Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
Plans and Operations Division
Logistics Readiness Center
Fort McCoy
404th Army Field Support Brigade
U.S. Army Sustainment Command
U.S. Department of the Army
Fort McCoy, Wisconsin
Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
03/18/2025
Date
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).
The appellant’s position is currently classified as Management Assistant, GS-0344-07, but she believes the position should be classified as Management Assistant, GS-0344-09. She is currently assigned to the Plans and Operations Branch (POB), Plans and Operations Division (POD), Logistics Readiness Center (LRC), Fort McCoy, 404th Army Field Support Brigade, U.S. Army Sustainment Command, U.S. Department of the Army (DA), Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
The appellant makes various statements concerning the agency’s evaluation of her position and compares her current PD to the agency’s outdated versions of her PD. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make an independent decision on the proper classification of the appellant’s position. By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s PD to outdated versions of the PD, that may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding her appeal. In addition, the appellant’s statements regarding the classification practices used by the agency to classify her position are not germane to our classification appeals process.
The appellant states there are portions of her PD (number DE494141) that fail to recognize the extent and responsibility of her work and questions the factor levels assigned to particular factors. The appellant’s supervisor initially certified to the accuracy of the PD. However, during interviews both the appellant and her first-level supervisor identified duties, responsibilities, and authorities within the official PD that were incorrect. A PD is the official record of the 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 an employee. An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position, and not simply a PD. This decision is based on the actual work currently assigned to and performed by the appellant.
In her interview the appellant expressed concern that while the PD states that she “serves as the organization manager for Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE)”, it should also recognize that she is the program manager for all other data programs. However, we found that while the PD lacks clarity in describing this aspect of the appellant’s work, she actually operates in a program support role with duties including assigning passwords and security accesses, trouble-shooting minor system issues, implementing preapproved software updates, and developing and issuing reports. She does not have overall responsibility for management of LRC’s computer programs, including authority to modify, update, and replace existing automated and electronic software and hardware. This responsibility rests with higher-level agency officials who fully function as computer systems program managers.
In her interview with OPM, the appellant cited her length of service with the agency and the quality and high volume of work performed by her as support for the requested grade increase. However, length of service and quality and high volume of work cannot be considered when determining the grade level of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook (Handbook), chapter 5, page 39).
The appellant discusses temporary increases in the complexity of her work during the implementation phase of new automated computer programs within her organization. However, duties that are not regular and recurring cannot affect the grade of a position (Introduction), section III.F.2)
Position information
Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, is a sixty-thousand-acre Army reserve installation whose primary focus is on military training. The Fort McCoy’s LRC is responsible for management of the overall planning and movement of supplies and materials necessary to the operation of the fort. The POB provides technical and administrative support to the POD, which coordinates with the LRC to identify and forecast logistical needs for Fort McCoy programs and activities. The appellant serves as a Management Assistant within POB. The technical and administrative work performed by the appellant supports a variety of POB’s objectives and operations.
The appellant uses standardized evaluative processes and procedures (e.g., define the problem; select a suitable dataset; construct variables from observed data; input data into the processing tool; and generate, interpret, and report results) to identify functional and operational issues within POB.
The appellant performs basic data analytical processes (e.g., trend analysis and forecasting); and selects and applies basic data gathering methods (e.g., observation, surveying, online tracking, and forms) to collect, process, and analyze factual information related to POB operations and computerized information management programs. The appellant identifies and describes techniques used to collect and interpret data; reviews results and findings; and develops and submits reports and recommendations to the supervisor and POB stakeholders for consideration and further action.
The appellant performs the full range of system administrator duties (e.g., ensuring qualified access to secure systems and facilities, creating, monitoring, transferring, and deleting accounts; establishing and resetting passwords; monitoring the timeliness and accuracy of information entered into various POB electronic databases and records keeping systems; coordinating with the Helpdesk to identify and remedy access and operational issues; recommending improvements to current data-gathering systems and processes; assisting with updates to existing computer systems; and providing as-needed training to users) for a variety of automated computer programs and databases, such as the Trusted Agent Sponsorship System (TASS) and the Mission Partner Affiliate Sponsor Management (MPASM) system.
