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

Christopher E. Wicker
Supervisory Public Health Specialist
GS-601-13
Food Safety Division
Health and Safety Directorate
Sales, Marketing, and Policy Group
Defense Commissary Agency
Fort Lee, Virginia
Title at agency discretion with the prefix of "Supervisory"
GS-601-13
C-0601-13-01

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

07/17/2014


Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a classification 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 5 CFR 511.605, 511.613, and 511.614, as cited in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

As discussed in this decision, the appellant’s position description (PD) is not adequate for purposes of classification.  Since PDs must meet the standards of adequacy in the Introduction, the appellant’s agency must revise his PD to meet the standard.  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 to the U. S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) office that adjudicated this appeal within 45 days of the date of this decision.

Introduction

On November 19, 2013, OPM’s Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) -Atlanta accepted a classification appeal from Mr. Christopher E. Wicker and on February 24, 2014, it was transferred to ACE- Philadelphia for adjudication.  The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Public Health Specialist, GS-601-13, and is located in the Food Safety Division; Health and Safety Directorate; Sales, Marketing, and Policy Group; Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), at Fort Lee, Virginia.  The appellant believes his position should be upgraded to the GS-14 grade level.  We received the complete agency administrative report on January 6, 2014, and have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112(b) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

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

Position information

DeCA operates a worldwide chain of commissaries providing groceries to military personnel, retirees, and their families in a safe and secure shopping environment.  Authorized patrons purchase items at cost plus a five percent surcharge, which covers the costs of building new commissaries and modernizing existing ones.  DeCA facilities consist of 250 commissaries, 12 central distribution centers (CDC), one central meat processing plant (CMPP), and DeCA headquarters buildings at Fort Lee, Virginia; Sacramento, California; and Ramstein, Germany.  Because the commissaries are located throughout the world, DeCA manages them by geographic area.  DeCA East, Central, and West support the continental United States and Puerto Rico, DeCA Europe supports Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and DeCA Pacific supports the remainder of Asia.  Each Area Director oversees approximately 50 commissaries.  Each area is broken down into approximately five zones, each with a Zone Manager and each commissary with a Store Manager.  A Director oversees the CDCs and the CMPP.  The CDCs are located throughout Europe and the Pacific and distribute products to be sold in the commissaries within their areas.  The CMPP, located in Ramstein, Germany, distributes approximately 96 million pounds of processed meat a year to be sold in commissaries throughout Europe.

The appellant agrees his official PD of record, number HQ14007, accurately reflects his assigned duties and responsibilities.  His supervisor has also certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s PD.  Nevertheless, the PD includes statements within the major duties that are not supported by the record.  For example, the PD includes numerous references to DeCA being an “agency,” which, as addressed later in this decision, is inaccurate for purposes of classification.

The PD also includes statements under the rating factors not supported by the record.  For example, the PD describes the position as requiring expert knowledge of general health science concepts, principles, etc.  As discussed later in this decision, the position does not require this level of knowledge.  We also find the PD’s description of supervision received by the appellant is inaccurate in that he receives more than just administrative direction from his supervisor.  Under complexity, the statements used to describe the rationale for assigning the factor level do not match what is in the position classification standard (PCS) for that level and the record does not support the factor level assigned.

Because PDs must meet the minimum standard of adequacy as described in the Introduction, the appellant’s PD must be updated so there is a clear understanding of the duties and responsibilities representing the approved classification.  Regardless, an OPM decision classifies a real operating position and not simply a PD.  We have decided this appeal based on an assessment of the actual work assigned to and performed by the appellant.

To help us decide the appeal, we conducted telephone interviews with the appellant on April 14, 15, and 16, 2014, and his immediate supervisor on April 23, 2014.  In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully considered all of the information obtained from the interviews, as well as all other information of record provided by the appellant and his agency.

The record shows the appellant performs the following duties:

The appellant’s position is located at Headquarters (HQ) DeCA.  He spends about 75 percent of his time overseeing the public health program for all employees, patrons, and contractors at DeCA facilities and serves as the point-of-contact on such issues.  In developing DeCA Manual (DeCAM) 30-32, the public health and safety requirements for DeCA, he uses the food safety regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), DoD instructions, military standards, U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations, etc.  Similarly, the appellant uses the requirements in DoD instructions, directives, and technical guides in developing DeCAM 30-22, the integrated pest management requirements for DeCA.

When he receives notification of an FDA, USDA, military service, or vendor food recall, the appellant works with his buyers and distributors to determine if the product is being sold in any commissary.  If so, he develops a food recall report for distribution to each commissary affected and includes the product name, lot number(s), manufacturer date, and specific disposition instructions for the product.

About two or three times a month the appellant receives is notified of a customer stating he or she bought a food item from a commissary which made the individual or a family member ill.  He immediately contacts his subordinate providing support to the area in which the commissary is located and the host installation public health or preventive medicine office.  The appellant’s subordinate works with the host installation personnel ensuring the commissary employees cooperate with the investigation, to include answering questions and having the food product available so samples can be taken for testing.  His subordinate investigates how the food product was handled enroute to the commissary and when it was received to determine if additional employee training is needed and, based on the results of the food product testing and the subordinate’s investigation, the appellant determines if he needs to modify DeCA procedures.  Once the investigation is completed, the appellant ensures the commissary manager takes any necessary actions and contacts the customer if he or she requested a DeCA response to his or her complaint.

He reviews the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Program (HACCP) plan developed by each commissary contractor processing potentially hazardous food; e.g. deli and seafood departments after it has been reviewed by the appellant’s subordinate supporting the area.  The appellant ensures the plan describes how to process the food product without potentially making someone ill; e.g. ensuring the stated internal temperature range for a certain piece of meat is within the established healthy range and makes changes as needed.

