Washington, DC

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

---

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


01/14/2021

---

Date

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

As indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellant’s official position description (PD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in section III.E. of the Introduction.  Since PDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellant’s PD to reflect our findings.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD within 30 days of the date of this decision to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Supervisory Education Compliance Survey Specialist (SECSS), GS-1801-12, and is assigned to the Approval, Compliance and Liaison (AC&L) office, Oversight and Accountability, Education Service (ES), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Muskogee Regional Processing Office, in Muskogee, Oklahoma.  The appellant believes his position should be classified at the GS-13 grade level.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about his agency’s classification review process and compares his position to similar but higher graded positions within his agency.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position.  By law, we must make our decision solely by comparing the appellant’s 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 position to other positions, which may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding his appeal.  Because our decision sets aside any previous agency decisions, the appellant’s statements regarding the classification practices used by his agency to classify his position are not germane to the classification appeal process.

Like OPM, the appellant’s agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM PCS and guidelines.  The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions.  If the appellant considers his position so similar to others that they warrant the same classification, he may pursue the matter by writing to his headquarters human resources office.  In doing so, he should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question.  If the positions are found to be basically the same as his, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision.  Otherwise, the agency should explain to him the differences between his position and the others. 

Position information

Both the appellant and his supervisor believe the appellant’s official PD number 06401A does not accurately describe the major duties and responsibilities of his position and, after a careful review of all available information, we find the appellant’s PD does not include some regularly performed duties and some duties and responsibilities described in the PD are either misleading or not performed by the appellant. 

For example, Factor 3 (Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised) of the appellant’s PD states the SECSS requests survey worksheets from the Data Processing Center.  However, the SECSS does not request survey worksheets from the Data Processing Center.  Instead, this responsibility rests with the Education Compliance Survey Specialist (ECSS).  Factor 3 states the SECSS is responsible for the review and acceptance of all approvals, original and revised, for all institutions and training establishments.  However, Education Liaison Representatives (ELRs) are responsible for reviewing and accepting approvals from the State Approving Agencies (SAAs).  Factor 3 indicates the SECSS establishes and maintains current records and files of all approved or disapproved institutions or courses of instruction; works with the SAA to resolve approval matters that are discrepant, inconsistent or require clarification; is responsible for reviewing proposals by Federal Agencies to offer training under Title 38, U.S.C., and forwarding these proposals to the Director, Education Service, VA Central Office.  However, although the SECSS provides technical assistance and guidance with these approvals, these responsibilities rest with the ELRs. 

Factor 4a states the “SECSS also provides information to the State Approving Agency about changes in requirements for course approval.”  However, this responsibility rests primarily with the ELR.  Factor 4a does not identify contacts with agency internal staff such as immediate staff and other supervisors within the region, and external program participants, e.g., school officials, veterans’ organizations, or veterans.  Factor 4b indicates the SECSS negotiates contracts and supplemental contracts with SAAs.  However, VBA no longer enters into contracts with SAAs.  Instead VA enters into cooperative agreements (CA) with SAAs.  Furthermore, responsibility for developing, recommending, monitoring, and reporting on CAs rests with the ELR. 

Factor 5 of the appellant’s PD states the appellant supervises 15 Compliance and Liaison employees which range from GS-9 to GS-11.  However, the appellant does not currently supervise GS-9 employees.  In addition, although the organizational chart indicates 13 positions, both the supervisor and the servicing human resources specialist clarified the appellant currently supervises 12 subordinate employees (i.e., five ELR GS-1801-11s and seven ECSS GS-1801-10) and presently the agency does not intend to backfill one of the vacant ECSS GS-10 positions.

OPM considers a PD to be accurate for classification purposes when the major duties and responsibilities of the position are listed, and proper classification can be made when the description is supplemented by otherwise accurate, available, and current information on the organization’s structure, mission, and procedures.  Major duties are normally those that occupy a significant portion of the employee’s time.  They should be only those duties currently assigned, observable, identified with the position’s purpose and organization, and expected to continue or recur on a regular basis over a period of time.  An OPM appeal decision does not simply classify a PD.  Instead an OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position and is based on the work currently assigned to and performed by the appellant.  Based on our fact-finding discussed above, the appellant’s PD does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction.  Therefore, the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.

VBA provides a variety of benefits and services to veterans and their families, such as Compensation and Pension, Insurance, Loans, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment, and Education.  VBA’s Education Services Unit (ESU) is responsible for the segment of VBA’s Education Program tasked with effectuating all compliance liaison and approval activities.  ESU’s Approval, Compliance, & Liaison (AC&L) section is composed of 14 teams operating within four geographic regions (i.e., Eastern, Central, Western, and Southern) within the United States.  The appellant supervises one of four AC&L teams providing support to VBA education programs within the Western region, which serves nearly 76,000 veterans attending 1,222 educational institutions throughout Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

As an SECSS, the appellant spends approximately 90 percent of his time performing the full range of administrative and technical supervision over 12 employees (i.e., five ELR GS-1801-11 and seven ECSS GS-1801-10), who are responsible for reviewing and accepting approvals for designated education programs, providing training and assistance to school officials, executing compliance oversight, and supporting enforcement activities within educational and training institutions in the Western region.