The appellant manages the Directorate of Public Works (DPW) work order log and coordinates with the DPW to manage LRCs work order /service order (WO/SO) logs. She tracks and monitors progress through the DPW help desk and provides status reports and recommendations for process and system improvements to the DPW for consideration and action. The appellant attends a variety of meetings as the systems administrator and subject matter expert (SME) for POB’s computer systems and databases and offers advice and recommendations for improving the accuracy of system-related information, as well as improvements in the effectiveness, and efficiency of systems for which she is responsible.
As POB’s contract sponsor, the appellant gathers security clearance-related information for employees working under current Federal contracts within POB and coordinates with Contract Officer Technical Representatives (COTR) to facilitate confirmation of denial of security access and issuance of a Common Access Card (CAC). The appellant performs periodic reverification of clearance status for the purpose of reissuance or denial of individual CACs. The appellant performs a variety of administrative support duties, such as preparing correspondence, transcripts, briefings; cyclical and non-cyclical reports; and manages POB supply inventories and related requests. The appellant serves as an alternate mail control point; manages comment cards; takes notes and prepares transcripts; and performs a variety of administrative tasks associated with LRC’s Cash Meal Books. The appellant adheres to current agency and Federal guidelines, regulations, and standard operating procedures (SOP) in the performance of her duties, modifying the method of implementation of current guidelines to specific situations.
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and the agency, including the official PD which we find sufficient for classification purposes, and have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal, we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and her immediate supervisor, as well as subsequent telephone and e-mail communications.
Series, title, and standard determination
The agency classified the appellants’ position to the Management and Program Clerical and Assistance Series, 0344, titling it Management Assistant. The appellant does not disagree with the series and basic title assigned by the agency, and we concur.
The 0344 series includes positions involved in supervising or performing clerical and technical work in support of management analysis and program analysis, the purposes of which are to evaluate and improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of organizations and programs. The work requires a practical knowledge of the purposes, methods, and techniques of management analysis and/or program analysis and the structures, functions, processes, objectives, products, services, resource requirements, and similar features of Government programs and organizations.
Employees in this series perform clerical and technical work in support of management analysis and/or program analysis and use one or more automated systems to perform their duties. This includes word processing, spreadsheet, data base, project management, graphic design, and management information systems to analyze, evaluate, and improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of organizations and programs; to support management analysis functions and processes, and provide managers with objectively based information for making decisions on the administrative and operational aspects of agency management and program operations. These administrative and operational aspects include organizational or program structures, functions, objectives and goals, processes, products, services, performance requirements, projects, and resources.
Management Assistant is the title for all positions GS-05 and above that primarily involve performing work in support of management analysis functions and processes.
The appellant’s duties and responsibilities match the series definition for positions classified in the 0344 series in that the position employs clerical and technical procedures, methods, and techniques to provide support for various management analysis functions and processes within POB. Similar to the 0344 series, the results of the analytical processes supported by the appellant are used by POB management to develop, evaluate, and advise on methods and policies associated with monitoring, administering, and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of a variety of POB’s electronic information management systems. Therefore, the title and series of the appellant’s position is Management Assistant, GS-0344.
Positions in the 0344 series are evaluated by reference to the grading criteria in the 0344 series position classification standard (PCS).
The appellant indicates that some of the factor levels she applied in her OPM appeal resulted from comparing her duties to the Administrative Analysis Grade Evaluation Guide (AAGEG) instead of the 0344, PCS.
However, the law requires that each position be classified to the appropriate series and grade according to standards issued by OPM. For most positions the published standard for the series in which the position is classified provides the best grade level criteria for evaluating the position (Handbook).
Since the appellant’s work is properly allocated to the Management and Program Clerical and Assistance Series, 0344, it is inappropriate to use the AAGEG to evaluate the appellant’s regular and recurring duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the appellant’s grade level is determined by comparison to the grading criteria within the 0344 PCS.
The 0344 PCS is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, under which factor levels and accompanying point values are assigned for each of the nine factors. The total is converted to a grade level by use of the grade conversion table provided in the PCS. Under the FES, each factor-level description provides the minimum criteria needed to receive credit for the described level. If a position fails to meet the minimum 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.
