Washington, D.C.

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

---

Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance

08/27/2025

---

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 grade 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. As discussed in this decision, our findings also show the appellant’s official core personnel document (CPD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E of the Introduction. Since CPDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellant’s CPD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected CPD 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 U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s position is classified as Supervisory Meteorological Technician, GS-1341-11, but she believes it should be classified at the GS-12 grade level. The position is assigned to the 18th Combat Weather Squadron (CWS), Air Combat Command (ACC), U.S. Department of the Air Force (hereafter referred to as “Air Force” or “agency”) at Fort Rucker (formerly Fort Novosel), in Coffee, Alabama. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Position Information

The appellant states her Air Force CPD, number 9ZR8558, is accurate. The appellant’s immediate supervisor, Director of Operations (Major U.S. Air Force) for the 18th CWS, asserted to the accuracy of the appellant’s CPD in a letter to OPM dated May 9, 2024. The appellant’s position is assigned to Operating Location (OL)-C, which services Fort Rucker’s Army Aviation and resource protection units. The primary purpose of the appellant’s position is to serve as a first-level supervisor. As such, she provides technical and administrative supervision to: two Meteorological Technician, GS-1341-09, positions responsible for conducting weather operations and producing mission-tailored meteorological products and services primarily to Army units; three Electronic Technician, GS-0856-11, positions responsible for maintaining systems and equipment used for detecting, measuring, recording, and displaying meteorological conditions; and one Lead Meteorological Technician, GS-1341-10, position responsible for the production and quality of forecast products prepared by a team of forecasters within the organization.

The appellant plans, organizes, and directs the activities of OL-C Fort Rucker. She accepts, amends, or rejects work presented by her employees as necessary, and makes certain that all meteorological products and services (e.g., weather warnings, watches, advisories, forecasts) comply with regulatory requirements and meet customer needs. She initiates requests for additional resources including personnel, equipment, and supplies to meet the work goals and objectives. She regularly meets with higher-level military officials and other staff to conduct weather briefings that may potentially impact operations. She researches, analyzes, and applies applicable guidelines to resolve problems that arise, and makes recommendations for unresolved or questionable problems to appropriate officials. She creates various forecasting tools to assist in improving the quality of the work performed. In addition, she assesses, revises, and develops standard operating procedures and training, as needed, to improve the quality, accuracy, timeliness, and efficiency of work. She reviews weather actions of the OL-C Fort Rucker at critical points to confirm the accuracy of work products (e.g., she sends lightening information to the Army’s Department of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation during installation events), and to collect metrics required for trend analysis by the CWS and ACC. She participates in periodic conferences conducted by the National Weather Service (NWS). She also participates in training conducted by the NWS and the National Hurricane Center. In addition, she identifies and initiates special projects (e.g., manages the OL-C Fort Rucker social media page by providing up-to-date weather alerts).

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and her agency including her official CPD. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted a telephone interview with the appellant.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position in the Meteorological Technician Series, 1341, titling it Supervisory Meteorological Technician, and evaluated the position by application of the grading criteria in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG). The appellant’s supervisory responsibilities fully meet the GSSG coverage requirements for titling and evaluation as a supervisor. Further, as stated in the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Technical Work in the Physical Sciences Group, GS-1300, the prefix “Supervisory” must be added to the basic title of “Meteorological Technician” positions classified using the GSSG. The appellant’s position meets the series definition for 1341 in that she supervises nonprofessional work in weather forecasting, observation, documentation, research, or other areas of meteorology. Therefore, we concur with the agency’s title, series, and standard determination. The appellant does not dispute these determinations.

The CPD allocates ten percent of the appellant’s time to performing mission execution forecasts and mission watches, and other technical work. However, only duties occupying at least 25 percent of an employee’s time on a regular and recurring basis can affect the grade of a position (Introduction, section III.J), thus we have not evaluated this work. The appellant adds that she performs technical work such as forecasting at least 40 percent of the time. However, the appellant’s supervisory duties occupy the majority of her time and represent the highest level of work assigned to her position. Therefore, we have evaluated the grade of the position’s supervisory duties below by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG to the factor level in dispute.

Grade determination

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 GSSG assignment of Level 5-5 for Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed. She does not disagree with the agency’s assignment of: Level 1-2 for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect; Level 2-1 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting; Level 3-2c for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised; Subfactor Level 4A-2 (Nature of Contacts) and Subfactor Level 4B-2 (Purpose of Contacts) for Factor 4, Personal Contacts; and Level 6-3a for Factor 6, Other Conditions. After careful review, we concur with the undisputed factor levels assigned by the agency for Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and therefore have not addressed them separately in the discussion below. Our evaluation with respect to the disputed Factor 5 follows.

Evaluation using the GSSG

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 directly supervises two Meteorological Technicians, GS-1341-09; one Lead Meteorological Technician, GS-1341-10; and three Electronic Technicians, GS-0856-11. The Meteorological Technician position is not filled to full capacity with two out of five positions filled at this time. Based on the appellant’s subordinate CPDs, discussion with the appellant, and documentation provided by her supervisor, we find that the GS-11 constitutes 25 percent or more of the basic mission-oriented workload of the appellant’s organization. Therefore, the base level determined under Factor 5 is GS-11.

Factor 5 is credited at Level 5-6, and 800 points are credited.

Summary

Table 1 Grade Determination

Factor	Level	Points
Program Scope and Effect	1-2	350
Organizational Setting	2-1	100
Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised	3-2c	450
Personal Contacts	4A-2	50
Purpose of Contacts	4B-2	75
Difficulty of the Work Performed	5-6	800
Other Conditions	6-3a	975
Total Points		2800

Decision

The total of 2800 points falls within the GS-12 grade range (2755-3150) on the point-to-grade conversion chart in the GSSG. Therefore, the appellant’s position is graded at the GS-12 level.

Back to Top