Washington, DC

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

---

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


04/12/2022

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, 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 standard 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 PD to reflect our findings.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected PD and a Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken.  The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE), Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Deportation Officer, GS-1801-12, but he believes it should have a different title at a higher-grade level as a Detention and Deportation Officer, GS-1801-13/14.  The position is in the Lead Development Unit (LDU), Targeting Operations Division, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Williston, Vermont.  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 process conducted by 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 that decision solely by comparing his 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 and our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellant’s agency in classifying his position are not germane to the classification appeal process.  

Position information

The appellant and his second-level supervisor certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s official PD (number L00617).  However, our review disclosed inaccuracies in the appellant’s PD.  We find he does not obtain sworn testimony from individuals who are in the U.S. illegally, identify potential investigations, or provide guidance on planning and developing each case.  The appellant does not develop implementing procedures for new or modified policies.  Instead, he can provide suggestions regarding implementing agency policies in a “white paper” to upper management.  We also find the appellant provides guidance, not direction to LESC Law Enforcement Specialists (LES), Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) Special Agents (SA), and other Deportation Officers (DO) on their first LESC detail or in the field offices, in performing their duties.  This may include such matters as the legality of placing immigration detainers on U.S. citizens, or advice on the best method to locate potential violators when they lack addresses.  We find the appellant does not analyze intelligence reports or share data with the intelligence community. 

The focus of the appellant’s work involves gathering, researching, analyzing, weighing, and developing information to include in his Investigative Referrals (IR) to ERO field office investigators.  For instance, when an information “tip” received includes conflicting details, the appellant web-searches various databases for information to resolve the discrepancies.  Examples of information that may be found are home/business addresses, criminal history, motor vehicle information, telephone numbers, and deportation and entry/exit history.  He analyzes the volume of data collected to identify the pertinent facts.  This includes recognizing useful data, determining the critical information that resolves factual inconsistencies, and weighing the relevance of any infractions and potential penalties of immigration law committed by the subject for inclusion in IRs.  The data may also allow him to develop other avenues or lines of inquiry to research.  The appellant indirectly supports staff carrying out enforcement and removal investigations.  While he does not work at an operating ERO field office where specific actions on investigations are taken, the information he gathers, researches, and analyzes based on his knowledge of immigration laws and types and severity of violations, is a critical component contributing to the efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness of field investigations. 

We find the description under Factor 4 – Complexity, overstates the degree of complexity (thus assigning Factor Level 4-5) of the appellant’s work describing it as consisting of the most significant and complex issues in areas of changing and/or conflicting policy or program requirements.  On the contrary, the appellant’s work consists of developing information based on the individual facts and circumstances within the context of established program requirements.  We find the description for Factor 8 - Physical Demands, exceeds the actual physical demands of the position describing it as dangerous and physically demanding under arduous or hazardous conditions (Factor Level 8-3).  In contrast, the appellant’s work is mainly sedentary and normally performed sitting at a desk.  We also note the description for Factor 9 – Work Environment, overstates the work environment (thus assigning Factor Level 9-3) as being physically and mentally demanding and stressful.  However, the appellant states he regularly works in an office setting with adequate lighting, heating, and ventilation.  Therefore, the appellant’s official 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.

The LESC is a national enforcement operations facility administered by ICE.  The center provides timely immigration status, identity information, and assistance to local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies on illegal aliens suspected, arrested, or convicted of criminal activity.  The center operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Information in tips regarding illegal aliens in the U.S. are submitted daily to the LESC from the law enforcement community and the general public throughout the country.  Law enforcement personnel call the LESC and speak to a LES concerning illegal aliens encountered during daily enforcement activities.  The LES uses the provided information to complete a standardized form and emails it to the LES Supervisor and the LDU supervisors.  Members of the public with information concerning someone he/she believes is living and/or working illegally in the U.S. either call the HSI Tip Line or send an email to the ICE.gov web site.  HSI Analysts create typed documents from the tips to be referred to ERO and the documents are uploaded to the SharePoint intranet page for the LDU.

