Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code
2nd Marine Aircraft Wing
II Marine Expeditionary Force
United States Marine Corps
Marine Corps Air Station
Cherry Point, North Carolina
Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
06/16/2022
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).
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 and Standard Form (SF) 50 showing the personnel action taken within 30 days of the date of this decision to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) Washington, DC, office.
Introduction
The appellant’s position is currently classified as Assistant Command Inspector General, GS-1801-12, but he believes it should be classified as Deputy Command Inspector General, GS-1801-13 or 14. The position is in the Office of the Command Inspector General (CIG) of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (2D MAW), II Marine Expeditionary Force (II MEF), United States Marine Corps (USMC), Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) in Cherry Point, North Carolina. 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 the classification review and evaluation process conducted by his agency and compares his position to similar but higher graded Inspector General (IG) PDs at other commands within his organization. In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCSs) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Since comparison to PCSs is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others that may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding his appeal. Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the appellant’s concerns regarding his agency’s evaluation and classification of his position are not germane to the classification appeals process.
Like OPM, the appellant’s agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. If the appellant considers his position so similar to others that they all warrant the same classification, he may pursue the matter by writing to his headquarters human resources office. In doing so, he should specify the precise organizational locations, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question. If the positions are found to be basically the same as his, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to him the differences between his position and the others.
The appellant believes his official PD of record (number 0814A) is inaccurate because it does not specify he is accountable to two General Officers, i.e., 2D MAW CG and the IG of the Marine Corps (IGMC). Specifically, he states the PD neither describes special inspections or reviews assigned to him by the 2D MAW CG, nor the 20 to 24 “taskers” per year directed by the IGMC for investigation filed through the Inspector General Case Action Manager (IGCAM) online system assigned to him for action and response. Furthermore, the appellant disagrees with the percentage of time assigned to his supervisory responsibilities. As discussed later in this decision under our determination of title, the appellant asserts he supervises subordinate staff 30 percent instead of 10 percent of his time as indicated in his PD. He states that in addition to the three military subordinates, he assumes responsibility for Temporary Command Inspector Generals (TCIGs) who he oversees during the conduct of Commanding General Inspections (CGIs) and trains any new incoming CIG. He also believes the “Program Management: 15 % of duties” section in his PD should be eliminated because his program management responsibilities are described within the other sections of the PD. Thus, he concludes the following percentages should be assigned to his duties: 40 percent to fraud, waste, and mismanagement (FWM) hotline management and other duties under paragraph (a) of his PD; 30 percent to CGIs and other duties under paragraph (b) of his PD; and 30 percent to Supervisory duties under paragraph (d) of his PD.
By letter dated December 3, 2020, the appellant’s supervisor, CIG of 2D MAW, states the appellant’s PD is inaccurate because the position should be classified on the OF-8 as “Deputy” not “Assistant” Command Inspector General. During the interview with the appellant’s supervisor, he concurred with the appellant’s assertion that he spends 30 percent of his duty time performing supervisory duties, but does not believe the appellant’s program management duties should be removed from the PD. A PD is the official record of the major duties and responsibilities assigned to a position by an official with the authority to assign work. A position is the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by the employee. Classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal based on the actual duties and responsibilities currently assigned by management and performed by the employee. An OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position and not simply a PD. This decision is based on the work currently assigned to and performed by the appellant.