The appellant develops procedures to deal with public health hazards.  For example, when hard shell nuts were being sold out of bulk containers at the commissaries, some of the customers with nut allergies were reporting allergic reactions to the dust produced when the containers were being filled.  The appellant developed procedures requiring commissary employees to fill the containers in the back room to reduce the dust produced, place lids on the containers once they were filled, and place a notice at the commissary entrance that the product was being sold until it was sold out.

He develops a schedule ensuring each facility receives a Food Safety Program Assistance and Review (FSPAR) evaluation once every three years by his assigned subordinate.  The evaluation measures how well the food safety requirements are being implemented at each facility.  The appellant tabulates the results to determine in which areas he needs to modify the DeCA food safety requirements or what measures need to be taken to improve implementation at the facility; e.g. additional training or improving procedures on how to properly clean surfaces after contact with raw food products.

The appellant provides comments on the proposed rules and modifications to existing rules for food safety codes specific to military installations.  He develops the organization’s position on the proposal to include any impact; e.g., monetary.  When the rules are finalized, the appellant makes program changes as needed and informs all required personnel.

He ensures special requirement notifications are disseminated to all required personnel; e.g., which European countries not allowing genetically engineered food products to be shipped to their ports, or a country in the Pacific not allowing chicken or beef imports due to outbreaks of avian flu or mad cow disease in other countries.

The appellant serves as the DeCA subject matter expert (SME) for public health, sanitation, and pest control issues when disputes arise between DeCA and the host installation over the terms outlined in the Interservice Support Agreement (ISSA) – a contract stating the support functions the host installation will provide to its tenant activities.  The ISSA is written by host installation finance personnel and the designated Support Agreement Managers for the host installation and the tenant activities discuss and agree upon the level of support provided to the tenant and the amount of money the host installation will receive for the provided support.  The appellant discusses and resolves the disputed issues with the host installation’s Support Agreement Manager and SMEs for public health, sanitation, and pest control issues.

He serves on the Real Property and Pesticides committees of the Armed Forces Pest Management Board.  In these meetings, representatives from DoD components discuss their views and concerns on such topics as pest control, and pesticide usage and sales.  The appellant also serves on the Social Media Committee responding to patron food safety or public health concerns submitted to the DeCA Director on social media platforms such as Facebook.

The appellant spends about 25 percent of his time supervising, directing, and providing technical oversight to his six assigned staff members.  He is the first-level supervisor of two GS-12 Consumer Safety Officers and one CW-3 and two CW-4 Warrant Officer Veterinary Technical Officers providing public health advisory services to the Area Directors and senior-level officials at the area offices at Ft. Lee, Virginia; Savanah, Georgia; San Antonio, Texas; Sacramento, California; and Ramstein, Germany.  The appellant ensures each area receives advisory services as needed.  A GS-13 Lead Consumer Safety Officer assists the appellant with overseeing the work assigned to each area.  The appellant’s supervisory functions are described in more detail later in this decision.

Series determination

The agency assigned the appellant’ s position to the General Health Science Series, GS-601, which covers professional and scientific work which is health-oriented in nature but not more appropriately classifiable to one of the more specialized series within the GS-600 occupational group.  The appellant does not disagree and, based on a review of the record, we concur. 

Title determination

Since there are no prescribed titles for the GS-601 series, the position may be titled at the agency’s discretion as provided for in the Introduction with the prefix “Supervisory.”

Standard determination

There are no published grade-level criteria for the GS-601 series.  In such instances where specific criteria are not available for the work being evaluated, a standard addressing similar or related types of work is to be used.  The agency evaluated the appellant’s nonsupervisory work using the Industrial Hygiene Series, GS-690, PCS which addresses work that is most functionally similar to that performed by the appellant.  The appellant does not disagree and, based on a review of the record, we concur.

Grade determination

Evaluation of nonsupervisory public health and food safety duties using the GS-690 PCS

The GS-690 PCS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor level description in a PCS 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 aspects and still not be credited at a higher level.  Each factor level has a corresponding point value.  The total points assigned are converted to a grade by use of the grade conversion table in the PCS.

The appellant disagrees with the agency's evaluation of Factors 3 and 5.  After careful review, we concur with the agency's evaluation of Factors 6, 7, 8, and 9.  However, we disagree with their evaluation of Factors 1, 2, and 4.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts that a worker must understand to do acceptable work, such as the steps, procedures, practices, rules, policies, theories, principles, and concepts; and the nature and extent of the skills needed to apply this knowledge.

At Level 1-7, work involves the application of professional knowledge and skills of industrial hygiene related to a wide range of industrial settings or in a specialty area of industrial hygiene.  Examples of work assignments at this level are:  skill in identifying, evaluating, and controlling a wide variety of occupational health hazards associated with the entire range of industrial work operations; skill in modifying approaches or applications within a specialty area to such difficult problems as sampling methods development, high temperature exhaust ventilation control, and establishing personal protective equipment requirements; and knowledge of  the full range of sampling techniques and control measures, as well as a knowledge of administrative and managerial principles and procedures, to plan, implement, and evaluate an industrial hygiene program covering occupational health hazards found in all but the most complex industrial environments.

Illustrative of Level 1-7 work is an assignment that involves applying knowledge  of a full range of industrial hygiene sampling techniques and control measures, and a knowledge of administrative practices necessary to manage an industrial hygiene program covering light to moderately complex industrial operations, such as industrial shops, laboratories using some hazardous materials, supply depots, warehouses where hazardous materials are stored or transported, building construction, and similar environments.  Work at this level entails directing or performing such functions as planning and initiating surveys of work operations, processes, and materials to detect potentially hazardous conditions; determining the location and number of sampling points, equipment requirements, and applying methods and techniques of data analysis; prescribing control measures and designating areas requiring control; establishing requirements for protective clothing; adapting guides and searching the technical literature when usual problems are encountered; reviewing plans for modifications to facilities to ensure that proper engineering controls have been provided for potential health hazards; adapting existing equipment or recommending the purchase of new instruments.