The agency evaluated Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position, at Level 1-4; Factor 2, Supervisory Controls, at Level 2-3; Factor 3, Guidelines, at Level 3-3; Factor 4, Complexity, at Level 4-3; Factor 5, Scope and Effect, at Level 5-3; Factor 6, Personal Contacts, at Level 6-2; Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts at Level 7-a; Factor 8, Physical Demands at Level 8-1; and Factor 9, Work Environment, at Level 9-1.
The appellant disagrees with the factor levels assigned by the agency to Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, believing they should be 1-6, 2-5, 3-4, 4-4, 6-3, and 7-b. After careful review, we concur with the agency’s factor level assignments for Factors 5, 8, and 9, which the appellant does not contest. Therefore, our evaluation below focuses solely on Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.
Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position
At Level 1-4, the highest level described in the PCS, the work requires knowledge of an extensive body of management and/or program analysis technical rules, guidelines, regulations, and precedents. It also requires knowledge of the basic objectives and policies governing various management or program operations. Some work also requires skill in applying basic data gathering methods, such as standard interviewing or surveying techniques, to collect various types of factual information. Some employees also apply knowledge of the standardized processes and procedures for evaluating management or program operations to perform duties such as planning the steps to take to complete assignments, identifying problems from collected data, and selecting solutions from alternatives in guidelines and precedent cases. Some employees also use writing skills to prepare clear, concise reports that describe the data collection techniques and other processes and procedures used, conditions of management or program operations, and recommended improvements. Employees apply this knowledge to individual, nonstandard technical assignments whether the nature of these assignments stems from a changing mix of work or represents diversity within a defined management or program operation. Assignments may involve limited aspects of higher-level work.
Level 1-4 is met. Like this level, the appellant applies an extensive body of well-established Federal laws and regulations, DoD guidelines and policies, POD and POB protocols, and POB SOPs associated with records and data management. Similar to this level, the position requires knowledge of objectives and policies governing various POB management and program operations. Comparable to this level, the position requires skill in applying basic data gathering methods, such as interviewing, sampling, and forms to collect various types of factual information. Like this level, the position requires knowledge of standardized processes, procedures, and management operations sufficient to plan and complete assignments, identify data-related issues, and select solutions from alternatives in guidelines and precedent cases. Similar to this level, the position requires writing skills sufficient to prepare clear, concise reports that describe the data collection and to describe the techniques and processes used and to develop clear, concise recommendations for improvement based on gathered data.
Factor 1 is evaluated at Level 1-4 and 550 points are assigned.
Factor 2, Supervisory Controls
At Level 2-3, the highest level for this PCS, the supervisor or higher-level employee defines the objectives, priorities, and deadlines for projects or assignments and assists the employee with unusual situations, problems, or studies that do not have clear precedents. The employee plans and carries out the successive steps of management or program analysis technical projects and assignments and handles problems and deviations in accordance with instructions, policies, previous training, or accepted practices. For example, the employee independently determines the types and sources of management or program information required for reports, the nature and extent of deviations from established management or program requirements, and whether standard data gathering techniques are appropriate for assignments. The supervisor or higher-level employee evaluates reports and other completed work for technical soundness, appropriateness of conclusions or recommendations, consistency, relevance of support material, and compliance with policies and requirements. The methods used in arriving at the end results are not reviewed in detail.
Level 2-3 is met. Similar to this level, most of the appellant’s work is carried out with little direct supervision. Like this level, the appellant may discuss problems and issues with the supervisor, COTR, SME, project/program manager, or other higher-level POB or POD personnel and questions requiring interpretation or deviation of policy and guidelines are referred to the supervisor, higher-level program or management personnel, or an SME. Consistent with this level, the immediate supervisor does not provide input on objectives, priorities, and deadlines due to the generally recurring nature of most of the appellant’s tasks. Instead, the appellant has discretion to plan, schedule, and complete work. However, when the appellant assists with more complex projects, she defers to the decision-making authority for that project, who is generally responsible for defining and enforcing project objectives and deadlines. Similar to this level, the appellant plans, coordinates, and carries out specific steps to complete daily work. Like this level, the appellant handles work-related issues and situations in accordance with accepted practices, previous training, and program instructions, policies, and SOPs. Like this level, completed work is evaluated by the supervisor for technical soundness, appropriateness of conclusions or recommendations, consistency, relevance of support material, and compliance with policies and requirements. Similar to this level, the methods used by the appellant to perform daily work are not reviewed in detail.