The appellant also spends approximately 10 percent of his time performing a variety of nonsupervisory duties in support of the AC&L program segment, such as conducting surveys and research related to education trends and issues.

In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency, including his official PD, which, although not completely accurate, is incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal, we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his supervisor, including follow-up requests for additional information from both individuals.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency classified the appellant’s position to the General Inspection, Investigation, and Compliance Series, GS-1801.  It also determined the appellant’s position fully meets the requirements for coverage and evaluation by the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG).  The appellant agrees with the agency’s series determination and its decision to evaluate his work by comparison to the GSSG and, after a careful review, we concur.  There are no prescribed titles for positions in the General Inspection, Investigation, and Compliance Series, GS-1801.  Therefore, the agency may construct a title consistent with the position titling guidance provided in section III.H.2 of the Introduction.  However, the agency must add the prefix “Supervisory” in accordance with GSSG titling instructions.  Although in his written appeal the appellant attempted to evaluate his position using an unspecified Factor Evaluation System (FES) classification standard, we find his duties are primarily supervisory in nature and he spends approximately 90 percent of his time performing them.  Therefore, we have solely evaluated the grade of his position by application of the grading criteria in the GSSG as addressed below.  We note he also spends about 10 percent of his time performing various administrative education surveys.  However, only duties occupying at least 25 percent of an employee’s time can affect the grade of a position (Introduction, section III.J.).  Thus, these nonsupervisory duties cannot be considered in determining the grade of his position. 

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.  Our evaluation with respect to the six GSSG factors follows.

The appellant spends approximately 90 percent of his time performing the full range of administrative and technical supervision over 12 subordinate employees assigned to his AC&L team.  In applying the GSSG the agency credited Level 1-2 for Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect; Level 2-2 for Factor 2, Organizational Setting; Level 3-2 for Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised; Levels 4A-2 and 4B-2 for Factor 4, Personal Contacts; Level 5-5 for Factor 5, Difficulty of Typical Work Directed; and Level 6-3 for Factor 6, Other Conditions.  Based on our interview, the appellant agrees with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 2, 3, and 4.  After careful consideration of all available information, we concur with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 3 and 4.  However, we disagree with the agency’s evaluation of Factor 2 and the appellant disagrees with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 1, 5, and 6, believing they should be evaluated at Levels 1-3, 5-7, and 6-4.  Therefore, our analysis addresses only Factors 1, 2, 5, and 6.

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 level, the criteria dealing with both scope and effect, as defined below, must be met.

      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.

At Level 1-2, the program segment or work directed is administrative, technical, complex clerical, or comparable in nature.  The functions, activities, or services provided have limited geographic coverage and support most of the activities comprising a typical agency field office, an area office, a small to medium military installation, or comparable activities within agency program segments.  An illustration of scope at this level in the GSSG describes a field office providing services to the general public, furnishing a portion of such services to a small population of clients.  The size of the population serviced by the field office is the equivalent of all citizens or businesses in a portion of a small city.  Depending on the nature of the service provided, the serviced population may be concentrated in one city or spread over a wider geographic area. 

At Level 1-3, the program segment directed 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.  An illustration at this level in the GSSG describes a position providing services to the general public furnishing a significant portion of the agency’s line program to a moderate-sized population of clients equivalent to a small city, a portion of a larger metropolitan area, or significant portion of a multi-state population. 

Level 1-2 is met.  Comparable to Level 1-2, the appellant directs the administrative work of one of four field office teams responsible for monitoring, investigating, and providing reports concerning the compliance of educational institutions with Federal laws and regulations involving various aspects of veteran’s education.  Like Level 1-2 and the illustration, although the services provided cover a wider geographic area covering six States and 1,222 educational institutions, the dispersed serviced population totals less than 76,000 veterans, and this number is divided among the four AC&L teams of which the appellant supervises one, which is equivalent to a portion of a small city. 

Level 1-3 is not met.  Unlike this level, as previously discussed while the work directed is dispersed over a wider geographic area, the population directly serviced is limited to a small population of veterans qualifying for educational services approved by the agency.  It does not involve the provision of services to a significant portion of a multi-state population.   Program scope is credited at Level 1-2

      Effect

This element addresses the impact of the work on the mission and programs of the customers, the activity, the agency, other agencies, the general public, or others.

