing an installation-level Army Continuing Education System program and administering all education services. The PD also states that the paramount qualification requirement of this position is the possession of knowledge and skill necessary to apply the theories, principles, and techniques of education and training programs. The PD further states, and as confirmed through our fact-finding, that curriculum development and course instruction is not provided by the division but rather through contracted training instructors or instructors provided by universities or other training institutions. As a result, we find that the technical matters presented to the appellant by the ACES Chief and his subordinate employee (i.e., Education Services Specialist, GS-1740-12) primarily involve matters in program administration and program policy interpretation, rather than matters requiring the full application of knowledge and skills in the theories, principles, and techniques of education programs. For instance, a technical question presented to the appellant by the ACES Chief involved interpretation of program requirements and regulations such as whether on-post universities and colleges would be allowed to participate in career fairs. The appellant advised the Chief that in accordance with DoD instructions on-post universities and colleges could only participate in ACES sanctioned education fairs.

In another case, the appellant applied knowledge of military functions and benefits and provided technical advice to the ACES Chief on the pre-clearance requirement that all soldiers clear the Veterans Administration Education Benefit counseling prior to a PCS. We note that regardless of breadth of the work performed by the division, the appellant meets educational and qualification requirements for positions in the Education Services Series, GS-1740, having held the position of ACES Chief at the GS-12 and 13 grade levels in various garrisons and while in the military (i.e., at Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, in Wiesbaden, and in Iraq) over the last 20 years. He also holds a Master of Education Degree and a Professional Certification as a Global Career Development Facilitator. Thus, he has the knowledges and skills required for positions in the GS-1740 series and has the requisite subject matter expertise to technically review the work of the ACES Chief.

Relating to the professional work performed by the staff of the ASAP Division, the PD for the ASAP Chief (i.e., Army Substance Abuse Program Manager, GS-0101-12) states the position plans, directs, supervises, and evaluates the Installation’s ASAP non-clinical program and has administrative oversight of the clinical program and its personnel. However, our fact-finding disclosed that the ASAP no longer has administrative oversight over the clinical program or its personnel, as those professional functions were transferred and now fall under the U.S. Army Medical Command. Consequently, the questions and matters presented to the appellant regarding the ASAP program do not involve matters or issues that would require application of professional knowledge of the principles and practices for clinical treatment of substance abuse. The issues presented to the appellant are limited to technical matters involving the division’s non-clinical programs such as the Risk Reduction Program, Employee Assistance Program, the Drug-Free Federal Workplace programs, Education and Training, Suicide Prevention, and other program evaluations. For example, the ASAP Chief presented an issue regarding direct drug testing functions being administered at a location not conducive to security measures. After consulting with the appellant, the ASAP Chief and the appellant proposed incorporating the testing function with other support services into a consolidated facility which provides resiliency services to the community and bring its function into compliance with physical security and measure requirements. The proposal was approved by the GC leading to the establishment of the Wiesbaden Resiliency Campus. The appellant also applies sufficient knowledge of the principles and mission objectives of the Army Ready and Resilient program, which supports readiness and resilience of the community in the various domains (e.g., physical, emotional, social and environmental, family). For example, he provided technical advice to the ASAP Chief and the CR2I on spousal employment hiring processes to meet CR2C in Family/Social Group objectives.

Based on the preceding discussion, we find the appellant applies sufficient knowledge  of the subject-matter performed by his professional and administrative subordinate program managers to advise them on various technical and professional concerns, serving as their technical reviewer and decision maker on program related issues presented to him. We also note the number of professional employees assigned to his directorate is limited, representing only 5 of the 72 FTEs.^[2] Given the limited extent and breadth of professional work performed within the ACES and ASAP divisions, in addition to our findings regarding the nature of the interaction between the appellant and his professional staff, we conclude his supervisory responsibilities for both professional and non-professional staff require application of analytical ability, judgment, discretion, and knowledge of program principles, concepts, policies, and objectives characteristic of the 0301 series. Moreover, because the duties and knowledge required of his position do not compare to a more specific subject-matter occupational series, it is appropriately classified in the 0301 series.