Our review of the appellant’s PD in conjunction with information obtained from our fact-finding shows the PD recognizes the inspections or reviews assigned by the 2D MAW CG, and the IGMC directed “taskers” which the appellant states are not described in his PD. The appellant provided an example representative of the type of inspection or review tasked by the 2D MAW CG. For instance, he was tasked to conduct a review in the area of Family Readiness which required him to visit all 45 2D MAW commands and the MCAS Beaufort to conduct focus groups and discuss quality of life issues taking place. Our fact-finding shows the 2D MAW CG may direct the CIG or the Assistant CIG to conduct any inspection or investigation he deems necessary within the 2D MAW, and the PD states the appellant’s position is fully credentialed by the CG to “conduct unbiased fact-finding investigations concerning issues or problems within a subordinate unit or Wing-wide system issues.” Further, other examples described by the appellant involve investigating systemic issues. The PD mentions “CG-directed systemic inspections,” in section II, paragraph b. Although not detailed in the PD, these involve inspections of a particular systemic or targeted systemic issue directed by the 2D MAW CG. Under the “Program Management” section of the PD, it states the position “supports and responds to taskers from IGMC.” Our fact-finding disclosed the appellant receives and responds to taskers from the 2D MAW CG, the IGMC, i.e., for those complaints filed through the IGCAM online system, and from the Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA), i.e., Congressional Interest complaints (CONGRINTS) or other Special Interest (SPLINTS) inquiries. Thus, contrary to the appellant’s assertions, we find the PD reflects the appellant is responsible to the 2D MAW CG and the IGMC through the performance of these and other duties described in the PD.
While the appellant is responsible for assessing the functional area of Intelligence Oversight (IO) for all 2D MAW commands through CGIs and providing related data to headquarters as requested, he is not the program manager of the 2D MAW Intelligence Oversight Program as the PD appears to suggest under “Program Management” duties, and he does not “collect and analyze operational and strategic intelligence from a wide-range of sources including federal, state, and local agencies.” He also does not “forward reports of IO violations or questionable activities through the chain of command to the Defense Intelligence Agency” or is the “point of contact for IGMC directed IO inspections or investigations.” The appellant states the 2D MAW Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2 is directly responsible to the 2D MAW CG for matters pertaining to the IO Program. The PD overstates the knowledges and guidelines used by the appellant. For instance, while the appellant is responsible for developing local policies, procedures and strategies for the 2D MAW, he is neither required to develop “agency wide policies, procedures and strategies concerning inspections and investigations” nor develop the “investigative plan and requirements needed to conduct an IG investigation that may be on a large or multi-jurisdictional scale where the methods and procedures are subject to change.” In terms of guidelines, the appellant uses available administrative policies and precedents, some stated in general terms, but he does not use “basic legislative guidance, judicial rulings, broad policy statements and conflicting orders and directives that are often ambiguous and requires extensive interpretation.” This language is taken directly from Level 3-5, of Factor 3, Guidelines, of the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Administrative Work in the Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Group, 1800. Since the appellant disputes Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position and Factor 3, Guidelines, we have fully addressed these factors later in our decision.
As noted later in this decision, our review confirms the agency properly evaluated Factor 4, Complexity at Factor Level 4-4, using the 1800 JFS, and the appellant does not dispute the agency’s factor level assignment. However, the PD contains language taken directly from Factor Level 4-5, thus overstating the complexity of the actual work performed by the appellant. In its position evaluation statement, the agency’s classifier acknowledges that some of the wording in the PD is taken from Factor Level 4-5. However, an updated PD was not included with the record thus the agency must remove Factor Level 4-5 language to reflect its assignment of Factor Level 4-4 as described and supported in its evaluation statement of the position. For the preceding reasons, the appellant’s PD of record does not meet the standard of adequacy addressed on pages 11-12 of the Introduction, and the agency must revise the PD to reflect our findings.
Position information
The 2D MAW is a major subordinate command and aviation combat element of the II MEF. It conducts air operations in support of the Marine Forces to include offensive air support, antiair warfare, assault support, aerial reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and control of aircrafts and missiles. The mission of the CIG is to promote combat readiness, integrity, efficiency, effectiveness, and credibility of the 2D MAW units. This is accomplished through inspections, assessments, investigations, inquiries and other related CIG functions that support mission readiness of the 2D MAW and the morale and welfare of its Marines, Sailors, and civilian personnel. The Office of the CIG is composed of the CIG (06 colonel billet), the Assistant CIG (appellant’s position), [1] the CIG Chief (Gunnery Sergeant E-7), one IG Administration Clerk (Corporal E-4) and one IG Inspection Clerk (Corporal E-4). The appellant reports to the CIG and provides limited supervision to the three military IG staff whose positions typically turnover once a year.