At Level 1-2, the services or products support and significantly affect installation level, area office level, or field office operations and objectives, or comparable program segments; or provide services to a moderate, local or limited population of clients or users comparable to a major portion of a small city or rural county.

At Level 1-3, 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, multi-mission organizations and/or very large serviced populations comparable to the illustrations for this level in the GSSG the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions.

Level 1-2 is met.  Like this level, the work directed by the appellant affects the operation and objectives of a field office (i.e., VBA’s Western Region field office) in overseeing and administering VBA’s education services.  Similar to this level, in directing his AC&L team the appellant’s unit provides services and shares responsibility for a portion of a limited population of clients (up to a total of 76,000 serviced by the four AC&Ls) comparable to a major portion of a small city. 

Level 1-3 is not met.  Although the work performed by the appellant’s team involves CAs with education institutions and State education departments in six states, the work does not directly and significantly impact a wide range of other VBA programs and activities (e.g., small businesses, home purchases, disability benefits), nor does the team’s work directly and significantly impact the work of other agencies, the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry) or the general public.  Instead, the work focuses solely on issues and processes related to the AC&L program segment of VBA’s Veteran’s Education program.  Therefore, the effect of the work directed by the appellant and his team does not meet Level 1-3.

Program effect is credited at Level 1-2.

Both scope and effect are credited at Level 1-2.  Therefore, Factor 1 is evaluated at Level 1-2 and 350 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Organizational Setting

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

Level 2-1 is credited when a position is accountable to a position that is two or more levels below the first (i.e., lowest in the chain of command) SES, flag or general officer, equivalent or higher-level position in the direct supervisory chain.

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

VBA records show the appellant reports to the Chief Education Liaison Officer (CELO), which is a GS-13 position.  The CELO reports to the Chief, Approvals, Compliance, and Liaison (CAC&L), which is a GS-14 position.  The CAC&L reports to the Assistant Director, Oversight and Accountability (ADO&A), which is a GS-15 position.  The ADO&A reports to the Deputy Director, Program Management (DDPM), VA Central Office, which is a GS-15 position.  The DDPM reports to the Executive Director, Education Service, which is an SES position.  Therefore, the appellant’s position meets Level 2-1 as he is directly accountable to a position (CELO) that is two or more levels below the first SES position in the direct supervisory chain. 

This factor is evaluated at Level 2-1 and 100 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Difficulty of typical work directed

This factor measures the difficulty and complexity of the basic work most typical of the organization directed, as well as other line, staff, or contracted work for which the supervisor has technical or oversight responsibility, either directly or through subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or others.  The level is determined by identifying the highest grade which best characterizes the nature of the basic (mission oriented) nonsupervisory work performed or overseen by the organization directed, and which constitutes 25 percent or more of the workload (not positions or employees) of the organization.  In determining the highest level of work, developmental positions below the normal full performance levels are considered at the full performance level.  Certain positions are excluded from consideration in making the determination.  These include work of lower level positions that primarily support or facilitate the basic work of the unit; any subordinate work graded based on criteria in the GSSG or the General Schedule Leader Grade-Evaluation Guide; work that is based on an extraordinary degree of independence from supervision, or personal research accomplishments; and work for which the supervisor or a subordinate does not have the responsibilities defined under Factor 3.  Level 5-6 is assigned if 25 percent or more of the mission oriented nonsupervisory workload of an organization is at the GS-11 level.  Level 5-7 is credited if 25 percent or more of the workload of the organization is credited at the GS-12 level. 

In evaluating Factor 5, we assume VBA’s classification of PD# 06134A (i.e., GS-1801-11 Education Liaison Representatives (ELRs)) and PD# 01170A (i.e., GS-1801-10 Education Compliance Survey Specialists (ECSS))is accurate and note that none of the subordinate positions meet the exclusions described above. 

The appellant directs the work of 12 subordinate employees, i.e., five GS-1801-11 ELRs, and seven GS-1801-10 ECSSs.  We find that the GS-11 ELR work equates to 42 percent of the basic (mission oriented) nonsupervisory work of the appellant’s organization and constitutes over 25 percent of the overall workload of his unit.  Therefore, the appellant’s position is credited at Level 5-6.  The position does not meet Level 5-7 as the substantive workload of the organization by application of the above criteria is not at the GS-12 level. 

By application of the conversion chart in the GSSG for Factor 5, a GS-11 base level equates to Level 5-6 and 800 points are credited.