There are no published grading criteria for positions classified in the 0301 series. The Position Classification Flysheet (PCF) for the 0301 series directs that positions classified in this 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. The PCF also states that positions classified in this series that meet the criteria of the GSSG for evaluation as supervisors are to be evaluated by that guide. Coverage by the GSSG requires a supervisory position to (1) accomplish work through combined technical and administrative direction of others; (2) constitute a major duty occupying at least 25 percent of the position’s time; and (3) meet at least the lowest level of Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, based on supervising Federal civilian employees, Federal military or uniformed service employees, volunteers, or other non-contractor personnel on a regular and recurring basis. The agency evaluated the grade of the appellant’s position by application of the GSSG and we agree that the appellant’s supervisory responsibilities fully meet the GSSG coverage requirements for titling and evaluation as a supervisor. The 0301 PCF does not specify titles for positions classified in that series and refers to titling instructions contained in the Introduction. However, as stated in the GSSG, the prefix “Supervisory” must be added to the basic title selected by the agency.

In addition, we find the appellant’s program oversight and coordination duties are performed within the context of supervisory and related managerial responsibilities credited to his position under Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect, and Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised. For example, planning and overseeing the work performed by subordinates in support of program goals and objectives improving ways to perform the work done by subordinate supervisors and their staff; providing program and trend analysis data, and/or statistics to higher-level management; and giving advice and/or making recommendations regarding applicable integrated human resource program policies and procedures to higher-level management officials. Therefore, we conclude the appellant spends all his time performing supervisory or related managerial duties in overseeing the operations of the DHR, and thus have determined the grade of his position solely by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG.

Grade Determination

The GSSG is a cross-series guide used to determine the grade level of supervisory positions in the GS. The GSSG has six evaluation factors, each with several factor-level definitions and corresponding point values. Positions are evaluated by crediting the points designated for the highest level met under each factor and converting the total to a grade by using the point-to-grade conversion chart in the guide.

The appellant disagrees with his agency’s GSSG assignment of Level 2-2 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting, Subfactor Level 4A-2 (Nature of Contacts) for Factor 4, Personal Contacts, Level 5-5, for Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed, and Level 6-4(a) for Factor 6, Other Conditions. He does not dispute his agency assignment of Level 1-3 for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect, Level 3-3b for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, and Subfactor Level 4B-3 (Purpose of Contacts) for Factor 4, Personal Contacts. After careful review, we concur with the undisputed factor levels assigned by the agency for Factors 1, and 3, and thus have not addressed them separately in the discussion below. However, we do not agree with the agency’s assignment for Subfactor 4B and Factor 5. Therefore, our evaluation with respect to Factors 2, Subfactor 4A, Subfactor 4B, 5, and 6 follows.

Factor 2, Organizational Setting

This factor considers the organizational situation of the supervisory position in relation to higher levels of management.

At Level 2-2, the position is accountable to a position that is one reporting level below the first SES, flag or general officer, or equivalent or higher level position in the direct supervisory chain.

At Level 2-3, the position is accountable to a position that is SES level, flag or general officer military rank, or equivalent or higher level; or to a position which directs a substantial GS-15 or equivalent level workload; or to a position which directs work through GS-15 or equivalent level subordinate supervisors, officers, contractors or others.

The appellant’s position meets Level 2-2. Like this level, he is directly accountable to the DGC, a Program Manager, GS-0340-15 position. The GSSG instructs that when a position is supervised by someone with full deputy responsibilities, the position is credited as if reporting to the same position to whom the Deputy reports. The record shows that the DGC is a full deputy to the Garrison Commander (GC) (i.e., O-6 Colonel) whose position is one level below the first SES level position in the direct supervisory chain (i.e., Regional Director).

