|
Post by JSteele on May 3, 2013 5:29:47 GMT -5
Sorry for posting this to more than one thread, but I just found this one... I can't believe it. I heard nothing on my application, and just last night, 5/1, I received a generic email (significant portion pasted below) saying that I do not meet the minimum qualifications due to failure to demonstrate seven years of experience. I have 25 years of experience, 22 of them at the U.S. Dept. of Justice. For the first 18 years, I was sole counsel in hundreds of federal cases, including a dozen federal appeals, and for the past four years have held a senior position in my Division. I detailed this in my application, with a description of the work I did, the number of cases I tried, settled, and the number of appeals in which I represented the government. I feel sick about this. I can't tell from the generic email why they thought my application was deficient - I gave dates, numbers, described my responsibilities... Is there anything I can do? Is there any way for me to find out why, specifically, they didn't think I met the requirement? The email said that I would receive another message about my appeal rights, which I haven't received yet. "At the time of your application submission, you did not describe your experience sufficiently to clear the preliminary qualification screening and/or your narrative did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that you completed the full seven years of qualifying experience. You must have quantified the time associated with any claimed experience in terms of the specific period during which the experience was acquired, including the month and year for the start and end dates (e.g., May 2006 1320 December 2006). In addition, if qualifying experience examples were provided that overlap with non-qualifying experience, you must have provided the percentage of time spent on each type of work." Hey dcflyer - as you may have read, none of us know specifically what we did and none of us have yet to get the appeal email, although our time clock for appealing is already ticking.
|
|
|
Post by srattorney on May 3, 2013 7:23:14 GMT -5
Sorry for posting this to more than one thread, but I just found this one... I can't believe it. I heard nothing on my application, and just last night, 5/1, I received a generic email (significant portion pasted below) saying that I do not meet the minimum qualifications due to failure to demonstrate seven years of experience. I have 25 years of experience, 22 of them at the U.S. Dept. of Justice. For the first 18 years, I was sole counsel in hundreds of federal cases, including a dozen federal appeals, and for the past four years have held a senior position in my Division. I detailed this in my application, with a description of the work I did, the number of cases I tried, settled, and the number of appeals in which I represented the government. I feel sick about this. I can't tell from the generic email why they thought my application was deficient - I gave dates, numbers, described my responsibilities... Is there anything I can do? Is there any way for me to find out why, specifically, they didn't think I met the requirement? The email said that I would receive another message about my appeal rights, which I haven't received yet. "At the time of your application submission, you did not describe your experience sufficiently to clear the preliminary qualification screening and/or your narrative did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that you completed the full seven years of qualifying experience. You must have quantified the time associated with any claimed experience in terms of the specific period during which the experience was acquired, including the month and year for the start and end dates (e.g., May 2006 1320 December 2006). In addition, if qualifying experience examples were provided that overlap with non-qualifying experience, you must have provided the percentage of time spent on each type of work." Hey dcflyer - as you may have read, none of us know specifically what we did and none of us have yet to get the appeal email, although our time clock for appealing is already ticking. I appreciate the levels of interjected confusion both OPM and self-imposed. However, given the generic nature of a lot of the OPM instruction and issuances, e.g., the NORs, I would not worry about the thirty-day appeal time until you get a letter specifically explaining the appeal process. However unlikey, those may even be tailored toward a recipient's application-specific issue.
|
|
|
Post by ruthvadi on May 3, 2013 7:29:28 GMT -5
Some states, such as Maryland, where I am barred, do not have bar numbers. I explained that thoroughly in my application but I suspect that is why I was rejected. So what are we supposed to do if the state in which we are barred does not have bar numbers?