The appellant serves as the Assistant CIG, Senior Inspector and subject matter expert (SME) and shares in the management of the CIG’s duties and programs for the 2D MAW. As such, he carries out, along with the CIG, the Commanding General’s Inspection Program (CGIP). He plans evaluations of 45 2D MAW commands to assess, assist, and enhance the ability of a unit to prepare for and to perform its assigned mission. He provides direction and oversight to qualified military and civilian SMEs designated as TCIGs. TCIGs are not permanently assigned to the CIG office but temporarily serve as SMEs for a limited period to conduct CGIP Functional Area (FA) assessments and inspections. He reviews completed FA checklists (FACs), makes and directs needed changes, and approves all TCIG’s reports of inspections and final determinations of inspection grades. The appellant also conducts quarterly, and monthly pre-and-post inspection SME training. SMEs are trained in appropriate inspection techniques, grading criteria, and inspection results reporting. The appellant also conducts CG-directed systemic inspections and investigates any other matters of interest to the 2D MAW CG.
The appellant establishes and manages the CIG Hotline Complaint Program for 2D MAW by investigating or inquiring into allegations of FWM, misconduct and other violations of laws, rules, or regulations. He receives and responds to IGMC “taskers” filed through the IGCAM online system, and personally investigates or tasks complaints to Commanding Officers (COs) involving FWM, misconduct or other violations of law. He manages and facilitates the request mast process which is the primary method for a Marine to formally seek assistance from, or communicate a grievance to, his or her commander. This includes reviewing petitions for completeness and advising COs and Marines on all aspects of the request mast program. He responds to CONGRINTS and SPLINTS directed to the 2D MAW CG or the CIG by the OLA for assistance, interest or action.
The appellant is a voting member of the Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board (AFDCB). The AFDCB meets quarterly or as needed to discuss, propose policy changes or updates, and make recommendations to the 2D MAW CG concerning establishments that may be adversely affecting the welfare of military personnel and may be placed “off limits” to them. The appellant plans, executes and manages the CIG office budget of $125,000 which supports the mission of the office for Temporary Additional Duty (TAD), command inspections and visits, training, conferences, and supplies. The appellant maintains IG credentialing certification by attending required yearly training. When the CIG billet is vacant the appellant functions as the CIG and reports to the Chief of Staff (COS) (Colonel) or 2D MAW Commanding General (CG) (Major General). When a CIG billet is filled, the appellant provides training to the incoming CIG on all IG operations and programs.
In reaching our classification decision, we have carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including the official PD which, although not completely accurate, we find sufficient for purposes of classification when relied upon in conjunction with information obtained from our fact-finding. Thus, we have incorporated the PD by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his immediate supervisor.
Series, title, and standard determination
The agency classified the appellant’s position in the General Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Series, 1801, which covers positions which supervise, lead, or perform inspection, investigation, enforcement or compliance work. The appellant does not disagree with his agency’s selection of the 1801 series and we concur. Since there are no titles specified for positions in the 1801 series the agency may construct a title which appropriately describes the work performed following titling guidance in section III.H.2 of the Introduction. While the appellant does not disagree with his agency’s assignment of series, he takes exception to the title selected, i.e., Assistant Command Inspector General. He believes that as “deputy” to the CIG, “Deputy” instead of “Assistant” should be the title of his position stating that, as supported in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG), the grade of his position as a deputy should be one grade lower than the grade of the CIG’s position. Implicit in the appellant’s rationale is that the GSSG should be used to evaluate the grade level of his position.
The “deputy” title addressed in the GSSG is applied to supervisory positions that fully meet the GSSG coverage requirements for titling and evaluation prescribed in the GSSG. Coverage by the GSSG requires a supervisory position to (1) accomplish work through combined technical and administrative direction of others; (2) constitute a major duty occupying at least 25 percent of the position’s time; and (3) meet at least the lowest level of Factor 3, Supervisory and Managerial Authority Exercised, based on supervising Federal civilian employees, Federal military or uniformed service employees, volunteers, or other non-contractor personnel on a regular and recurring basis. Thus, we must first determine if the appellant’s position is covered by the GSSG for titling and evaluation purposes.