After a tip is assigned to the appellant, he first reviews the provided facts.  Because the subject of each tip is unique, he determines how best to proceed.  Depending upon the nature and complexity of the case, he analyzes data and information from database searches to develop the links to the individual’s alienage.  This analysis includes correlating the information and cross-checking from different data bases to determine the most accurate profile of the suspected illegal alien.  If the subject of the tip appears to have illegally entered the U.S., the appellant develops an IR.  All IRs include basic information such as the name; home address; work address, telephone number, and motor vehicle information if known; and a photograph of the potential illegal alien.  However, when the tip includes an incomplete or incorrect home address, he web-searches past addresses on record or associated with the subject, past or current utility accounts, any known telephone numbers, and open-source information (e.g., Facebook).  The appellant also web searches the subject’s neighborhood to determine if the home address is near a school or church.  Based on his knowledge of immigration laws and regulations, he analyzes the data and information collected to identify the pertinent facts.  If the illegal alien has violent criminal and/or immigration activity in his/her past, the appellant constructs a detailed timeline of the subject’s relevant criminal and immigration history.  The appellant’s work significantly contributes to the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations performed at the field office level.

The appellant uses various databases for his searches.  They include the U.S. Postal Service website (USPS.com) to confirm the existence of home/business addresses, TECS (an updated version of the Treasury Enforcement Communications System) to lookup criminal history, and Accurint, which allows advanced person searches by linking an individual with an address, motor vehicle, and telephone number.  Person Centric Query Service (PCQS) allows searches of up to 29 different databases, including Alien File (A-File), which shows pending applications for relief from deportation and entry/exit history.  After the appellant has completed the IR with all relevant information, he uploads it to the SharePoint intranet website for review by his immediate supervisor.  Once approved, the IR is placed in the SharePoint intranet box for the ERO field office whose area of responsibility includes the location in which the potential illegal alien is located.

Each DO at the LESC performs outreach functions to at least 1 of the 24 ERO field offices throughout the contiguous U.S.  The appellant provides support to the Los Angeles (large-size) and Detroit (mid-size) field offices and their sub-offices.  He checks in with his points-of-contact at each field office weekly to discuss any problems or issues.  For example, if a field office supervisor needs more access to the SharePoint intranet page for the field office, the appellant develops and forwards an access request to his second-level supervisor for approval.  As another example, field office staff inform the appellant of important information they believe should be included in IRs (e.g., knowing an illegal alien is wheelchair bound and being prepared when field office staff execute an arrest).  On an on-going basis, the appellant updates the number of arrests for the offices he supports by accessing the Enforce Alien Removal Module (EARM) database and retrieving data for the Los Angeles and Detroit field and sub-offices.

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, we have incorporated by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his second-level supervisor.  We did not interview the appellant’s immediate supervisor because she has occupied her position less than one year (i.e., since March 2021), and thus lacks sufficient knowledge of the work performed by the appellant during the period of this appeal. 

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency has classified the appellant’s position in the General Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Series, 1801.  Because there are no titles specified for positions in the 1801 series, the agency assigned the title of DO and evaluated it by application of the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Administrative Work in the Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Group, 1800.  The appellant does not disagree with his agency’s determination of the position’s series nor its use of the grading criteria in the 1800 JFS, and we concur.  However, he disagrees with his agency’s titling believing Detention and Deportation Officer is more descriptive of the work he performs.

The 1801 series covers positions which supervise, lead, or perform inspection, investigation, enforcement, or compliance work.  This series is applicable when the work of the position:  (1) is covered by two or more administrative occupations in the 1800 group and no one occupation predominates; or (2) is consistent with this occupational group but not covered by an established series in the 1800 group.  This group includes all classes of positions the duties of which are to advise on, administer, supervise, or perform inspection, investigation, enforcement, or compliance work primarily concerned with alleged or suspected offenses against the laws of the United States, or such work primarily concerned with determining compliance with laws and regulations. 

Our fact-finding supports placement of the appellant’s position in the 1801 series.  Like that series, the position performs work that is consistent with the 1800 occupational group but not covered by an established series in the group.  As stated previously, the investigative subject of each tip is unique, requiring the appellant to determine how best to proceed.  In conducting research, he develops links to the individual’s alienage by analyzing volumes of data and information collected from database searches to identify pertinent facts.  This includes determining the critical information that resolves factual inconsistencies, identifying what is applicable, and assessing its relevance to the case at hand.  He weighs the importance of any infractions of immigration laws committed by subjects for inclusion in the IRs.  While the appellant does not directly support ERO investigative staff because his position is not located at an operating ERO field office, he functions as a conduit between the law enforcement community/general public and field office staff.  As such the incumbent provides IRs to field offices developed from information provided in tips from law enforcement and the general public.  The IRs contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations performed at the field office level by aiding in the apprehension and future prosecution of illegal aliens.