The appellant seeks assignment of Level 2-3, stating his position is accountable to the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO), a Brigadier General (1-Star) and most currently a Major General (2-Star) due to his participation in the CR2C program. Although the appellant has certain responsibilities with officials heading certain programs and/or initiatives, his position is not supervised by the SRO. Rather, he is directly accountable to the DGC/GC who rate his performance and fully supervise his work.  In addition, unlike level 2-3, his supervisor of record does not direct a substantial GS-15 or equivalent workload, direct work through GS-15 or equivalent level subordinate supervisors.

This factor is credited at Level 2-2 and 250 points are assigned. 

Factor 4: Personal Contacts

This is a two-part factor which assesses the nature and the purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities. The nature of the contacts, credited under Subfactor 4A, and the purpose of those contacts credited under Subfactor 4B, must be based on the same contacts.

Subfactor 4A: Nature of Contacts

Contacts credited under Subfactor 4A cover the organizational relationships, authority or influence level, setting, and difficulty of preparation associated with making personal contacts involved in supervisory and managerial work. To be credited, the level of contacts must contribute to the successful performance of the work, be a recurring requirement, have a demonstrable impact on the difficulty and responsibility of the position, and require direct contact.

At Level 4A-2, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following: members of the business community or the general public; higher ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units and activities throughout the field activity, installation, command (below major command level), or major organization level of the agency; representatives of local public interest groups or case workers in congressional district offices;  technical or operating level employees of State and local Governments; and reporters for local and other limited media outlets reaching a small, general population. Contacts may be informal, occur in conferences and meetings, or take place through telephone, televised, radio, or similar contact, and sometimes require nonroutine or special preparation.

At Level 4A-3, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following: high ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency; with agency headquarters administrative support staff; or with comparable personnel in other Federal agencies; key staff of public interest groups (usually in formal briefings) with significant political influence or media coverage; journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage; congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel levels; contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms; and local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations; and/or State and local Government managers doing business with the agency. Contacts include those which take place in meetings and conferences and unplanned contacts for which the employee is designated as a contact point by higher management. They often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date technical familiarity with complex subject matter.

The appellant’s nature of contacts meets Level 4A-2. Like this level, he has frequent contacts with higher ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of programs, administrative and other work units throughout the installation, INCOM, or major organization levels of the agency. His contacts include INCOM regional staff, USAG directors, program managers and supervisors, local administrative personnel such as Equal Employment Opportunity officers and resource managers, and well as with technical staff from the Civilian Personnel Advisory Center and higher-level civilian managers from the U.S. Army in Europe and Africa. Also, like this level, the appellant’s contacts may be informal, occur in conferences and meetings, or take place through telephone, and sometimes require nonroutine or special preparation, e.g., for discussions concerning CR2C matters.

The appellant’s nature of contacts do not meet Level 4A-3. Unlike this level, the appellant does not have frequent contact with technical staff at both bureau and major organization levels of the agency, with agency headquarters administrative support staff; or with comparable personnel in other Federal agencies; contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms; and/or local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations. While the appellant occasionally contacts headquarters administrative support staff for administrative inquiries of a processing nature, these contacts do not require the more complex settings and preparation identified at this level nor occur on a regular and recurring basis.

This subfactor is credited at Level 4A-2 and 50 points are assigned.

Subfactor 4B: Purpose of Contacts

This subfactor includes the advisory, representational, negotiating, and commitment responsibilities related to the supervisor’s contacts.

At Level 4B-2, the purpose of contacts is to ensure that information provided to outside parties is accurate and consistent; to plan and coordinate the work directed with that of others outside the subordinate organization; and/or to resolve differences of opinion among managers, supervisors, employees, contractors, or others.