At Level 1-8, the work requires a mastery of professional concepts, principles, and practices of industrial hygiene that would enable the employee to apply experienced judgment and a knowledge of new developments to solve novel or obscure problems, an ability to extend and modify existing techniques, and skill in developing new approaches which may be used by others in solving a variety of occupational health problems.  Typically, the employee is recognized by the agency as being an expert in industrial hygiene.  Alternatively, the employee must possess the knowledge and skills necessary to serve as an agency expert in order to make decisions or recommendations that significantly affect the context, interpretation, or development of agency policies or programs concerning critical industrial hygiene matters. 

Illustrative of Level 1-8 work is an assignment that involves applying expert knowledge of industrial hygiene and administrative practices necessary to manage a comprehensive program for a major facility or region when the industrial hygiene program covers large, complex industrial operations; or experimental work involving a wide variety of new chemical agents; or hazardous chemical, bacteriological, or radiological agents in undeveloped or critical stages; or equivalent situations.  The employee directs or performs a variety of functions such as developing instructions and procedures for complex potential health hazards; providing expert advice and consultation to management officials on industrial hygiene matters; reviewing plans for new or modified processes and facilities when criteria must be justified based on long term or intangible health benefits or when preventive measures may be considered unjustifiable from a cost effectiveness analysis alone; initiating surveys of potential health hazards and work processes or operations; evaluating program accomplishments, analyzing reports, and determining exposure trends; and assuring program integration with other departments of the activity, with higher organizational echelons, and with other Federal, State, and local agencies and health officials.

Also illustrative of Level 1-8 is an assignment that involves applying the knowledge and skills sufficient to serve as a recognized expert for the agency in industrial hygiene, having responsibility for developing policy and program objectives, appraising programs, and providing consultative services to management and technical personnel on a wide variety of occupational health problems.

The appellant’s position is comparable to Level 1-7.  Like this level, the position requires a professional knowledge of public health regulations, standards, procedures, and best practices applicable to eliminating a wide range of health, pest, and food safety hazards associated with DeCA’s headquarters buildings, commissaries, CDC’s, and the CMPP.  The types of public health and safety hazards that arise are addressed in DeCAM 30-32 which include such non-industrial topics as employee health, personal cleanliness, and hygienic practices, and such facility-related concerns as storage and care of food items, preparing and serving food, insect and rodent control, cleaning and sanitation, food inspections, and commissary department operations.  Similar to this level, the appellant’s work assignments include reviewing plans for new and modified commissaries and providing recommendations to ensure the proper food safety controls are in place to eliminate potential health hazards, modifying DeCA procedures when requirements change, and working with facility managers to eliminate health, pest, and/or food safety hazards found during an inspection. 

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 1-8.  The criteria involving the application of expert knowledge within an operating-level environment must be viewed within the context of the types of illustrations provided at this level and comparable to the appellant’s work; i.e., expert knowledge encompasses the depth and breadth of knowledge associated with the most technically complex public health situations.  Thus, a public health specialist whose work assignments include developing procedures to eliminate hazards for an operating level public health and safety program may be considered a local “expert” in his or her field, but would not be considered an expert within the meaning of Level 1-8.  Applying this to the present case, the appellant provides public health services to DeCA headquarters buildings, commissaries, CDCs, and a CMPP.  However, these areas present the common and recurring hazards associated with the common industrial, storage, and construction environments covered by Level 1-7 rather than the more complex and unusual health hazards contemplated at Level 1-8.  As such, the appellant’s work setting neither requires nor permits him the opportunity to exercise the degree of expert knowledge depicted at this level, which would be associated with such technically complex work settings as a large complex industrial operation, experimental work involving a wide variety of new chemical agents, or assuring program integration with other departments of the activity, with higher organizational echelons, and with other Federal, State, and local agencies and health officials.  DeCA does not encompass the types of dynamic industrial or research environments described in the Level 1-8 illustrations that would produce new or evolving hazards requiring these types of major public health program responses.

Alternately, the appellant’s position does not require knowledge sufficient to serve as an “agency” expert in industrial hygiene.  This term refers to an employee who works within an agency-level policy/program development office as described at Level 1-8.  DeCA is not an independent “agency,” it is an organizational unit below an agency for purposes of applying the GS-690 PCS.  Within the context of the appellant’s work situation, DoD or any of its major military service components (i.e., the Departments of the Army (DA), Navy, and Air Force, the Defense Logistics Agency, etc.) would be considered “agencies,” whereas DeCA would be considered equivalent to a bureau.  Further, the appellant does not serve as an agency expert because policy/programmatic control is vested at the DoD level.  Therefore, the appellant neither provides programmatic authority nor does DeCA provide an organizational structure or mission to support the exercise of this authority.  As discussed previously, the DeCA program does not present the types of critical industrial hygiene matters that would require the exercise of this level of expertise.  Although the appellant provides comments on the military services food code specific to military installations, this may not credited at Level 1-8 because he does not have authority over their ultimate content.  Instead, he updates DeCA directives to ensure they comply with military services, DoD and FDA policies.

This factor is evaluated at Level 1-7 and 1,250 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Supervisory Controls

This factor covers the nature and extent of direct or indirect controls exercised by the supervisor, the employee’s responsibility, and the review of completed work.

At Level 2-4, the supervisor sets the overall objectives and resources available to achieve the expected results.  Projects and work to be done and time constraints typically are developed in consultation with the supervisor.  At this level, the employee typically has responsibility for independently planning and carrying out the assignment, resolving most conflicts that arise, coordinating the work of others as needed and interpreting policy on his or her own initiative in terms of established objectives.  For most inspections, evaluations, and special studies, the employee determines the approach to be taken and the methodology to be used.  The supervisor is kept informed of progress, potentially controversial matters, or far-reaching implications.  Completed work is reviewed only from an overall standpoint in terms of feasibility, compatibility with other work, or effectiveness in meeting requirements or expected results.