|
|
|
Post by JSteele on May 3, 2013 7:49:26 GMT -5
Hey dcflyer - as you may have read, none of us know specifically what we did and none of us have yet to get the appeal email, although our time clock for appealing is already ticking. I appreciate the levels of interjected confusion both OPM and self-imposed. However, given the generic nature of a lot of the OPM instruction and ssueances, e.g., the NORs, I would not worry about the thirty-day appeal time until you get a letter specifically explaining the appeal process. However unlikey, those may even be tailored toward a recipient's applicantion-specific issue. I appreciate your optimism, but the directions on the job posting and all information I have been able to find online specifically state 30 days from the date of NOR, not from date of notification of appeal rights. As this agency is a creature of statute/regulations, I suspect they aren't going to expand the deadline simply because they are slow on the draw in emailing us. I find it very odd that the appeal rights were not included in the rejection email.
|
|
|
Post by srattorney on May 3, 2013 10:46:32 GMT -5
I appreciate the levels of interjected confusion both OPM and self-imposed. However, given the generic nature of a lot of the OPM instruction and ssueances, e.g., the NORs, I would not worry about the thirty-day appeal time until you get a letter specifically explaining the appeal process. However unlikey, those may even be tailored toward a recipient's applicantion-specific issue. I appreciate your optimism, but the directions on the job posting and all information I have been able to find online specifically state 30 days from the date of NOR, not from date of notification of appeal rights. As this agency is a creature of statute/regulations, I suspect they aren't going to expand the deadline simply because they are slow on the draw in emailing us. I find it very odd that the appeal rights were not included in the rejection email. Who knows? Given that the instructions were established prior to the start of festivities they (OPM) may well be incpable of coping with the unanticipated numbers, on each side of the line, in the normal course of doing things. Rumor has it that OPM had to bring in more HR people on contract to review the applications. Not that anyone in a rejected position should be comforted, but this was not an overly difficult application process. The appeal cannot expect "more" infomation than one submitted (or should have to be more precise) the first time. Just an explanation. What would be helpful is a clarification of the exact "error" in an application.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on May 3, 2013 11:34:11 GMT -5
I have not been on this board for a long time as I opted not to do the application this time. But some of the people who are still on the board will remember the NORs of 2007. My first rejection. Many of us received a similar email to the one described, except that the wording was something like: At the time of your application submission, you did not describe ... the length ... of your experience sufficiently to clear the preliminary qualification screening and/or your narrative did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that you completed the full seven years of qualifying experience. Okay, the tell-tale wording is "preliminary qualification screening" - that screening is done, not by junior high kids, but a computer. In our case, it meant that there was faulty information in the answers to the preliminary questions. In my case, it meant that in spite of the fact that everywhere on the application, I had indicated litigation experience of more than 20 years, I had answered the question - give the exact date and the state and license number where you first passed the bar - with just the name of the state and my license number. Many of us were in the exact same boat. We all lost our appeals.
|
|
|
Post by JSteele on May 3, 2013 12:01:31 GMT -5
I have not been on this board for a long time as I opted not to do the application this time. But some of the people who are still on the board will remember the NORs of 2007. My first rejection. Many of us received a similar email to the one described, except that the wording was something like: At the time of your application submission, you did not describe ... the length ... of your experience sufficiently to clear the preliminary qualification screening and/or your narrative did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that you completed the full seven years of qualifying experience. Okay, the tell-tale wording is "preliminary qualification screening" - that screening is done, not by junior high kids, but a computer. In our case, it meant that there was faulty information in the answers to the preliminary questions. In my case, it meant that in spite of the fact that everywhere on the application, I had indicated litigation experience of more than 20 years, I had answered the question - give the exact date and the state and license number where you first passed the bar - with just the name of the state and my license number. Many of us were in the exact same boat. We all lost our appeals. Thank you Tricia. There seems to be two types of rejection notices this go round. The one you mentioned in your post seems to be related only to a person's experience however there is a second type that states: "You did not provide sufficient licensure information to pass the preliminary qualification screening at the time of your application submission. Complete licensure information includes listing jurisdictions in which you are currently licensed to practice law, the date(s) of admission to the bar in each jurisdiction, and the bar license number in each jurisdiction (for those jurisdictions that confer such numbers)." At least they have narrowed it down to let you know where they believe you made an error. Seems like in your notification even though your error was in the licensure portion, the wording of the rejection made it seem like the error was in the experience portion.