At Level 4B-3, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organization unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts. Contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts meets Level 4B-2. Like this level, the purpose of his contacts is primarily to provide accurate and consistent program information in accordance with DA policies and regulations and to ensure consistency of program operations. Comparable to this level, the appellant plans and coordinates the work directed with outside parties such as with U.S. and HN education institutions as it relates to the work of the ACES division. Similar to this level, he discusses program issues presented to him by his Division Chiefs and resolves difference of opinion regarding program rules among supervisors, employees, or other partnerships.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts does not meet Level 4B-3. All three conditions listed under Level 4B-3 must be present in a position to award credit for this level. In order to represent the organization in program defense or negotiations as found at Level 4B-3, a supervisor must necessarily have the requisite control over resources and the authority necessary to gain support and compliance on policy matters. See Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions, August 1994, Number 19-02. In contrast to Level 4B-3, the appellant recommends or proposes allocation of resources but does not have responsibility and authority to obtain or commit resources for the programs of his directorate. Our fact-finding shows that this responsibility resides with the DGC and the GC, or with higher echelon positions in his organization.  In addition, although the appellant occasionally attends conferences or meetings concerning significant issues with outside contacts such as with the Wiesbaden Chamber of Commerce to negotiate an agreement to allow the garrison to be designated as the official German apprenticeship site, the frequency of such contacts and meetings, in addition to the authority to commit resources as required for crediting Level 4B-3, are not present in his position.

This subfactor is credited at Level 4B-2 and 75 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed as well as other line, staff, or contracted work for which the supervisor has technical or oversight responsibility, either directly or through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or others. The level is determined by identifying the highest grade which best characterizes the nature of the basic (mission oriented) nonsupervisory work performed or overseen by the organization directed, and which constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload (not positions or employees) of the organization.

In determining the highest level of work, developmental positions below the normal full performance levels are considered at the full performance levels. Certain work is excluded from consideration in making the determination. This work includes subordinate work that is graded on the basis of supervisory or leader duties; work for which the supervisor does not have the minimum supervisory and managerial authorities defined under Factor 3 (including such basic administrative supervisory functions as approving leave and evaluating performance); lower-level support work that primarily facilitates the basic work of the unit; and work that is graded based on an extraordinary degree of independence from supervision.

The appellant’s PD shows the agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 5-5, stating “GS-09 grade level or higher” as the base level work.^[3] The appellant disagrees and believes the base level work for his position is GS-13 grade level because he directly supervises GS-12 and GS-13 Division Chiefs, and states 50 percent of direct supervision workload responsibility is at the GS-13 grade level. However, in its response to the issues presented by the appellant, the agency states that based on the organizational structure provided, the base level work is not GS-13, but rather GS-11 grade level work. However, the record does not contain a corrected PD and agency evaluation statement.

The appellant directly supervises, or as the second- or third-level supervisor, 72 permanent full time equivalent (FTE) positions. We excluded from the base level determination the positions of Administrative Support Specialist, CI-0301-06 (LN position comparable to GS-09) and Management Support Specialist, GS-0301-09 which do not fall within the appellant’s chain of command. We excluded two Clerk (Apprentice) AP-0303-00 positions which provide lower-level support work to the basic work of the unit. We also excluded 30 Postal Operations Assistant GS-0303-06 and Postal Operations, C1-0303-06 positions (LN positions comparable to GS-06) because the appellant provides administrative but not technical supervision to these positions. We also excluded the supervisor or leader work based on information reported in PDs provided by the agency. For LN positions, we used comparable GS grades provided by the agency, as appropriate, or equivalent GS grades established based on our review of the position duties against OPM PCSs and guidelines. See OPM Decision Number C-2003-12-10, dated December 5, 2012.

The professional positions from the ASD and ASAP divisions were included in our workload calculation. Although the appellant’s position does not require similar prescribed educational qualifications as the subordinate positions in professional occupational series, he provides administrative and sufficient technical supervision to employees in the professional series as discussed on pages 4-7 of this decision. For supervisory and leader positions we only credited the percentage of time spent performing nonsupervisory/non-leader duties. The base level of work determination for the DHR follows: 

GS-13

.90       Education Services Specialist, GS-1740 (PD number JD437695)

.80       Program Manager (Workforce Development) C1-0340 (PD number JD535389)