At Level 2-5, the supervisor provides administrative direction with assignments in terms of broadly defined mission or functional goals.  The employee independently plans, designs, and carries out programs, projects, studies, etc.  Work results are considered technically authoritative and are normally accepted without significant change.  If the work is reviewed, the review usually is focused on such matters as fulfillment of program objectives, effect of advice, or the contribution to the advancement of technology.  Recommendations for new projects or alteration of objectives are usually evaluated for such considerations as availability of funds and other resources, broad program goals or national priorities.

The appellant’s position meets Level 2-4.  The supervisory controls under which the appellant works are accurately represented at this level, which describes work carried out with a high degree of independence and recognized expertise in the public health field to coordinate with others, determine the actions necessary, and resolve technical problems.  Similar to this level, the appellant’s supervisor ensures that the immediate and long-range goals and objectives which the appellant develops are consistent with the DeCA mission and the Director’s vision and intent for the organization. 

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 2-5.  This level recognizes not only independence of action, but also the degree of responsibility and authority inherent in the work as the context for the independence exercised.  Level 2-5 is predicated on responsibility for independently planning and carrying out major program activities or projects, with only broad administrative and policy direction.  Because the parameters of the work are not clearly defined, the employee at this level has the authority to determine the most productive areas of endeavor.

The appellant is not responsible for the DeCA public health program.  Although he works independently, he works on assigned tasks and continuing responsibilities within the established program parameters of the FDA, USDA, Centers for Disease Control, etc., regulatory requirements, rather than defining his own areas of endeavor.  The appellant’s supervisor, the Director of Public Health and Safety, approves the public health program goals and objectives, serves as the point of contact for day-to-day public health issues, provides technical consultation to DeCA’s executive leadership, and serves as DeCA’s Designated Agency Safety and Health Official.  As such, the position held by the appellant’s supervisor is delegated the degree of program authority depicted at Level 2-5.

This factor is evaluated 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.

In his appeal rationale, the appellant asserts he meets Level 3-5 because his position is the highest-level public health position within DeCA.  He states that according to his PD, his position is responsible for developing agency policy; therefore, there is no higher-level public health policy to use as a guideline.  He also states his position is organizationally equivalent to similar positions within the Departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force because the next higher-level guidelines applicable to DeCA come from DoD.  The appellant further states he uses external guidelines, agency policies, and mission statements to perform work and develop new approaches and concepts.

At Level 3-4, the guidelines are essentially the same as at Level 3-3.  However, they are often inadequate in dealing with the more complex or unusual problems, such as treating hazards for which very little information on toxicity is available.  The employee must adapt and apply industrial hygiene principles and practices to situations where precedents are not directly applicable and must use experienced judgment and initiative in selecting approaches, evaluating findings, and researching new developments in the field.  In some cases, the employee must engage in an extensive literature search to locate suitable information.  Some situations require the employee to devise new approaches or develop new methods for evaluating or controlling a health hazard.

At Level 3-5, work is performed chiefly under broad and general policy statements, regulations, and laws, requiring considerable judgment and ingenuity in interpreting and adapting the guides that exist, and in developing new and improved techniques and methods where appropriate guidelines are totally lacking.  Frequently, the employee is recognized as an authority in a specialty area of industrial hygiene, having responsibility for the development of agencywide or nationwide standards, procedures, and instructions to guide operating personnel.

The appellant’s position is comparable to Level 3-4.  As at this level, the appellant’s guidelines tend to lack specificity for many applications and are often insufficient to resolve unusual work problems.  He modifies and extends DoD, FDA, USDA, and Centers for Disease Control, etc. guidance because although they establish the public health requirements which each organization must meet, they do not include ways to mitigate the unique health hazards encountered at DeCA commissaries, CDC’s, and the CMPP.  He takes the public health program requirements and develops ways to meet them in a grocery store, distribution center, and meat processing plant settings.  Examples include developing recommendations to optimize the food safety of new commissaries or renovations to existing ones, responding to commissary patron public health and food safety concerns, and developing the organization’s position on a proposed military services food code specific to military installation rules and modifications of existing rules.  The appellant’s work requires adapting known public health regulations and techniques to eliminate or reduce serious hazards to life and property as described at Level 3-4. 

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-5.  His guidelines are more specific than the basic legislation and broad policy statements expected at Level 3-5.  The appellant’s guidelines include national standards from FDA, USDA, and other health organizations; DoD policy and regulations; and Federal, State, and local codes.  He adapts the guidelines to specific work situations, devising approaches and measures meeting the intent of the guides.  Unlike Level 3-5, the appellant does not develop new approaches and concepts where precedent does not exist.

Further, within the context of Level 3-5, an employee’s status as an authority would be reflected in his or her work assignments, which would involve the development of “agencywide or nationwide standards, procedures, and instructions” to provide the framework for the program activities of other operating staff.  The appellant does not occupy a position of such authority, and he does not originate and develop agencywide or nationwide standards, procedures, or instructions to guide operating-level public health personnel as described at Level 3-5.  Although the appellant developed DeCA’s public health program requirements, they are more accurately described as component-level operating instructions that apply to DeCA rather than to all DoD.  DoD guidance is not limited to broad policy statements, thus limiting the nature and level of interpretation and adaptation vested in the appellant’s position.

This factor is evaluated at Level 3-4 and 450 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 4-4, assignments cover the full spectrum of occupational health hazards found in all but the most complex industrial environments.  Thus, the assigned work activities involve a substantial amount and variety of exposure to chemical, physical, bacteriological and/or radiological hazards.  The employee must recognize hazards which are uncommon, evaluate a variety of data, and institute or recommend effective control measures to protect the workers.  Factors to be considered include unusual work processes or operations, exotic chemicals for which toxicological information may be incomplete, and the need to adapt or modify precedent methods in the control of hazardous exposures.