Factor 6, Other Conditions

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

At Level 6-4 (a), supervision requires substantial coordination and integration of a number of major work assignments, projects, or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-11 level.  For example, such coordination may involve work comparable to one of the following:  (1) identifying and integrating internal and external program issues affecting the immediate organization, such as those involving technical, financial, organizational, and administrative factors; (2) integrating the work of a team or group where each member contributes a portion of the analyses, facts, information, proposed actions, or recommendations; and/or ensuring compatibility and consistency of interpretation, judgment, logic, and application of policy; (3) recommending resources to devote to particular projects or to allocate among program segments; (4) leadership in developing, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and procedures to monitor the effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity of the program segment and/or organization directed; (5) reviewing and approving the substance of reports, decisions, case documents, contracts, or other action documents to assure that they accurately reflect the policies and position of the organization and the views of the agency.  Level 6-4 may also be credited if the position meets Level 6-4(b) where the position directs subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial work-loads comparable to the GS-09 or 10 level.  Such base work requires coordination similar to that described at Factor Level 6-3a. in the GSSG for first line supervisors.

At Level 6-5(a), supervision requires significant and extensive coordination and integration of a number of important projects or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-12 level.  Supervision at this level involves major recommendations which have a direct and substantial effect on the organization and projects managed.  For instance, to meet Level 6-5(a), supervisors make major recommendations in at least three of the following areas or in other, comparable areas:  (1) significant internal and external program and policy issues affecting the overall organization, such as those involving political, social, technological, and economic conditions, as well as those factors cited in the first item of Factor Level 6-4a; (2) restructuring, reorienting, recasting immediate and long-range goals, objectives, plans, and schedules to meet substantial changes in legislation, program authority, and/or funding; (3) determinations of projects or program segments to be initiated, dropped, or curtailed; (4) changes in organizational structure, including the particular changes to be effected; (5) the optimum mix of reduced operating costs and assurance of program effectiveness, including introduction of labor-saving devices, automated processes, methods improvements, and similar; (6) the resources to devote to particular programs (especially when staff-years and a significant portion of an organization's budget are involved); (7) policy formulation, and long-range planning in connection with prospective changes in functions and programs.  Level 6-5 may also be credited if the position meets Level 6-5(b) consisting of supervision of highly technical, professional, administrative, or comparable work at GS-13 or above involving extreme urgency, unusual controversy, or other, comparable demands due to research, development, test and evaluation, design, policy analysis, public safety, public health, medical, regulatory. A position may also meet Level 6-5 if it meets Level 6-5(c) involving managing work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial work-loads comparable to the GS-11 level. Such base work requires similar coordination as that described at Factor Level 6-4a, above for first line supervisors.

Level 6-4 is met.  Like level 6-4(a), the appellant is responsible for substantial coordination and integration of a number of major administrative work assignments comparable in difficulty to the GS-11 level (base level of appellant’s position).  Comparable Level 6-4(a), he identifies and integrates internal and external education service program issues affecting his unit supervised, and integrates the work of his subordinate AC&L team to ensure compatibility, consistency of interpretation, and appropriate application of Federal laws, regulations, and VBA policies and to ensure State education agencies and individual educational institution implement fair and consistent billing practices for veterans and their eligible family members.

Level 6-5 is not met.  Unlike Level 6-5(a), the appellant does not provide significant and extensive coordination and integration of a number of important projects or program segments of professional, scientific, technical, managerial, or administrative work comparable in difficulty to the GS-12 level.  Also unlike Level 6-5(a), the appellant does not make major recommendations in any of the areas listed under that level including significant internal and external program and policy issues affecting the overall organization, such as those involving political, social, technological, and economic conditions, as well as those factors cited in the first item of Factor Level 6-4(a); restructuring, reorienting, recasting immediate and long-range goals, objectives, plans, and schedules to meet substantial changes in legislation, program authority, and/or funding; determinations of projects or program segments to be initiated, dropped, or curtailed; changes in organizational structure, including the particular changes to be effected; etc.  Unlike Level 6-5(b), the appellant does not supervise highly technical, professional, administrative, or comparable work at GS-13 or above involving extreme urgency, unusual controversy, or other, comparable demands due to research, development, test and evaluation, design, policy analysis, public safety, public health, medical, regulatory, or comparable implications.  The position does not meet Level 6-5(c) as the appellant does not manage work through subordinate supervisors and/or contractors who each direct substantial work-loads comparable to the GS-11 level.

This factor is evaluated at Level 6-4 and 1120 points are assigned.

Summary

Summary
Factor	Level	Points
1.  Program Scope and Effect	1-2	350
2.  Organizational Setting	2-1	100
3.  Supervisory & Managerial Authority Exercised	3-2c	450
4.  Personal Contacts
A.  Nature of Contacts	4A-2	50
B.  Purpose of Contacts	4B-2	75
5.  Difficulty of Typical Work Directed	5-6	800
6.  Other Conditions	6-4	1120
Total		2945

Total Points                                                                                         2945

The total of 2,945 points falls within the GS-12 range (2755 - 3150) on the grade conversion chart provided in the GSSG.

Decision

The proper series and grade of the appellant’s position is GS-1801-12.  Selection of an appropriate title is at the discretion of the agency with the prefix “Supervisory” added. 

Back to Top