.70       Supervisory HR Specialist, GS-0201 (PD number JDXAIG040051)

2.4

GS-12

1.0       Education Services Specialist, GS-1740

.75       Supervisory Management and Program Analyst, GS-0343 (PD number JDXAIG060006)

.75       Supervisory Postal Program Specialist, GS-0301 (PD number JD471141)

1.0       Transition Services Manager, GS-0301 (PD number JDIG080011)

.55       Community Readiness and Resilience Integrator/EAPC, GS-0101(PD number JD494180)

4.1 

            GS-11

.80       Workforce Development Program Specialist, GS-0301 (PD number JD434781)

1.0       Workforce Development Program Specialist, C1-0301 (PD number JD434781)

1.0       Civilian Misconduct Actions Specialist, GS-0301

.90       Central Processing Facility Coordinator, GS-0301 (PD number JD0J31F)

1.0       Program Manager (Casualty Assistance/Retirement Services), GS-0301

.75       Supervisory HR Specialist (MIL), GS-0201 (PD number JD493434)

.75       Army Substance Abuse Program Manager, GS-101 (PD number JD493434)

1.0       ASAP Specialist (PC/RRP/SPPM), GS-0101(PD number JDIG150009)

.45       Community Readiness and Resilience Integrator/EAPC, GS-0101(PD number JD494180)

7.7        

            GS-10

1.0      Administrative Officer, C1-0341 (PD number JD535619)

1.0   

            GS-09

1.0       Records and Information Management Specialist, C1-308

.60       Supervisory Postal Operations Specialist, GS-0301 (PD number JD397061)

.60       Supervisory Postal Operations Specialist, GS-0301 (PD number JD397061)

.60       Supervisory Postal Operations Specialist, C1-0301 (PD number JD544353)

1.0       In-processing Training Center Coordinator, GS-0301

1.0       Sponsorship and Benefits Coordinator, GS-0301

1.0       Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program Specialist, C1-0301 (PD number JD545048)

1.0       Drug Test Coordinator, GS-0301 (PD number JDIG140034)

6.8

            GS-06

.75       Lead Postal Operations Assistant, C1-0303 (PD number JD488058)

.75       Lead Postal Operations Assistant, GS-0303 (PD number JD389158)

.75       Lead Postal Operations Assistant, GS-0303 (PD number JD389158)

1.0       HR Assistant (Military), C1-0203 (PD number JD348587)

1.0       HR Assistant (Military), C1-0203 (PD number JD348587)

1.0       HR Assistant (AO), GS-0203 (PD number JDXAIG190032)

.75      Lead HR Assistant (Military), GS-0203 (PD number JD277262)

1.0      HR Assistant (Military), GS-0203 (PD JD348587)

1.0      HR Assistant (Military), GS-0203 (PD JD348587)

1.0      HR Assistant (Military), GS-0203 (PD JD348587)

1.0      HR Assistant (Military), GS-0203 (PD JD348587)

1.0      HR Assistant (Military), C1-0203 (PD number JD554898)

1.0      HR Assistant (Military), C1-0203 (PD number JD554898)

12.0

Total nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload is 34 work years. The percentage of nonsupervisory mission-oriented workload at each grade level is as follows:

GS-13:      7.1 %

GS-12:    12.1 %

GS-11:    22.6 %

GS-10:      2.9 %

GS-09:    20.0 %

GS-06:    35.3 %        

At 22.6 percent, the GS-11 grade level work constitutes less than 25 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. At 12.1 percent, the GS-12 grade level work also constitutes less than 25 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. At 7.1 percent, the GS-13 grade level also constitutes less than 25 percent of the nonsupervisory workload. However, by combining the GS-13 and 12 workloads with 22.6 percent expended on the GS-11 workload, we find the GS-11 work at 41.8 percent is fully representative of the highest level of nonsupervisory work performed in the DHR. Using the conversion chart in the GSSG for Factor 5, a GS-11 base level equates to Level 5-6.

This factor is credited at Level 5-6 and 800 points are assigned.