We also considered classifying the appellant’s position in the Investigative Analysis Series, 1805.  This series includes positions that supervise, lead, or perform work involving the research, analysis, and/or evaluation of information to assist investigators in ongoing investigations.  The work includes formulating information source search strategies and reviewing data to identify patterns and relationships across financial, criminal, public record, and other information.  However, we found the appellant does not perform the full scope of typical functions done by Investigative Analysts.  Similar to 1805 positions, the appellant applies knowledge of Federal laws and regulations relevant to the work being performed and techniques and methods to locate, sort, and evaluate information from a variety of sources to develop subject profiles.  However, unlike 1805 positions he does not produce and disseminate investigative reports nor work closely with investigators to develop trend analyses.  As previously discussed, the appellant researches and correlates data and analyzes the results, disseminating information to the appropriate ERO field office which contributes to the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations leading to arrests and future prosecutions.  Based on the preceding discussion, the appellant’s position is properly classified in the 1801 series.  Because there are no titles specified for positions in the 1801 series, the agency may construct a title which appropriately describes the work in accordance with the titling instructions in the Introduction.  Positions in the 1801 series are evaluated by application of the grading criteria in the 1800 JFS which we have applied below. 

The grading rationale provided by the appellant relies on the direct application of the Primary Standard (PS) to five of the disputed factors.  The PS is the “standard-for-standards” which serves as the basic tool for maintaining alignment across occupations by ensuring grading criteria in position classification standards (PCS) for specific occupations are consistent.  As indicated in The Classifier’s Handbook and the Introduction, the PS may be used when a factor in an individual position fails to meet the lowest or significantly exceeds the highest factor level defined in a specific Factor Evaluation System (FES) occupational standard.  However, the PS must be applied in combination with or supplemented by published FES PCSs and JFS’ in order to assure that the work being evaluated is considered in an appropriate context.  In the appellant’s case, the factor levels described in the 1800 JFS grading criteria are sufficient to accurately evaluate the grade of his position.  Therefore, application of the grading criteria in the PS is not warranted. 

Grade determination

The 1800 JFS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level description in the JFS describes the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  Therefore, if a position fails to meet the criteria in a factor-level description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a lower level, unless an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency.  Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some aspects and still not be credited at a higher level.  Each factor level has a corresponding point value.  The total points assigned are converted to a grade by use of the grade conversion table in the 1800 JFS.

Factor 1, Knowledge required by the position

This factor measures the nature and extent of information or facts that a worker must understand to do acceptable work and the extent of the skills needed to apply this knowledge.  To be used as a basis for selecting a level under this factor, knowledge must be required and applied.

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; and a broad range of advanced research methodologies.  This knowledge is 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.  This knowledge is 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.

Level 1-7 is met.  Similar to this level, while the appellant’s duties do not include the conduct of actual investigations, he applies knowledge of investigative techniques and relevant immigration laws to identify and gather information, focus his research, and analyze key information needed by investigators in 24 ERO field offices to conduct a wide range of investigations of illegal aliens including possible criminal activities.  He uses knowledge of and skill in applying a variety of immigration and criminal laws, legal codes, executive orders, and other Federal, State, and local regulations to gather information on alien subjects which contributes to supporting evidence developed by investigators.  His IRs specifically provide data and information to field office investigations of those who appear to be illegally in the U.S., and aid in follow up investigations and apprehensions of subjects.  When the appellant is assigned to review tips concerning claims of U.S. citizenship made on behalf of incarcerated individuals, he also uses knowledge of nationality laws to determine if there is evidence linking the individuals to U.S. citizenship.  This is especially important if the subject has an active immigration detainer placed on him or her and is subject to deportation.  He exercises skill in collecting, consolidating, evaluating, and analyzing data from various Government-run data bases, websites, and open-source information sites.  He analyzes the data collected to identify pertinent facts, resolve factual inconsistencies, determine relevant information, recognize useful data, and weigh the relevance of any infractions of immigration law committed by the subjects for inclusion in IRs.  The data may also allow him to develop new approaches, other avenues, or lines of inquiry to research missing information and overcome obstacles to resolve inconclusive facts and discrepancies and/or inconsistencies in the information provided in tips.  The appellant coordinates with Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials to obtain the appropriate information to show a potential illegal alien’s criminal history in an IR.  He provides guidance to LESC LES’, HSI SAs, and other DOs on their first LESC detail or in the field offices, concerning performing their duties in accordance with current ICE regulations, policies, and priorities.  On occasion, the appellant has developed white papers suggesting changes to existing operations to higher-level supervisors.  For example, he recommended the LDU co-locate DOs to underperforming ERO field offices to collaborate with the field office supervisors in meeting the Division’s mission, which is under consideration.