At Level 4-5, the work includes a broad range of activities and involves the identification and treatment of novel or obscure problems which require the employee to be versatile and innovative in adapting and modifying precedents, methods, and techniques.  Assignments are characterized by many difficult considerations due to breadth, diversity, or intensity of occupational health problems encountered.  Examples of factors to be considered include (1) major areas of uncertainty resulting from complicated work processes, such as highly complex research and developmental work, (2) the need to develop new methodologies for the evaluation and control of a particular health hazard where relevant literature is inadequate or nonexistent, (3) serious conflicts between industrial hygiene and management considerations, (4) health effects from long-term, chronic exposures are unknown or poorly defined, or (5) exposures are complicated by mixtures of toxic and/or physical hazards.  Work often includes originating new techniques and developing new information for use by other occupational health personnel.

The appellant’s position is comparable to Level 4-4.  Similar to this level, his assignments cover the full spectrum of public health hazards found in office, distribution, and meat processing environments.  The appellant ensures HACCP plans state how to process food products without potentially making someone ill, develops the statement of work for contracts providing pest control services to commissaries and CDCs, develops recommendations to optimize food safety at new commissaries and existing ones receiving renovations, and develops corrective actions for violations found during food inspections at DeCA facilities.  In performing his duties, the appellant must recognize potential and existing hazards by evaluating data such as HACCP plans and facility inspection results to prescribe effective control or mitigation measures to safeguard DeCA patrons and workers. 

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 4-5.  Although DeCA has facilities worldwide, the nature of the activities occurring in those facilities and the associated public health risks do not require the degree of versatility and innovative analysis in adapting and modifying precedents, methods and techniques expected at Level 4-5.  Although DeCA facilities may present high public health risks, such as in the meat processing facilities, these hazards are relatively stable, predictable, and can be mitigated by the application of known techniques and best practices.  His assignments do not encompass the complexity of factors described in the examples listed under that level.  Thus, he is not faced with major areas of uncertainty typical of a highly complex research and development work environment, lack of relevant technical literature requiring development of new methodologies for evaluation and control, and does not deal with serious conflicts between industrial hygiene and management considerations or other complexities found at Level 4-5.  Unlike Level 4-5, the appellant’s work does not require him to routinely originate new techniques and develop new information for use by other occupational health personnel.  Rather, DeCA program issues can be resolved by adapting and modifying established methods and techniques applicable to the wholesale and retail food industry.

This factor is evaluated at Level 4-4 and 225 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and Effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of the work, as measured by the purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignments, and the effect of work products or services both within and outside the organization.

In his appeal rationale, the appellant asserts his position meets Level 5-6 because it directly and significantly affects DeCA’s public health program on a long-term and continuing basis and it is the policy maker level for the program.  He further states the purpose of his position is to plan, develop, initiate, and carry out the DeCA national and international public health program.

At Level 5-4, the purpose of the work is to provide expertise as a specialist in the broad practice of industrial hygiene, or in a specialty area of industrial hygiene, by furnishing advisory, planning or reviewing services on specific problems, projects, or programs, and operating conditions directly affecting worker health and safety.  The work may include the development of criteria, procedures, or instructions for major agency activities, or the investigation, analysis, and evaluation of complex problems and situations.  The work products or decisions affect a wide range of the agency’s occupational health and safety programs, or major activities of industrial concerns.

At Level 5-5, the purpose of the work is to resolve critical problems, to isolate and define unknown conditions, or to develop new approaches, methods, guides or standards for use by other occupational health specialists.  At this level, the industrial hygienist often serves as a consultant or project coordinator, providing expert advice and guidance covering a broad range of activities to officials, managers, and other occupational health professionals within or outside the agency.  The work efforts affect the activities of other occupational health experts both within and outside the agency or the development of major aspects of the agency’s occupational health program.

At Level 5-6, the purpose of the work is to plan and conduct vital occupational health programs for the agency which are often of national or international scope and impact.  The employee’s recommendations and decisions on highly complex technical and policy areas frequently establish the agency’s position, create agency precedents, and guide field installations on matters of major significance.  The employee’s actions directly and significantly affect the agency’s industrial hygiene program on a long-term and continuing basis, and often influence the programs of other agencies and outside organizations.

The appellant’s position is comparable to Level 5-4.  He is responsible for applying the methods, techniques, and abatements to control or eliminate unhealthy processes or conditions for a broad range of activities within DeCA.  Similar to Level 5-4, he assesses the adequacy of existing public health safeguards and works closely with managers, supervisors, and employees throughout the organization in identifying hazardous conditions and develops and promotes healthy food and pest abatement measures.  His work efforts result in eliminating or reducing unhealthy processes and conditions and affect a wide range of public health activities within DeCA facilities.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 5-5, which describes a broader, more complex, and more challenging program than the DeCA public health program.  While the appellant may occasionally deal with emerging public health and safety issues such as food recalls, the appellant does not regularly resolve critical problems as described at Level 5-5.  Rather than developing new guides or methods to reduce or eliminate hazards, the appellant generally adapts or develops procedures for DeCA’s use based on FDA, USDA, DoD, and Centers for Disease Control requirements.  His work efforts result in minimizing unhealthy processes and conditions within the facilities but do not affect the program activities of other public health managers and specialists both within and outside the agency (i.e., outside DoD or private sector organizations). 

Because the appellant’s position does not meet Level 5-5, we will not discuss Level 5-6.

This factor is evaluated at Level 5-4 and 225 points are assigned.

Summary

Factor Level Points
1.  Knowledge required by the position 1-7 1250
2.  Supervisory controls 2-4 450
3.  Guidelines 3-4 450
4.  Complexity 4-4 225
5.  Scope and effect 5-4 225
6.  Personal contacts 6-3 60
7.  Purpose of contacts 7-3 120
8.  Physical demands 8-1 5
9.  Work environment 9-1 5
Total 2790

 

The total of 2790 points falls within the GS-12 point range (2755-3150) on the grade conversion table in the GS-690 PCS.  Therefore, the appellant’s nonsupervisory duties are graded at the GS-12 level.