As previously stated, the appellant asserts that his supervisory duties account for 30 percent instead of 10 percent of his time as indicated in his PD. He states his subordinate military employees require training and oversight due to the lack of military occupational specialty (MOS) in the IG work of the office and staff turnover every year. He also states that he assumes supervisory responsibility of 45 to 50 TCIGs who he advises, directs, and oversees during CGIP inspections and provides training on inspection techniques, grading criteria, and pre-and-post inspection reporting procedures and activities. He states he is also responsible for the actions, safety and welfare of the TCIGs during CGIs, particularly in those conducted in TAD locations. In addition, within the 30 percent of time, he includes the time he spends training new CIGs (due to the continual turnover of the military position) in the operations and programs carried out by the office. During our interviews with the appellant’s supervisor, he concurred with the appellant’s assertion that he spends 30 percent performing supervisory duties for the same reasons given by the appellant. He further explained that the workload assigned to the CIG billet cannot be accomplished by only one person.
As addressed above, TCIGs are neither permanent employees of the CIG office nor are they officially assigned to the appellant as his subordinate employees. Rather, TCIGs have official supervisors of record in their own units. As qualified FA inspection SMEs, they are detailed to the CIG’s office for limited periods to conduct CGIs. Thus, while the appellant is responsible for training, leading, and overseeing the TCIGs during scheduled CIG unit inspections, they may not be counted as permanent subordinate employees who are part of an established workforce regularly supervised by the appellant for purposes of applying the GSSG. The GSSG also specifically excludes positions with project or program management responsibility (e.g., matrix management) that do not directly supervise the work of a recognizable work force (i.e., TCIGs) on a regular and recurring basis. While we understand the ongoing inspection workload of the CIG office requires augmenting the permanent staff with temporarily assigned personnel serving as SMEs in their respective civilian or MOSs for the duration of specific unit inspections, they may not be credited for meeting the GSSG’s coverage requirements.
Therefore, only the three subordinate military positions may be considered in determining if the appellant’s position performs supervisory work for 25 percent or more of his time for purposes of determining if the position meets the coverage requirements for application of the GSSG. However, our fact-finding disclosed the appellant does not provide both technical and administrative supervision of the military subordinates. The military chain-of-command retains authority over administrative matters and administrative supervision of the military subordinates is provided by the CIG Chief (Gunnery Sergeant E-7) and CIG (Lieutenant Colonel) and/or higher-level military position(s) in the chain-of-command. For instance, the appellant’s administrative responsibilities are limited to giving input (e.g., for Fitness Reports), making recommendations (e.g., for purposes of performance, promotions and awards) and providing concurrence on certain administrative matters, e.g., concur with an employee’s leave request but does not have final approval authority. As a civilian employee, the appellant does not formally evaluate performance or develop performance standards, counsel, hear and resolve complaints and grievances, or effect disciplinary actions for military personnel. Therefore, because the appellant does not accomplish work through combined technical and administrative direction of his three military subordinates and does not meet the lowest level of supervisory authorities described under Factor 3 of the GSSG, his position cannot be evaluated by application of the GSSG.
To further address the appellant’s limited “supervisory” duties and disagreement with the accuracy of his PD due to the percentage of time assigned to those duties, we reviewed the Statement of Work (SOW) for the CIG Chief and IG Inspection Clerk positions to determine their level of independence from supervision in performing assigned duties. As described in the SOW for the CIG Chief and confirmed by the appellant, the CIG Chief serves as the inspection coordinator and assistant for matters involving the CGIP by scheduling, planning, organizing, and supervising all 2D MAW command inspections. The CIG Chief ensures the 2D MAW IG website has updated FACs concerning the 42 programs that apply to all aviation commands, assists the appellant in providing guidance on all inspection matters and helps in training and providing oversight to the 50 SMEs in the conduct of inspections. The CIG Chief serves as a SME for inspections and reviews all inspection results and prepares them for review by the appellant, the CIG and chain-of-command up to the 2D MAW CG. The CIG Chief leads the IG Inspection Clerk and IG Administration Clerk ensuring MOS proficiency, physical fitness, personal growth and professional development. The appellant states the current CIG Chief basically runs the CGIP, works independently, and is knowledgeable of the work since she has been with the office for more than one year.