|
|
|
Post by nschulth on May 3, 2013 21:38:41 GMT -5
I helped dozens of attorneys apply back in March. I'm a recovering trial lawyer (30+ years) who has built a second career writing complex federal applications for lawyers, SES candidates, senior military-to-federal people, former Presidential appointees, and others. On the federal nickel as a contractor, I even do agency executive candidate trainings, and performance evaluation trainings, onsite. For a time I worked as a contractor for a humongous federal agency reviewing and reporting on SES qualifications packages directly to senior HR officials.
In this case, there's no rhyme or reason why so many candidates are being rejected. While some might be faulted for minor technicalities, typically that data is not necessary to the conclusion that the candidate has more than the minimum amount of qualifying experience. Indeed, many of the rejectees hit every single note, and I am at a loss to point out anything at all that might have been done better. The rejections are plainly wrong. Many rejectees are state court judges with oodles of experience; that experience is clearly and cogently set forth in their applications.
I am preparing appeal letters on behalf of candidates who are too apoplectic to represent themselves in the appeals process. My phone is ringing off the hook with them; my email inbox is brimming with them. If one of you knows someone with expertise in this area who would be a good choice as local counsel (should I need to go that far), please ping me. I'd like to do a little networking. I am told this is not the first time a hugely ambitious federal hiring project has gone pear shaped.
|
|
|
Post by ruthvadi on May 3, 2013 22:02:05 GMT -5
The one I got stated: "At the time of your application submission, you did not describe your experience sufficiently to clear the preliminary qualification screening and/or your narrative did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that you completed the full seven years of qualifying experience. You must have quantified the time associated with any claimed experience in terms of the specific period during which the experience was acquired, including the month and year for the start and end dates (e.g., May 2006 – December 2006). In addition, if qualifying experience examples were provided that overlap with non-qualifying experience, you must have provided the percentage of time spent on each type of work."
So apparently it was not the licensure that was the problem. I got the appeal rights notice e-mail and went ahead and appealed.
|
|
|
Post by JSteele on May 4, 2013 5:20:05 GMT -5
I helped dozens of attorneys apply back in March. I'm a recovering trial lawyer (30+ years) who has built a second career writing complex federal applications for lawyers, SES candidates, senior military-to-federal people, former Presidential appointees, and others. On the federal nickel as a contractor, I even do agency executive candidate trainings, and performance evaluation trainings, onsite. For a time I worked as a contractor for a humongous federal agency reviewing and reporting on SES qualifications packages directly to senior HR officials. In this case, there's no rhyme or reason why so many candidates are being rejected. While some might be faulted for minor technicalities, typically that data is not necessary to the conclusion that the candidate has more than the minimum amount of qualifying experience. Indeed, many of the rejectees hit every single note, and I am at a loss to point out anything at all that might have been done better. The rejections are plainly wrong. Many rejectees are state court judges with oodles of experience; that experience is clearly and cogently set forth in their applications. I am preparing appeal letters on behalf of candidates who are too apoplectic to represent themselves in the appeals process. My phone is ringing off the hook with them; my email inbox is brimming with them. If one of you knows someone with expertise in this area who would be a good choice as local counsel (should I need to go that far), please ping me. I'd like to do a little networking. I am told this is not the first time a hugely ambitious federal hiring project has gone pear shaped. Well I wish I would have known you were around before I submitted my apparently defective application. I appreciate you providing your perspective that it doesn't seem like we the applicants did anything wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sahenderso on May 4, 2013 19:45:55 GMT -5
After checking my email hourly for weeks, I was away from my email on May 1 and May 2nd and I got the dreaded NOR rejection for the qualifying experience reasons. I am sick as I was sure I was qualified. I was a state ALJ doing due process hearings for unemployment appeals. We are subject to a Code of Judicial Conduct, rule on the admissibility of evidence,write decisions with fact findings, legal reasoning and order, etc etc. We virtually do everything a federal ALJ does but at the state level. Then I was also a staff attorney litigating for a state agency for 3 years. I do not understand. Perhaps someone could tell me. I will appeal but can anyone tell me why I would not be qualified? If anyone knows and is willing to review what I stated in my application, I would be happy to share the info in an attempt submit an effective appeal. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by sahenderso on May 4, 2013 20:02:53 GMT -5
Also, my rating was "3" -- whatever that means. Did people get "0" even though they had the requisite experience? Please share.