Evaluation of supervisory duties using the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG)

The GSSG is a cross-series guide used to determine the grade level of supervisory positions in the General Schedule.  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 the agency’s evaluation of Factors 1 and 3.  After careful review, we concur with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 2, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis to Factors 1 and 3.

Factor 1, Program scope and effect

This factor assesses the general complexity, breadth, and impact of the program areas and work directed, including its organizational and geographic coverage.  It also assesses the impact of the work both within and outside the immediate organization.  To assign a factor, the criteria dealing with both scope and effect, as defined below, must be met.

In his appeal rationale, the appellant states his position meets Level 1-5 because his PD states he is responsible for the entire DeCA public health program, not a program segment which is the scope found at Levels 1-3 and 1-4.  He also states the definition of “program” within the GSSG lists public health as a program involving broad objectives.  He further states his PD shows the public health program he manages affects the entire DeCA “agency” in 12 countries, 2 U.S. territories, and 46 states which impacts all employees, contractor employees, business partners, and patrons (approximately 12 million shoppers) and that he develops program policy.

Because the appellant states his position manages a public health program for the DeCA “agency,” we will discuss whether the GSSG’s definitions for “agency” and “program” are met by DeCA and his program responsibilities, respectively.

The GSSG defines “agency” as follows:  An Executive or military department as specified by 5 U.S.C. 101, 102, and 5102, which has primary authority and responsibility for the administration of substantive national programs enacted by Congress; a comparable independent agency; or a large agency next below DOD with worldwide missions and field activities, multibillion dollar programs or resources to manage, and major mission(s) directly affecting the national security.  The head of an agency is usually appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.  For example, the Departments of Labor, HHS, USDA, DA, Navy, Air Force, the General Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and DLA are Agencies for purposes of this guide.

In addition, where five or more of the following conditions apply, an activity next below departmental level may be considered as equivalent to this definition for purposes of applying this guide: (1) the activity comprises or manages more than half of a cabinet level department's resources; (2) the activity has an international mission, and/or numerous Nationwide and worldwide field offices; (3) the activity manages multibillion dollar funds accounts typically separate from normal, departmental budgets (e.g., Social Security trust funds, IRS collections); (4) the activity deals directly with Congress on major budgetary, program, or legislative matters affecting large segments of the population or the Nation's businesses, or both; (5) the activity head is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate; (6) the activity exercises special statutory powers such as a Nationwide, quasi-judicial function affecting major industries or large segments of the population; (7) the activity manages directly delegated or statutorily assigned programs that have an impact which is Government wide or economy wide and that receive frequent, intensive, congressional and media scrutiny.

DeCA does not meet the definition of “agency” in the first paragraph.  This organization is not an executive or military department with authority and responsibility for a significant national program enacted by Congress as listed in 5 U.S.C.101, 102, and 5102; e.g. DoD, DA, or DLA.  It is not a comparable independent agency or a large activity directly below DoD with worldwide missions and field activities, multibillion dollar programs or resources, and major mission(s) directly affecting the national security.  DeCA is large but it does not directly affect national security.  Because all of these elements must be met, DeCA does not meet the definition of agency. 

Because the first paragraph is not met, we then look to the second.  If an activity directly below the departmental level meets five or more of the conditions listed, it meets the GSSG definition of “agency.”  The first condition is not met since DeCA does not comprise or manage more than half of a cabinet level department’s resources.  The second condition is met since DeCA has nationwide and worldwide facilities.  The third condition is met since DeCA manages a multibillion-dollar working capital fund account.  The fourth condition is not met since DeCA does not deal directly with Congress on major issues affecting large segments of the population or the Nation’s businesses or both, as the DeCA customer base is not of comparable size.  The fifth condition is not met since the President does not appoint the civilian Senior Executive Service (SES) employee who heads DeCA.  The sixth condition is not met since DeCA does not exercise special statutory powers.  The seventh condition is not met since DeCA does not manage directly delegated or statutorily assigned programs with a Government wide or economy-wide impact nor does it receive frequent, intensive, congressional or media scrutiny.  Because DeCA does not meet at least five of the conditions, it does not meet the definition of “agency” in the second paragraph.

The GSSG defines bureau as an organizational unit next below the agency level (as defined above) which is normally headed by an official of Executive Level IV or V, or Senior Executive Service (SES) rank, or the equivalent.  It is a component of a civilian agency directed by an appointed executive who reports to the Agency Director or the Director's immediate staff.  Examples of bureaus include the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and USDA's Forest Service.

DeCA meets the definition of a bureau, a component just below the agency level; i.e. DoD, since an SES employee directs the organization and its mission is to provide a support service to active duty and retired military members and their families.

The GSSG defines program as the mission, functions, projects, activities, laws, rules, and regulations which an agency is authorized and funded by statute to administer and enforce.  Exercise of delegated authority to carry out program functions and services constitutes the essential purpose for the establishment and continuing existence of an agency.  The focus of a program may be on providing products and services to the public, State and local government, private industry, foreign countries, or Federal agencies.  Most programs have an impact or effect which is external to the administering agency.  In addition, comparable agencywide line or staff programs essential to the operation of an agency are considered programs in applying this guide; the impact of these programs may be limited to activities within one or a few Federal agencies.

A program may be professional, scientific, technical, administrative, or fiscal in nature.  Typically, programs involve broad objectives such as national defense; law enforcement; public health, safety, and well-being; collection of revenue; regulation of trade; collection and dissemination of information; and the delivery of benefits or services.  However, specialized or staff programs may be considerably narrower in scope (e.g., merit systems protection; nuclear safety; and agencywide personnel or budget programs).  Programs are usually of such magnitude that they must be carried out through a combination of line and staff functions.

The DeCA food safety, food quality assurance, food defense, and public health function is staff in nature but is not comparable to the scope, complexity and impact of staff functions which meet the definition of a “program” in the GSSG, e.g., the DoD-wide, DA-wide, Air Force-wide, etc., budget or human resources program.