Level 1-8 is not met.  This level reflects a mastery of and skill in applying laws and regulations to perform investigative work.  However, the appellant’s work does not require the range and level of knowledge of investigative techniques and policies typical of Level 1-8.  Although like Level 1-7 he independently determines the processes and approaches to use to complete his work, in contrast to Level 1-8 he does not develop agencywide policies, procedures, and strategies nor solve problems demanding technologically advanced methods and innovative approaches.  The IRs and claims of U.S. citizenship investigations performed by the appellant are complex and typically concern the subject of a tip but are not comprehensive enough to require the planning, setting up, and managing of large-scale or multi-jurisdictional investigations.  He occasionally suggests changes to existing operations, but his recommendations do not change the interpretation of laws, lead to new case law, or influence the development and modification of policies or programs.

This factor is credited at Level 1-7 and 1250 points are assigned.

Factor 2, Supervisory controls

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

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 emphasis 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.

Level 2-4 is met.  Like this level, the supervisor sets the overall objectives and resources available, particularly when developing IRs.  The appellant is responsible for independently planning and establishing the immigration status of potential illegal aliens and determining the approach to be taken and methodology to be used.  He interprets policy and regulations and resolves most conflicts as they arise, coordinates cases with others as necessary, and keeps his supervisor informed of progress and potentially controversial matters.  Like Level 2-4, his immediate supervisor reviews completed work for soundness of overall approach, effectiveness in producing results, and adherence to requirements.

Level 2-5 is not met.  This level reflects work performed with only administrative supervision under a full delegation of technical authority.  This level of authority is typically accompanied by exclusive responsibility for a significant program or function.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s position is neither delegated full technical authority nor responsible for a significant program.  Unlike Level 2-5, the appellant discusses work goals and objectives with his immediate supervisor or other higher-level official.  In contrast to Level 2-5, his immediate supervisor or other higher-level official maintains program control and guidance and reviews the appellant’s work more closely including for soundness of approach and effectiveness in meeting results, rather than just for determining its potential impact on broad agency policy objectives.

 This factor is credited at Level 2-4 and 450 points are assigned.

 Factor 3, Guidelines

 This factor covers the nature of guidelines and the judgment needed to apply them.

 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.

Level 3-4 is met.  Similar to this level, the appellant uses program directives, policies and precedents that are stated in general terms such as guidelines in Immigration Law Handbooks, legal and procedural precedents, Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 of the U.S. Code, ICE policies and procedures, and other Federal laws, rules, and regulations.  Each immigration status case is different and varied and guidelines are not always applicable.  The appellant overcomes obstacles in establishing facts using initiative and resourcefulness, sometimes deviating from established methods.  For instance, witnesses may be uncooperative or been intimidated or there may be conflicting information in tips received from various sources.  To resolve such matters he analyzes web search data collected from numerous sources to identify pertinent facts, clear up factual inconsistencies, determine relevant information, recognize useful data, and weigh the relevance of any infractions of immigration laws committed by the subjects for inclusion in IRs.  Similar to Level 3-4, interpretation of evidence is difficult when individual facts are inconclusive and must be linked with other information to establish immigration status.  