As described in the SOW for the IG Inspection Clerk and confirmed by the appellant, the IG Inspection Clerk prepares commands for the CGIs by checking the IGMC website for updates of the FACs, updates the 2D MAW SharePoint, and prepares the CGI command in-brief, to include summary charts, command leadership briefs, and the CGI presentation. The IG Inspection Clerk reviews and files all FACs submitted by the TCIGs, drafts naval correspondence for review by the appellant and the CIG, and drafts for review unit inspection reports and awards for routing through the chain-of-command. Although the SOW for the IG Administration Clerk was not included in the record, the appellant states that the IG Administration Clerk performs essentially the same functions and duties as the IG Inspection Clerk. These three subordinates may also perform duties monitoring the Hotline Complaint Program and Congressional Inquiry case files, as needed. This may include preparing official correspondence for 2DMAW commands for routing through the chain-of-command for review and signature.
Given the small size of the appellant’s subordinate workforce, the relative independence with which the CIG Chief works and responsibility for leading and guiding both military clerks, as well as the recurring nature of the tasks performed by the IG clerks not requiring a high demand of technical supervision, we conclude the appellant’s position does not spend at least 25 percent of his time “supervising” his three military subordinates. While we understand that during times of staff turnover the appellant may spend more than 10 percent of his time supervising new employees until they are fully trained, given the CIG Chief’s independence in performing his duties and providing assistance, direction, and oversight to military staff, this would not alter our conclusion that his position does not meet the 25 percent threshold.
As addressed above, the appellant’s position does not meet the GSSG coverage criteria for titling and evaluation as a supervisor. Since application of the “Deputy” title is intended only for supervisory positions covered by the GSSG which the appellant’s position does not meet, addition of the term “Deputy” to the official title of the appellant’s position is not permitted. Since no titles are specified for positions in the 1801 series, the agency may construct a title which appropriately describes the work performed. By extension, the “Official Titling Provisions” in the GS-1800 JFS clearly states organizational titles “complement” rather than replace a position’s official title. Therefore, in this case, the appellant’s organizational title may not include “Deputy” because it does not meet the GSSG’s coverage requirements and titling as a “Deputy.” Therefore, the agency must construct an appropriate organizational title for the appealed position and remove the term “Deputy” from the PD. Positions in the 1801 series are evaluated by application of the grading criteria in the 1800 JFS. Our evaluation of the grade of the position by application of the 1800 JFS grading criteria follows.
Grade determination
The 1800 JFS is written in the Factor Evaluation System (FES) format, which employs nine factors. Under the FES, each factor-level description 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 and equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency. Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some aspect 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 JFS.
The appellant disagrees with his agency’s assignment of Factor Level 1-7 for Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position, and Factor Level 3-4 for Factor 3, Guidelines. He does not dispute his agency’s assignment of Factor Level 2-5 for Factor 2, Supervisory Controls; Factor Level 4-4 for Factor 4, Complexity; Factor Level 5-4 for Factor 5, Scope and Effect; Factor Level 6-3 for Factor 6, Personal Contacts; Factor Level 7-D for Factor 7, Purpose Contacts; Factor Level 8-1 for Factor 8, Physical Demands; and Factor Level 9-1 for Factor 9, Work Environment. After careful review, we concur with the factor levels assigned by the agency for Factors 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and thus have not addressed them separately in the discussion below. However, we do not agree with the agency’s assignment of Level 2-5 for Factor 2, Supervisory Controls. Our evaluation with respect to Factors 1, 2 and 3 follows.
Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position
This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts an employee must understand to do acceptable work (e.g., steps, procedures, rules, policies, etc.) and the nature and extent of skills necessary to apply that knowledge.