|
|
|
Post by lawgurrl on May 5, 2013 0:37:27 GMT -5
If you are IMQE, then your rating is 0. I'm working on my appeal e-mail and hoping that I am both humble and descriptive (albeit brief) enough to get my points across. I find it ironic that this process is telling me, basically, that 7+ years of performing the AA/SAA job does not qualify me to perform the job of Administrative Law Judge. I can hold rocket/docket hearings, write decisions, edit them, issue them, but not as an ALJ. Hey, fine.
|
|
|
Post by JSteele on May 5, 2013 6:53:57 GMT -5
Also, my rating was "3" -- whatever that means. Did people get "0" even though they had the requisite experience? Please share. I have searched my letters and I don't see a rating. Can you please specify where you saw a rating?
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on May 5, 2013 9:08:30 GMT -5
If you are IMQE, then your rating is 0. I'm working on my appeal e-mail and hoping that I am both humble and descriptive (albeit brief) enough to get my points across. I find it ironic that this process is telling me, basically, that 7+ years of performing the AA/SAA job does not qualify me to perform the job of Administrative Law Judge. I can hold rocket/docket hearings, write decisions, edit them, issue them, but not as an ALJ. Hey, fine. This is interesting. I was not aware that attorneys in the AA/SAA jobs could hold hearings or issue decisions other than fully favorable. Of course, it seems they are deeming people unqualified when they have been state ALJs holding full-scale contested evidentiary hearings, JAGs, etc., for 10 or 20 or 30 years. I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on May 5, 2013 15:04:51 GMT -5
The submissions are scored by low-GS minions somewhere in OPM Fed-land who have no clue what they are doing (unless things have changed since I went through the application process), They look for "buzzwords" and to see if there are any errors in the submissions. So - appeal, and re-submit!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on May 7, 2013 16:46:13 GMT -5
Some states, such as Maryland, where I am barred, do not have bar numbers. I explained that thoroughly in my application but I suspect that is why I was rejected. So what are we supposed to do if the state in which we are barred does not have bar numbers? I just joined this board just to answer your question. I too am licensed in the state of Maryland and was worried about the license question when I applied for the ALJ announcement. But, I did get through and just finished (well, almost finished) the second phase of this process. For the bar license question, I stated the month day and year I was licensed and that I was in good standing, fully licensed in the state of Maryland. I then stated explicitly that the state of Maryland does not issue bar license numbers; however, my good standing can easily be verified by contacting the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of the State of Maryland which is the official name of the Maryland bar. I then listed the bar's phone number and the website where you can check to see whether an attorney is licensed in good standing in the state of Maryland. I believe I also uploaded a screen shot of the bar's website page that showed my name, the date I was licensed, and that I was in good standing. The screen shot also had the date on it that I submitted my application. I knew going in that OPM did not ask for all of that, yet I gave it to them anyway because I did not want to take any chances. I hope that helps you. The only logical explanation is that some scorers read while others don't. Either that or there is an epidemic of typos and/or omissions.
|
|
|
Post by dcflyer on May 8, 2013 20:52:57 GMT -5
Regarding the time for an appeal, I received an email on 5/3 stating that I had 30 calendar days from the date of that email.
|
|