Level 3-5 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant does not use guidance consisting of basic legislation, judicial rulings, and broad agency statements, which require extensive interpretation.  In contrast to Level 3-5, the appellant does not use considerable judgment and ingenuity to interpret the intent of new or revised guidance, nor does he develop policies, guidelines and practices specific to his work.  Such guidelines are typically originated, developed, and issued by staff at ICE headquarters. 

This factor is credited at Level 3-4 and 450 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Complexity

This factor covers the nature, number, variety, and intricacy of tasks, steps, processes, or methods in the work performed; the difficulty in identifying what needs to be done; and the difficulty and originality involved in performing the work.

At Level 4-4, work consists of a variety of assignments involving many different and unrelated procedures to resolve situations and problems.  The employee analyzes data from a variety of sources, considering the impact, interrelationships, and complex patterns; confirms the accuracy and authenticity of information, and resolves issues of contradictory, missing, or inconclusive data; or resolves unusually complex jurisdictional issues through extensive coordination efforts.  The employee exercises judgment in planning and prioritizing the sequence, direction, and progress of the work.  The employee must evaluate and interpret information from various sources and vary the approach to each assignment by adapting established practices and precedents.

At Level 4-5, work consists of the most significant and complex issues in areas of changing and/or conflicting policy or program requirements.  The employee makes decisions and recommendations in situations complicated by uncertainty in approach, methodology, and/or interpretation due to extreme sensitivity (e.g., subjects of an investigation may be well-recognized, high profile individuals or organizations); the existence of few or no precedents to follow; significant unresolved legal or regulatory issues; intense and widespread public, media, or congressional interest; emerging and innovative methods and patterns of non-compliant or criminal activity; sophistication of networks involved; and/or issues of multi-jurisdictional authority.  The employee must develop innovative strategies, approaches, or methods to serve as precedents or models for similar situations in the future.

Level 4-4 is met.  Like this level, the appellant conducts comprehensive research and analysis of a wide range of data for a variety of cases.  He collects, organizes, and analyzes information from various government-run databases, websites, and open-source information sites.  He confirms the accuracy and authenticity of the information and resolves contradictory or inconclusive data.  The focus of the appellant’s work is to assist law enforcement personnel in the ERO field offices by providing them information contributing to the effectiveness and efficiency of their investigations concerning subjects who appear to have illegally entered the U.S.  The information can be used in conjunction with other data to support a warrant, search, or arrest.  His work consists of various assignments involving unrelated processes requiring he determine the subject’s correct identity and immigration status.  He selects the appropriate analytical methods and data bases, extracts and interprets the compiled data and creates supportable conclusions, which includes identifying potential risks to law enforcement or the general public when illegal activity is associated with the subject (e.g., gang member affiliation or illegal weapons violations).  Like this level, he exercises judgment in planning and prioritizing the sequence, direction, and progress of the work, which results in producing documents such as IRs and Record of Investigation – U.S. Citizen Claims.

Level 4-5 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s work does not consist of the most significant and complex issues concerning changing or conflicting policy or program requirements.  He does not make decisions and recommendations in situations complicated by uncertainty in approach, methodology, or interpretation due to such things as the existence of few or no precedents to follow, significant unresolved legal or regulatory issues, sophistication of networks involved, or issues of multi-jurisdictional authority.  The appellant also does not develop innovative strategies, approaches, or methods to serve as precedents or models for similar future situations.  These functions are performed by higher-level agency officials.  At times the appellant’s work involves a high visibility subject, but these cases are not regular and recurring, which is needed for assignment of this level.  In contrast to Level 4-5, he does not develop new methods for each case.  The approach used may be altered based on the circumstances surrounding the subject, but the circumstances are not so unique that they require a new set of strategies each time.

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

Factor 5, Scope and effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of the work, and the effect of the work products or services both within and outside the organization.

At Level 5-4, work involves planning and conducting multi-agency, multi-state, or international studies, reviews, or investigations; developing operational criteria, plans, and bulletins; or investigating or analyzing a variety of unusual situations.  Work efforts result in the disruption of large-scale organized illegal activity and/or in changes to business practices or procedures promoting the health, safety, or fair treatment of a large group or whole class of people.  Work may also result in improved planning and operational aspects of agency programs.