The GSSG defines program segment as a generic term for purposes of this guide and refers to any subdivision of a program or major military function.  The appellant’s position meets the definition of program segment since he manages the food safety, food quality assurance, food defense, and public health function of DeCA, a subdivision of a bureau-level staff function within.

            Scope

This element addresses the general complexity and breadth of the program (or program segment) directed; or the work directed, the products produced, or the services delivered.  The geographic and organizational coverage of the program (or program segment) within the agency structure is included under this element.  OPM guidance indicates that there is a dynamic at work that deals with the interaction of four aspects implicit in the concept of Scope: (1) sweep: the geographic coverage of the program; e.g., city, region, or state; (2) magnitude: the total population serviced directly and significantly by the program; (3) importance: the importance of the program to the agency and its mission (whether line or staff, whether involving service to higher agency levels, other agencies, or the general public); and, (4) complexity: the complexity of the products or services provided (e.g., routine or complicated). In deciding whether a position meets a level, one must consider each of these implicit aspects and how they interact.  No one aspect is necessarily predominant.  The examples provided in the Factor Level Descriptions are illustrative of the interaction of these four aspects implicit in Scope.

            Effect

This element addresses the impact of the work, the products, and/or programs described under “Scope” on the mission and programs of the customer(s), the activity, other activities in or out of government, the agency, other agencies, the general public, or others.

         Scope

At Level 1-3, the position directs a program segment that performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work.  The program segment and work directed typically have coverage which encompasses a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States; or, when most of an area's taxpayers or businesses are covered, coverage comparable to a small city.  Providing complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multi mission military installation also falls at this level.

At Level 1-4, the position directs a segment of a professional, highly technical, or complex administrative program which involves the development of major aspects of key agency scientific, medical, legal, administrative, regulatory, policy development or comparable, highly technical programs; or that includes major, highly technical operations at the Government's largest, most complex industrial installations.  Illustrative of such work is directing administrative services (personnel, supply management, budget, facilities management, or similar) which support and directly affect the operations of a bureau or a major military command headquarters; a large or complex multimission military installation; an organization of similar magnitude; or a group of organizations which, as a whole, are comparable.

At Level 1-5, the position directs a program for which both the scope and impact of the program or organization directed are one or more of the following: Nationwide; agencywide; industry-wide; Government-wide; directly involve the national interest or the agency's national mission; are subject to continual or intense congressional and media scrutiny or controversy; or have pervasive impact on the general public or directs critical program segments, major scientific projects, or key high level organizations with comparable scope and impact.  Illustrative of such work is directing administrative activities (such as budget, management analysis, or personnel) conducted throughout, or covering the operations of, the agency's headquarters or most of its field establishment.  The program segments directed materially shape or improve the structure, effectiveness, efficiency, or productivity of major portions of the agency's primary missions, multiregion programs, headquarters-wide operations, or projects of national interest.

The scope of the appellant’s position meets Level 1-3.  Similar to this level, he coordinates two-grade interval professional work by providing public health support to DeCA facilities worldwide.  His work assignments cover a wide range of work operations including office, distribution, and meat processing environments involving diverse hazards.  Unlike Level 1-4, the appellant’s position is not involved in developing major aspects of agency scientific, medical, legal, administrative, regulatory, policy development, or highly technical programs.  These public health functions reside at DoD.  While the sweep of the appellant’s work is DeCA-wide found at Level 1-4 since DeCA is properly treated as a bureau-level organization, the public health issues with which his program regularly deals do not directly and significantly impact the population cited by the appellant as would, for example, IRS tax collection for the same population.  Public health is a staff support function for the DeCA commissary operations mission.  Thus, the population directly and significantly impacted by the public health program is the DeCA workforce, while the other populations cited by the appellant are indirectly affected for the limited time they are on DeCA premises.  Therefore, while the public health function is technically complex, it cannot be said to “materially shape or improve the structure, effectiveness, efficiency or productively of major portions” of the DeCA sales mission.  Thus, while aspects of public health meet Level 1-4, taken as a whole, public health fails to fully meet Level 1-4.

Scope is evaluated at Level 1-3.

Effect

At Level 1-3, the activities, functions, or services accomplished directly and significantly impact a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, or the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry), or the general public.  At the field activity level (involving large, complex, multimission organizations and/or very large serviced populations) the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions.

At Level 1-4, the work impacts an agency's headquarters operations, several bureauwide programs, or most of an agency's entire field establishment; or facilitates the agency's accomplishment of its primary mission or programs of national significance; or impacts large segments of the Nation's population or segments of one or a few large industries; or receives frequent or continuing congressional or media attention.

At Level 1-5, the position directs a program for which both the scope and impact of the program or organization directed are one or more of the following: Nationwide; agency-wide; industry-wide; Government-wide; directly involve the national interest or the agency's national mission; are subject to continual or intense congressional and media scrutiny or controversy; or have pervasive impact on the general public or directs critical program segments, major scientific projects, or key high level organizations with comparable scope and impact.

The effect of the appellant’s position meets Level 1-3.  Similar to this level, the appellant applies methods and techniques to control or eliminate unhealthy processes or conditions for a wide range of activities within DeCA.  He assesses the adequacy of existing public health safeguards and works closely with all levels of employees throughout the organization in identifying hazardous conditions and developing and promoting abatement measures within DeCA and its facilities.  Unlike Level 1-4, the impact of the appellant’s position is not felt at the agency level because DeCA is a sub-agency component, nor is the impact felt outside of DeCA direct and significant within the meaning of Level 1-4 as previously discussed. 

Effect is evaluated at Level 1-3.

Since both criteria for both components are credited at Level 1-3, 550 points are assigned.