Factor 2 is evaluated at Level 2-3 and 275 points are assigned.
At Level 3-3, the highest level for this PCS, guidelines lack specificity or are not completely applicable to the work requirements, circumstances, or problems because of the unique or complicating characteristics of the assignments. The employee uses judgment in interpreting and adapting guidelines to apply to specific situations, such as evaluating the appropriateness of justifications for changes in clerical staffing levels; determining the cause or extent of deviations from established production rates or resource use; or determining whether an organization's proposed directives, publications, or functional statements are within the scope of their established delegated authority or assigned function. The employee also analyzes the results of applying guidelines and recommends changes to them.
Level 3-3 is met. Like this level, guidelines include agency regulatory, and policy requirements, and SOPs, such as TASS SOP; TASS Army Security Clearance-Policy-380-13, Army Regulation 201-14, DPW SOP, and ICE policy and guidelines, and the Director’s Order 11D. These guidelines, which are to be applied in conjunction with each other, describe standards for maintaining databases and for establishing, monitoring, and canceling access to various automated systems. Although guidelines are available, the nature of the data and information collected in various automated systems requires the appellant to carefully consider the applicability of established guidelines to specific issues and situations. Consistent with this level, the appellant identifies, analyzes, and reports findings associated with data deviations within POB automated systems.
Factor 3 is evaluated at Level 3-3 and 275 points are assigned.
At Level 4-2, work consists of duties involving related procedures, processes, or methods to perform individual management or program analysis clerical or technical assignments or tasks. For example, the employee may review established formats and defined requirements for creating single purpose forms, design the forms in accordance with standard guidelines, and distribute the forms to prescribed offices; review directives, staffing reports, or organizational change requests for compliance with standard formats or schedules and inclusion of required information, verify clear discrepancies with originating offices, and correct errors; search prescribed sources for data, and compile and arrange data in standard formats for projects or reports; or review routine program production reports and identify clear discrepancies, trends, or problems.
At Level 4-2, the employee decides what needs to be done by identifying easily recognizable differences in the basic characteristics and nature of one or a few similar, stable work units, program areas, and/or management or program operations. The operations involve easily identifiable steps and procedures; standard plans, schedules, calculations, report formats, and requirements; or clearcut processes, structures, and workflow. The employee identifies the basic instructions and procedures to follow from among a few established procedural alternatives related to the specific function or task. The employee considers the nature of the task or duty, basic purposes and other characteristics of the work units and operations involved, or readily available sources of information to complete routine or standard assignments such as compiling and computing data, identifying trends or problems, and explaining procedures.
At Level 4-3, the highest level for this PCS, work consists of various duties, projects, or assignments involving different and unrelated management or program analysis technical processes and procedures. Assignments or projects involve various actions or steps that are not completely standardized or prescribed in instructions, guidelines, or precedent cases; adaptation or modification of established procedures and methods; various types and sources of information; nonrecurring problems, trends, or issues; management or program operations with varying or changing conditions (e.g., work units or program areas with different functions or requirements or with periodic changes in workloads, budgets, staff levels, work processes, or program objectives); or similar features.
Examples of projects and assignments at Level 4-3 include reviewing various new and existing administrative directives to determine if they conflict or can be consolidated with others that are similar in content, purpose, and distribution; studying the work processes of clerical work units with different functions and objectives and identifying areas requiring improvements; studying changes in the production rates of various offices to determine the nature and extent of the deviations; or monitoring and studying the progress of extensive projects with different schedules and resource allowances to identify missed project milestones or to forecast resource availability. The employee decides what needs to be done by considering the characteristics, practices, objectives, and interrelationships of various work units, program areas, and/or management or program operations. The employee studies and analyzes issues such as the nature of the assignments; the various sources of information; the nature and requirements of the work units, program areas, or operations; the objectives of management or program analysis processes and techniques; and the applicability of precedent cases, rules, and regulations. The employee selects, adapts, and applies the most suitable practices, procedures, methods, and precedents to collect and analyze various types of information, formulate conclusions, define needs, and/or make recommendations for resolving problems to higher level employees.