Factor 6, Other Conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities.  There are two steps involved in assigning a level under Factor 6: (1) select the highest level that the position meets, and (2) if the level selected in step 1 is either 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, refer to the Special Situations section of Factor 6. If the position meets 3 or more of the situations, then a single level is added to the level selected in the first step. If the level selected under step 1 is either 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations section does not apply, and no level is added to the one selected in step 1.

Level 6-4 is met if either Level 6-4(a) or 6-4 (b) is credited. The appellant does not disagree with his agency’s overall assignment of Level 6-4, but believes he meets criteria in 6-4(b) instead of 6-4(a). We concur with the agency’s assignment of Level 6-4(a) as addressed below.

At Level 6-4(a), supervision requires substantial coordination and integration of a number of major work assignments, projects, or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-11 level. For example, such coordination may involve work comparable to one of the following: identifying and integrating internal and external program issues affecting the immediate organization, such as those involving technical, financial, organizational, and administrative factors; integrating the work of a team or group where each member contributes a portion of the analyses, facts, information, proposed actions, or recommendations; and/or ensuring compatibility and consistency of interpretation, judgment, logic, and application of policy; recommending resources to devote to particular projects or to allocate among program segments; leadership in developing, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and procedures to monitor the effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity of the program segment and/or organization directed; reviewing and approving the substance of reports, decisions, case documents, contracts, or other action documents to assure that they accurately reflect the policies and position of the organization and the views of the agency. Or, Level 6-4 may also be credited if the position meets Level 6-4(b) where the position directs subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial workloads comparable to the GS-09 or 10 level. Such base work requires coordination similar to that described at Factor Level 6-3a in the GSSG for first line supervisors.

The appellant’s position meets Level 6-4(a). Like this level, the appellant is responsible for substantial coordination and integration of major work assignments, projects, and program segments of professional, technical, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-11 level (base level of appellant’s position). Comparable to Level 6-4(a), he identifies and integrates internal and external HR and community support program issues and gaps affecting the divisions supervised, and integrates the work of his subordinate staff who each contribute to the analyses and recommendations for improving program operation processes and methods (e.g., for ID card processing). Like this level, he ensures consistency of program policy interpretation and appropriate application of DA regulations for all managed programs providing services to the Wiesbaden installation community. Also, similar to this level the appellant reviews division spend plans and recommends allocation of resources for particular projects or to allocate among program segments, and monitors the effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity of the DHR.

This factor is credited at Level 6-4(a) and 1120 points are assigned.

Summary

By application of the GSSG, we have evaluated the appellant’s supervisory duties as follows:

Table 1 Grade Determination

Factor	Level	Points
1. Program Scope and Effect	1-3	550
2. Organizational Setting	2-2	250
3. Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised	3-3(b)	775
4. Personal Contacts
Nature of Contacts	4A-2	50
Purpose of Contacts	4B-2	75
5. Difficulty of Typical Work Directed	5-6	800
6. Other Conditions	6-4(a)	1120
Total Points		3620

The total of 3620 points falls within the GS-14 grade range (3605-4050) on the point-to-grade conversion chart in the GSSG. Therefore, the appellant’s position is graded at the GS-14 level.

Decision

The proper series and grade of the appellant’s position is GS-0301-14. Title is at the agency’s discretion with the prefix “Supervisory” added.

[1] The CR2C is an essential mechanism for overseeing installation readiness and resilience programs. The Senior Responsible Officer and the Garrison Commander, direct and control the Army Ready and Resilient program through the CR2C, facilitated by the CR2I.

[2] Only three of the five positions in the ASAP Division are assigned to the Social Sciences Series, GS-0101, including the Chief’s position. The remaining two positions are assigned to the Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series, 0301.

[3] The language used in the PD to describe the agency’s assignment of Factor Level 5-5 to the position is not completely accurate. The GSSG directs that Factor Level 5-5 is assigned when the highest level of base work is GS-09 or 10, or equivalent.

Back to Top