Factor 3, Supervisory and managerial authority exercised

This factor covers the delegated supervisory and managerial authorities which are exercised on a recurring basis.  To be credited with a level under this factor, a position must meet the authorities and responsibilities to the extent described for the specific level.  The agency credited Level 3-2c and we concur and will not address this level further.

In order to fully meet Level 3-3, a position must meet the conditions described in paragraphs a or b under this factor level.  Although the appellant asserts his position meets Level 3-3, he does not identify which paragraph should be credited.  Level 3-3a describes managerial positions with authority to devise long-range staffing needs and which are closely involved with high-level program officials (or comparable agency-level staff personnel) in developing overall goals and objectives related to high levels of program management and development or formulation.  Based on a careful review of the record, we found Level 3-3a program planning authorities and responsibilities are not vested in the appellant’s position but with higher-level positions. 

To meet Level 3-3b, a position must exercise all or nearly all of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities at Level 3-2c of this factor and, in addition, at least eight of the fifteen responsibilities listed at Level 3-3b.  Our analysis of those responsibilities follows:

Responsibilities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 are not credited.  They are intended to be credited only to supervisors whose workload is so large and complex as to require direction through two or more subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable personnel.  The appellant supervises only one team leader position.  The workload of the appellant’s organization is not so large and complex as to require or permit two such positions to each devote 25 percent or more of their work time on such leadership duties, given the relative freedom from supervision credited to the GS-12 Consumer Safety Officer nonsupervisory positions and which is integral to supporting their classification at the GS-12 grade level, and the Warrant Officers who perform work equivalent to the GS-12 grade level.  Therefore, credit cannot be awarded for those five responsibilities.

Responsibility 2 is credited.  The appellant has significant responsibilities in dealing with officials of DeCA facilities and other units within HQ on all matters dealing with public health issues.  In this role, he regularly advises facilities and HQ personnel on ways to control or eliminate unhealthy conditions.  He also advises management officials of higher rank on how DeCA facilities are implementing public health program requirements.

Responsibility 4 is not credited.  It involves direction of a program or major program segment with significant resources (e.g. one at a multi-million dollar level of annual resources).  The appellant stated the public health program budget is approximately $547,000 dollars, which is below the multi-million dollar level.

Responsibility 7 is credited.  It involves making or approving selections for subordinate nonsupervisory positions.  When filling vacancies, the appellant conducts interviews with applicants and makes selections and his supervisor approves them.

Responsibility 9 is not credited.  It involves responsibility for hearing and resolving group grievances or serious employee complaints.  This responsibility is applicable to supervisors who routinely deal with such matters as a regular and recurring part of their duties.  While such matters fall within the responsibility of the appellant, he does not routinely deal with grievances and complaints.  Thus, this responsibility may not be credited.

Responsibility 10 is not credited.  It involves reviewing and approving serious disciplinary actions; e.g. suspensions involving nonsupervisory subordinates.  The appellant serves as the proposing official but approving authority is vested with his supervisor.

Responsibility 11 is not credited.  It involves making decisions on non-routine, costly, or controversial training needs and training requests related to employees of the unit.  The appellant provides and/or arranges for required training for his employees.  The appellant does not make decisions on military training for his military employees or on training that is non-routine, costly, or controversial.

Responsibility 12 is not credited.  It involves determining whether contractor performed work subject to control by the supervisor meets standards of adequacy necessary for authorization of payment.  There are no contractor personnel in the appellant’s division.

Responsibility 13 is not credited.  It involves approving expenses comparable to within-grade increases, extensive overtime, and employee travel.  The appellant exercises the authority to approve expenses like within-grade increases and employee travel, but the organization does not routinely require the use of extensive overtime.

Responsibility 14 is credited.  It involves recommending awards or bonuses for nonsupervisory personnel and changes in position classification, subject to approval by higher level officials, supervisors, or others.  The appellant has the authority to recommend cash awards or bonuses for personnel, and has recommended changes in position classification for his subordinate positions, subject to approval by his supervisor.

Responsibility 15 is not credited.  It involves finding and implementing ways to eliminate or reduce significant bottlenecks and barriers to production, promote team building, or improve business practices, e.g. a large production or processing unit.  This would apply to large organizations whose missions would be susceptible to the application of such methodological or structural improvements.  The work supervised by the appellant does not lend itself to these types of management applications.  The appellant’s authority in this area would not exceed that described in responsibility 9 of Level 3-2c.

The appellant’s position exercises all ten of the delegated supervisory authorities and responsibilities described at Level 3-2c of this factor, but only three of the listed responsibilities under Level 3-3b.  Therefore, the appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-3a or 3-3b.

This factor is evaluated at Level 3-2 and 450 points are assigned.

Summary evaluation of supervisory duties

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

Factor Level Points
1.  Program scope and effect 1-3 550
2.  Organizational setting 2-2 250
3.  Supervisory and managerial authority exercised 3-2 450
4.  Personal contacts
        Nature of contacts 4A-3 75
         Purpose of contacts 4B-3 100
5.  Difficulty of typical work directed 5-7 930
6.  Other conditions 6-5 1225
Total points 3580

 

The total of 3580 points falls within the GS-13 point range (3155-3600) by reference to the point-to-grade conversion chart in the GSSG.  Therefore, the appellant's supervisory duties are graded at the GS-13 level.

Summary

The appellant’s nonsupervisory, personally performed work is evaluated at the GS-12 level, while his supervisory duties are evaluated at the GS-13 level.  Based on application of mixed-grade principles as stated in the Introduction, section III.J., and Chapter 5 of The Classifier’s Handbook, the final grade of the appellant’s position is GS-13.

The appellant’s nonsupervisory, personally performed work is evaluated at the GS-12 level, while his supervisory duties are evaluated at the GS-13 level.  Based on application of mixed-grade position criteria as stated in Chapter 5 of The Classifier’s Handbook, the final grade of the appellant’s position is GS-13. 

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as (title at agency discretion with prefix of “Supervisory”), GS-601-13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top

Control Panel