Level 4-2 is met. Like this level, the appellants’ work consists of related steps, processes, and methods associated with reviewing, analyzing, documenting, and reporting a variety of information related to LRC programs and processes. Similar to this level, the appellant decides what needs to be done by choosing the most relevant and appropriate course of action from a number of established alternatives. Comparable to this level, the appellant recognizes and reacts to data-related issues and inconsistencies within electronic databases and programs and uses prescribed procedures to confirm and facilitate correction of factual information or to identify, monitor, and correct administrative process issues.
Level 4-3 is not met. Unlike this level, the appellant’s work does not consist of different and unrelated management analysis technical processes and procedures. The appellant’s work includes selecting and applying the most suitable guidelines, practices, procedures, methods, and precedents to collect and analyze various types of information, formulate conclusions, define needs, and to recommend actions to resolve problems to the supervisor, Contract Officer, or higher-graded employees within POB. However, unlike this level, the work is typically based on established guidelines, SOPs, and precedents and does not typically require the appellant to adapt or modify established procedures and methods or to seek non-standard sources of information to resolve the day-to day issues she encounters. Unlike this level, the problems, issues, and trends she encounters are recurring in nature, such as changes in eligibility for system access, identifying and resolving automated system failures, and tracking, trending, and reporting database-related information.
Unlike Level 4-3, the position does not require the appellant to review new and existing administrative directives to determine if they conflict or can be consolidated with others that are similar in content, purpose, and distribution; study the work processes of clerical work units with different functions and objectives and identifying areas requiring improvements; study changes in the production rates of various offices to determine the nature and extent of the deviations; or monitor and study the progress of extensive projects with different schedules and resource allowances to identify missed project milestones or to forecast resource availability. Likewise, the position does not require the appellant to decide what needs to be done by considering the characteristics, practices, objectives, and interrelationships of various work units, program areas, and/or management or program operations.
Furthermore, the position does not require the appellant to study and analyze issues, such as the nature of the assignments; the various sources of information; the nature and requirements of the work units, program areas, or operations; or the objectives of management analysis processes and techniques.
Factor 4 is evaluated at Level 4-2 and 75 points are assigned
At Level 6-2, the highest level in this PCS, contacts are with employees in the same agency, but outside the immediate organization. Persons contacted are managers, employees, and other representatives of the programs involved or organizations served and/or with members of the general public, as individuals or groups, in moderately structured settings. For example, the employee may contact contractors to obtain justifications for project delays.
Level 6-2 is met. Like this level, the appellant’s contacts are with a variety of DoA and Federal contract employees and managers within POB, POD, and LRC within moderately structured settings.
At Level 7-b, the highest level in this PCS, the purpose of the contacts is to plan, coordinate, or advise on work efforts; discuss significant findings; or resolve operating problems by influencing or motivating individuals or groups who are working toward mutual goals.
Level 7b is met. Like this level, the appellant regularly plans, coordinates, and advises on operational processes associated with database management, system security, and data analytics involved with POB databases and automated systems for which she is responsible. Like this level, the appellant discusses notable data-related findings with the supervisor, project/program managers, and affected SMEs. Similar to this level, the appellant resolves information and data-related inconsistences and procedural issues by sharing factual information and outlining guidelines to motivate and/or persuade agency and contract personnel to comply with established guidelines and/or to adopt new approaches to issues affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of current processes. For example, the appellant recently proposed improved methods to identify and define deviations in ISR data and encouraged related stakeholders to adopt and implement the proposed methods.
Factors 6 and 7 are evaluated at Level 6-b, 7-2, respectively. Therefore, by application of the grade determination table for Factors 6 and 7 in the PCS, 75 points are assigned.
|
Factor |
Level |
Points |
|
Knowledge required by the position |
1-4 |
550 |
|
Supervisory Controls |
2-3 |
275 |
|
Guidelines |
3-3 |
275 |
|
Complexity |
4-2 |
75 |
|
Scope and Effect |
5-3 |
150 |
|
Personal Contacts |
6-2 |
---- |
|
Purpose of Contacts |
7-b |
75 |
|
Physical Demands |
8-1 |
5 |
|
Work Environment |
9-1 |
5 |
|
Total Points |
1410 |
|
A total of 1410 points falls within the GS-07 grade level point range of 1355-1600 points on the Grade Conversion Table in the 0344 PCS.
The appellant’s position is properly classified as a Management Assistant, GS-0344-07.