At Level 1-7, the position requires knowledge of, and skill in applying, a wide range of complex inspection, investigation, enforcement, and/or compliance principles, concepts, and practices; criminal and case law precedents; administrative and legal procedures; requirements of various legal jurisdictions; a broad range of advanced investigative techniques, research methodologies, and statistical and financial analyses; and business practices common to regulated entities and parties sufficient to perform duties such as: coordinate investigative activities with Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials; conduct sophisticated surveillance; ensure criminal cases are supported by evidence; develop supportable cases for presentation and/or prosecution; conduct inspections and investigations where significant difficulties are encountered; select, adapt, and apply investigation and negotiation techniques; recognize and resolve discrepancies and/or inconsistencies among findings; obtain and/or reconstruct missing or withheld documents and information; overcome obstacles to gather and interpret evidence; collect and confirm information from a variety of sources and methods such as court records, databases, the Internet, newspapers, periodicals, and financial reports; and prescribe corrective action or remediation in difficult and complex work assignments.
At Level 1-8, the position requires mastery of, and skill in applying, laws and regulations to inspection, investigation, enforcement, and/or compliance work. At this level, work involves developing new techniques, legal processes and approaches, and requires mastery of advanced principles and concepts of a field sufficient to: develop agency-wide policies, procedures, and strategies; provide expert technical advice, guidance, and recommendations to agency management and other senior agents, officers, or inspectors on critical operations; make recommendations which change the interpretation of laws, lead to new case law decisions, or influence the development and modification of significant policies or programs; plan the requirements for, set up, and manage large-scale and/or multi-jurisdictional investigations where methods are subject to changing legal admissibility; collect and analyze operational and strategic intelligence from wide-ranging sources including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, military departments, foreign governments, financial institutions, and technology companies; develop new approaches in response to identified weaknesses and vulnerabilities of ongoing operations; or solve problems demanding technologically advanced methods and innovative approaches.
The appellant’s position meets Level 1-7. Like this level, the appellant uses knowledge of, and skill in applying requirements of legal jurisdictions sufficient to coordinate investigative activities or referrals of criminal cases with the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS). In addition, similar to Level 1-7, referrals of criminal cases to the NCIS must be supported by legal evidence. For instance, in the case of a military member who committed a criminal offense, the appellant provides factual information about the military member and alleged criminal offense committed (e.g., whether the offense is punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice) to support his referral. Comparable to Level 1-7, the appellant applies knowledge of legal procedures when coordinating with the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) prior to forwarding his findings and recommended corrective action to the CO regarding FWM, misconduct or other violations committed by the subordinate employee.
Similar to Level 1-7, the appellant uses knowledge of 2D MAW command administrative program procedures and policies to recognize and resolve discrepancies during his review of FACs findings and inspection report summaries. Comparable to Level 1-7, he applies advanced investigative and interview techniques to obtain and/or reconstruct missing information not gathered during the initial complaint intake but needed for the analysis of the investigation. Similar to Level 1-7, the appellant applies qualitative research methodologies such as Root Cause Analysis during inspections where significant difficulties are encountered including inspections presenting systemic issues or conditions that may lead to ineffective or non-compliance ratings. Like Level 1-7, the appellant applies CGIP inspection methods and grading criteria to evaluate 2D MAW commands for policy compliance, using the results obtained to request corrective active be taken by the inspected command when found in non-compliance.
The appellant’s position does not meet Level 1-8. He does not apply a mastery of, and skill in applying, laws and regulations to his inspection, investigation and/or compliance work. Unlike Level 1-8, the appellant does not develop agencywide (e.g., Marine Corps) policies, procedures, and strategies. Rather, the appellant develops standard operating procedures and guidelines, and in one case a Wing Order (i.e., 2D MAW Personal and Family Readiness), which apply specifically to the program and functions of the 2D MAW CIG. Furthermore, while the appellant reviews proposed changes to FACs, Wing Orders, directives and other policies pertaining to the mission of the office of the CIG, unlike Level 1-8, he does not make recommendations that change the interpretation of law, lead to new case law decisions, or influence the development and modification of significant policies and program. This responsibility falls on officials at higher echelon levels of the organization. Furthermore, unlike Level 1-8, the appellant does not plan the requirement for setting up and managing large-scale or multi-jurisdictional investigations where methods are subject to changing legal admissibility.