At Level 5-5, work involves planning, organizing, and performing assignments addressing the most complex problems or initiatives crossing a range of program areas.  Work efforts result in the detection and resolution of threats or challenges to the well-being of substantial numbers of people, cause changes in business practices of large important institutions, or serve as the basis for changes in the direction of major agency initiatives or in longstanding agency practices.

Level 5-4 is met.  Similar to this level, the appellant independently develops IRs by researching a variety of multi-agency, multi-state, and commercial data bases.  He keeps abreast of new search and retrieval techniques, and analytical software unique to the intelligence and investigation community.  For example, the Accurint data base includes training and webinars concerning the latest search techniques.  He adapts each search to the specific information provided by the informant and the details uncovered surrounding the potential illegal alien.  When a subject is found to have a history of violent criminal activity, the appellant analyzes the facts and determines the potential threat the subject may pose to law enforcement officers in the field.  He highlights the criminal activity and creates a timeline with pertinent facts in the IR, enabling field office staff to know what they may encounter when arresting the subject.  Like Level 5-4, the appellant’s work affects the outcome of criminal investigations, helps to narrow investigative leads, and ultimately results in the arrest and future removal of those subjects found to have illegally entered the U.S.

Level 5-5 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s work does not involve planning, organizing, and performing assignments addressing the most complex problems or initiatives encompassing a range of program areas.  His work does not result in the detection and resolution of threats or challenges to the well-being of substantial numbers of people, cause changes in business practices of large important institutions, or serve as the basis for changes in the direction of major agency initiatives or in longstanding agency practices.  Instead, his work focuses on gathering, researching, analyzing, weighing, and developing information to include in case-specific IRs, which contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations performed at the field office level to apprehend illegal aliens.

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

Factors 6 and 7, Personal contacts and Purpose of contacts

Personal contacts include face-to-face and telephone contacts with persons not in the supervisory chain.  Levels described under this factor are based on what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with those contacted, and the setting in which the contact takes place.  These factors are interdependent.  The same contacts selected for crediting Factor 6 must be used to evaluate Factor 7.  The appropriate level for personal contacts and the corresponding level for purpose of contacts are determined by applying the point assignment chart for Factors 6 and 7 in the JFS.

            Personal contacts

At Level 3, contacts are with individuals or groups from outside the agency in moderately unstructured settings and on a non-routine basis.  The extent of each contact is different.  Typical contacts are with investigators from other agencies, district attorneys, witnesses, informants, claimants, public interest groups, and the news media.

At Level 4, contacts are with high-ranking officials outside the agency at national or international levels in highly unstructured settings (e.g., officials may be relatively inaccessible or each contact may be conducted under different ground rules).  Typical contacts are with members of Congress, leading representatives of foreign governments, presidents of large national or international firms and organizations, State governors, mayors of large cities, or nationally recognized representatives of the news media.

Level 3 is met.  Like this level, the appellant’s regular and recurring contacts include informants, the general public, Federal Bureau of Investigations personnel, State and local law enforcement personnel throughout the U.S., and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.  The contacts are established on a non-routine basis and may take place in a variety of settings.

Level 4 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant is not regularly in contact with high-ranking officials outside the agency at national or international levels such as members of Congress, high-level foreign government representatives, State governors, or equivalent contacts in highly unstructured settings as expected at Level 4.

            Purpose of contacts

At Level C, the purpose of contacts is to influence, persuade, interrogate, or control people or groups.  The people contacted may be fearful, skeptical, uncooperative, or dangerous.  Therefore, the employee must be skilled at approaching the individual or group to obtain the desired effect, such as gaining compliance with established policies and regulations by persuasion or negotiation, or gaining information by establishing rapport with a suspicious informant. 

At Level D, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, negotiate, or settle matters involving significant or controversial issues and/or problems.  Work at this level usually involves active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations about problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance.  Persons contacted typically have diverse viewpoints, goals, or objectives which require the employee to achieve a common understanding of the problem and a satisfactory solution by convincing them, arriving at a compromise, or developing suitable alternatives.

Level C is met.  Like this level, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts includes persuading informants to provide needed details concerning potential illegal aliens.  For example, a member of the general public may call the HSI Tip Line, but when the appellant determines the facts provided are insufficient, he clarifies and/or requests additional information.  At times the individual contacted may be fearful or uncooperative, so the appellant uses his skills in approaching the informant and establishing a rapport to gain the needed facts.

Level D is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s contacts are not to justify, defend, negotiate, or settle matters involving significant or controversial issues or problems.  His work does not involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations about problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance.  These matters are handled by higher-level managers within the agency. 

The combined factors are credited at Level 3C and 180 points assigned. 

Factor 8, Physical demands

This factor covers the requirements and physical demands placed on the employee by the work assignment.  The agency assigned Level 8-3 in their July 8, 2013, official position evaluation summary.  

At Level 8-1, the work is mainly sedentary, but may require some travel, walking, bending, and carrying lightweight items, such as briefcases, notebooks, and work papers.  In addition to duties normally performed sitting at a desk, the work involves occasional visits to industrial, commercial, construction, agricultural, and other business establishments. 

At Level 8-2, the work requires long periods of standing. and recurring stooping and bending.  ` Work can require frequent and recurring surveillance in which there is a considerable amount of walking, stooping, bending, and climbing.  The employee may be required to remain in one location for many hours without relief.  The work may also include frequent lifting of moderately heavy objects such as luggage or boxes in cargo containers. 

At Level 8-3. the work requires considerable and strenuous physical exertion, such as long periods of standing, walking, and running over rough, rocky, uneven, and hazardous terrain; crawling in restrictive areas such as culverts; climbing fences, walls, and freight train ladders; and driving all-terrain vehicles cross country and over rough terrain.  Employees must also be prepared to protect themselves or others from physical attacks at any time and without warning, and to use firearms, as required by the position, only as a last resort.   

Level 8-1 is met.  Like this level the appellant’s work is mainly sedentary, but may require some walking, bending, and carrying lightweight items including notebooks and work papers.

Level 8-2 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s work does not involve long periods of standing and recurring stooping and bending, or frequent lifting of moderately heavy objects such as luggage or boxes in cargo containers. 

Since the position does not meet Level 8-2, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to address Factor Level 8-3 further in this decision.

This factor is credited at Level 8-1 and 5 points are assigned.

Factor 9, Work environment

This factor considers the risks and discomforts in the employee’s physical surroundings.  Although safety regulations and techniques can reduce or eliminate some discomfort and dangers, they typically place additional demands upon the employee.  The agency assigned Level 9-3 in their July 8, 2013, official position evaluation summary. 

At Level 9-1, the work area is usually an office setting with adequate lighting, heating, and ventilation.  The work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts requiring normal safety precautions.

At Level 9-2, the work involves moderate risks and requires special safety precautions or protective clothing or gear.  It is mostly performed in settings such as outdoors, on land or at sea, in all types of weather; at dockside or on-board aerial or surface patrol craft; at ports of entry or cold storage facilities and warehouses.  The work involves exposure to conditions such as moderate discomfort, high noise levels, dust, auto and aircraft exhaust, or adverse weather; contagious diseases, hazardous chemicals or potentially dangerous machinery or equipment; or areas with high crime rates.   

At Level 9-3. the work involves high risk of exposure to potentially dangerous and stressful situations such as high-speed vehicle pursuits or boarding moving trains and vessels; involvement in physical altercations or the use of lethal weapons while attempting to arrest suspects; assignments alternating between extremely cold, mountainous terrain and extremely hot, arid deserts; or risk of falling from rooftops, or exposure to fires, explosions, and noxious gases. 

Level 9-1 is met.  Like this level, the appellant works in an office setting with adequate heating and ventilation.  The work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts.  Normal safety precautions are required.

Level 9-2 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s work does not involve moderate risks or require special safety precautions, protective clothing, or gear.  His work is not performed in the settings or under the exposure conditions described at this level. 

Since the position does not meet Level 9-2, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to address Factor Level 9-3 further in this decision.

This factor is credited at Level 9-1 and 5 points are assigned.

Summary

Factors	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	3c	180
8. Physical demands	8-1	5
9. Work environment	9-1	5
Total		2,790

The total of 2790 points falls within the GS-12 point-range (2755-3150) on the grade conversion table in the 1800 JFS.  Therefore, the appellant’s position is properly graded at the GS-12 level.

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.

 

Back to Top