In contrast to Level 1-8, the appellant does not collect and analyze operational and strategic intelligence from wide-ranging sources including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, military department, foreign governments, financial institutions, and technology companies. The appellant’s role relating to operational and strategic intelligence is limited to assessing the functional area of IO for all 2D MAW commands through CGIs and providing related data to headquarter program managers as requested. Also, unlike Level 1-8, the appellant does not develop approaches in responding to identified weaknesses and vulnerabilities of ongoing operations. Rather, he requests COs take corrective actions to eliminate identified weaknesses and vulnerabilities in functional program areas. Furthermore, unlike Level 1-8, the appellant’s responsibilities do not extend to resolving problems demanding technologically advanced methods and innovative approaches.
This factor is evaluated at Level 1-7 and 1250 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 degree to which the work is reviewed by the supervisor.
At Level 2-4, the supervisor outlines overall objectives and available resources; discusses projects and timeframes with the employee; and determines the parameters of the employee’s responsibility. The employee determines the most appropriate avenues to pursue; decides the practices and methods to apply in all phases of assignments including the approach to take, and the depth and intensity needed; interprets policy and regulations and resolves most conflicts as they arise; coordinates projects or cases with others as necessary; and keeps the supervisor informed of progress and potentially controversial matters. The supervisor does not normally review the methods used but reviews completed work for soundness of overall approach; effectiveness in producing results; feasibility of recommendations; and adherence to requirements.
At Level 2-5, the supervisor provides general administrative direction for assignments in terms of broad program objectives and agency resources. The employee is responsible for a significant program, project, or investigation; independently plans, organizes, and carries out the work to be done; and analyzes objectives or interprets policies promulgated by senior authorities and determines their effect on the agency’s programs. The supervisor reviews the work for potential impact on broad agency policy objectives and program goals; usually evaluates the employee’s recommendations for new systems, methods, projects, or program emphases in light of the availability of funds and personnel, equipment capabilities, and agency priorities; and normally accepts work as technically authoritative and rarely makes changes to the employee’s work.
The appellant’s position meets Level 2-4. Like this level, he is responsible for independently determining the most appropriate work avenues to pursue for OIG programs and plans, directs, and executes the CGIP, the CIG Hotline Complaint Program, and facilitates the CG’s Request Mast process for the 2D MAW. He determines the appropriate IG practices and methods to apply for his assignments including developing inspection plans. He is also responsible for researching, coordinating and responding to CONGRINTS and SPLINTS directed to the 2D MAW CG or the CIG by the OLA for assistance, interest or action. He interprets policies and regulations and resolves conflicts as they arise, and coordinates with other staff and program offices as necessary. For example, while he is considered the SME on investigation-related matters he may coordinate with the SJA prior to forwarding his findings and recommended corrective actions to COs regarding FWM, misconduct or other violations found during investigations. Similar to Level 2-4, his work involves applying judgment in carrying out assignments and deciding the proper approach within parameters established by guidelines including CGIP and FWM program policies, IGMC policies, USMC HQ instruction and directives, and Federal laws and regulations. He keeps the supervisor informed on controversial matters.
The appellant’s position does not fully meet Level 2-5. While the appellant functions under only general administrative direction covering overall program matters, implicit at Level 2-5 is a degree of program management responsibility not found in the appellant’s position. Level 2-5 describes positions performing program work with the highest degree of independence within the context of broadly defined missions or functions of the agency. In contrast, while the appellant’s position exercises program management responsibilities in carrying out the specific programs of the CIG office, he is not responsible for a broad program or function requiring determining and designing the activities or tasks to be completed. For instance, as indicated in WGO 5041.2B dated June 3, 2020, the 2D MAW CG has delegated to the CIG responsibility for carrying out the principal operational functions of the CGIP within the 2D MAW. Ultimately the 2D MAW CG is responsible for the program including outlining the mission of the CIG. Therefore, the functional requirements of the CGIP and other IG programs managed by the CIG and the appellant are established and controlled by the 2D MAW CG or higher-level IG positions. Although the appellant exercises program responsibilities such as analyzing policies from higher-level IG organizations and determining the impact at the 2D MAW level, drafting and issuing standard operating procedures, providing program guidance, and analyzing data to identify trends, unlike Level 2-5 his work is not performed within the context of only a broadly defined, (i.e., general or not detailed) mission or function. His program tasks are performed within the framework, policies, procedures and controls established by the 2D MAW CG or higher- level IG agency guidelines.
While the appellant’s supervisor normally accepts his work as technically authoritative and rarely makes changes, in contrast to Level 2-5, the supervisor does not review work from the standpoint of only its potential impact on broad agency policy objectives, or evaluate his recommendations for new systems, methods, projects, or program emphases. That type of review covering broad agency-level work impacting policy objectives or recommendations addressing agency level initiatives is the responsibility of positions at higher-level program offices.
This factor is evaluated at Level 2-4 and 450 points are assigned.
Factor 3, Guidelines
This factor considers the nature of guidelines and the judgment needed to apply them.
At Level 3-4, employees use administrative policies and precedents which are applicable but stated in general terms. Guidelines for performing the work are scarce or of limited use. The employee uses initiative and resourcefulness in deviating from established methods to: address specific issues or problems; identify and research trends and patterns; develop new methods and criteria; or propose new policies and practices.
At Level 3-5, employees use as guidance basic legislation, judicial rulings, and broad policy statements which are often ambiguous and require extensive interpretation. There are frequently no comparable precedents to use as a guide. The employee uses considerable judgment and ingenuity to interpret the intent of new or revised guidance and develops policy, guidelines, and practices for specific areas of work.
The appellant’s position meets Level 3-4. Like this level, the appellant uses administrative policies and precedents which are applicable but stated in general terms. Such guidelines include Marine Corp Orders (MCOs), CGIP and FWM program policies, IGMC policies, USMC HQ directives, Request Mast rules and regulations, DON rules and regulations, SECNAV Instructions, hazing provisions from The Manual of Courts Martial, criminal case law precedents, AFDCB policies and objectives, and other administrative guidelines such as those from the NCIS, the Government Accounting Office and the National Audit Service. Like Level 3-4, guidelines for performing the work are of limited use because the guidelines, for example, do not cover the specific FWM complaint or allegation received for investigation. Thus, the appellant must select and adapt applicable policies and precedents to apply to each case. Similar to Level 3-4, the appellant uses initiative and resourcefulness in deviating from established methods to identify and research trends and patterns, particularly relating to the processes used when conducting targeted systemic inspections or proposing new policies and practices to the 2D MAW CG for the improvement and effectiveness of the CGIP and/or the request mast program processes.
The appellant’s position does not meet Level 3-5. Unlike this level, he works within established policy controls more specific than basic legislation, judicial rulings, and broad policy statements which are often ambiguous and require extensive interpretation. The appellant’s interpretive responsibility is limited to established laws, directives, policies, and MCOs, which are associated with and directly affect program operations and objectives of the 2D MAW and governing CIG policies and procedures. In contrast to Level 3-5, work precedents, although stated in general terms, are available and he is not responsible for developing and implementing agency level policies, guidelines, and practices, as expected at Level 3-5. Instead, this responsibility rests with higher level management within the agency. While the appellant develops standard operating procedures and guidelines, and in one case a Wing Order, indicative of Level 3-4 these are derived from existing laws, policies, and directives and are typically limited to matters handled by the CIG’s office.
This factor is evaluated at Level 3-4 and 450 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. & 7. Personal Contacts/Purpose of Contacts 6-3/7-D 280
8. Physical Demands 8-1 5
9. Work Environment 9-1 5
Total 2890
The total of 2890 points falls within the GS-12 grade level range (2755-3150) on the grade conversion table in the 1800 JFS.
Decision
The proper series and grade of the appellant’s position is GS-1801-12. Selection of an appropriate title is at the agency’s discretion.
[1] The appellant’s PD OF-8 indicates the organizational title assigned to the position is Deputy Command Inspector General (DCIG) and this title is used throughout the PD.