Appealing NOR on the experience issue

[srattorney]

Open to well-thought opinions here.  Thirty-three years experience in Administrative Law at the Federal level (litigation included).  Last ten years directly reviewing ALJ Medicare decisions.  Based upon the instructions for an appeal do you stick to what you have, explaining why it hits the criteria, which seems to be the tenor of the instruction, or add new information.  My thought is that my resume had it all, but maybe my answers to their questions were not as specific (I guess they never heard of the record as a whole).  would like to provide them with something cogent and not have to guess at what the reviewer thought was missing.


Edit Note by Pixie on 4/28/17: This thread discusses an appeal of a finding by OPM that the applicant did not meet the 7 year minimum requirement. We have since learned that if the application itself did not establish this requirement, no other documentation or explanation submitted on appeal will be considered. We have also learned that documents other than the application, such as the resume, will not be considered in establishing the 7 year minimum requirement. Only the application, in the section where the applicant is asked to describe her legal experience, will be considered initially or on appeal. Be careful here; OPM uses this as a tool to winnow the applicants. It is far easier to eliminate someone in round one than it is later in the process when the testing must be graded. And that is the goal of OPM: Eliminate as many applicants as early in the process as possible. Read the instructions and give them exactly what they ask for. Pixie

[71stretch]

I think you stick with the same information, but point out how what you gave them already shows you do meet the criteria, using the same phrases as the job description uses.

[srattorney]

Thanks I believe that is the correct approach.  I wouldn't really worry if I got booted at some subsequent level, but there are people from my office who I have mentored and others who could not put together a series of complete sentences if their lives depended upon it that have cleared this hurdle.  Guess I should be more of a BS artist, but just not my nature.  Also have see too many screwed up performances by human resources in the Feds too have too much faith in this review, but you have to do what's right for you.

[JSteele]

May 5, 2013 18:58:49 GMT -5 srattorney said:

Thanks I believe that is the correct approach.  I wouldn't really worry if I got booted at some subsequent level, but there are people from my office who I have mentored and others who could not put together a series of complete sentences if their lives depended upon it that have cleared this hurdle.  Guess I should be more of a BS artist, but just not my nature.  Also have see too many screwed up performances by human resources in the Feds too have too much faith in this review, but you have to do what's right for you.

srattorney - I too was under the mistaken impression that they would review the resumes as well as the USAJOBs application. I am going to overkill and restate with more specificity what is already in my resume. At this point it cannot hurt.

[71stretch]

May 6, 2013 5:21:28 GMT -5 JSteele said:

May 5, 2013 18:58:49 GMT -5 srattorney said:

Thanks I believe that is the correct approach.  I wouldn't really worry if I got booted at some subsequent level, but there are people from my office who I have mentored and others who could not put together a series of complete sentences if their lives depended upon it that have cleared this hurdle.  Guess I should be more of a BS artist, but just not my nature.  Also have see too many screwed up performances by human resources in the Feds too have too much faith in this review, but you have to do what's right for you.

srattorney - I too was under the mistaken impression that they would review the resumes as well as the USAJOBs application. I am going to overkill and restate with more specificity what is already in my resume. At this point it cannot hurt.

That makes sense as well. Use anything and everything you have already submitted to show that you meet the requirement.

[avril503]

I am keenly aware that getting to phase 2 was by chance. People with more experience than mine were declined - even judges! Go figure. I wanted to let folks know what was in my application in case it will help in the appeal process. It is probably identical to many of the folks who got NOR, but if it helps, here is my description.
I cannot find the location where I put my bar admission, but I thought I only put month and year. Maybe I added the actual date before I hit submit. On litigation experience, I have only 4 paragraphs, and the last two are single sentence. I say from month/year to the present I am working as criminal defense attorney. I say how many hours per week, all year round, and no other employment. I say how many cases per year, and how many trials on average per year. I summarize/estimate how many trials in total over those years. I list some of the more serious charges defended. I describe in second paragraph how I receive those cases - explain court appointment system, and explain how much I have billed the system to demonstrate it is full time. Then in third paragraph I describe charging entities, names of government agencies bringing charges and how they are brought. In fourth paragraph I threw in the appeals, appellate arguments, and neglect system cases I have handled.
I suspect being a criminal defense attorney is easy for any reviewer to recognize as litigation. More complicated, motion laden litigation may not have sounded like litigation to all reviewers.
After this information on litigation, I DID include information about those 13 competencies, just for overkill. I did long paragraphs on Decision Making through Self Management, though I ASSUME they never looked at all that.

[srattorney]

Thanks to all.  Have polished the original answers and explained away the date overlaps.  In my shop there are three divisions engaged in program-specific administrative review.  I have worked within all three, but noticed that my time lines, at face value, could leave the impression of working in two at once for example ending in August of year X in one division while starting August of year X  in another.  Explained that our transfers are based on pay periods which is something OPM should understand.   Not that it matters, but their explanation of one's failure to allocate time properly would have gotten bounced at most reputable levels of administrative review.  But, they have the hammer.  Again, thanks for the ideas and good luck to all.

[JSteele]

May 6, 2013 8:10:12 GMT -5 avril503 said:

I am keenly aware that getting to phase 2 was by chance. People with more experience than mine were declined - even judges! Go figure. I wanted to let folks know what was in my application in case it will help in the appeal process. It is probably identical to many of the folks who got NOR, but if it helps, here is my description.
I cannot find the location where I put my bar admission, but I thought I only put month and year. Maybe I added the actual date before I hit submit. On litigation experience, I have only 4 paragraphs, and the last two are single sentence. I say from month/year to the present I am working as criminal defense attorney. I say how many hours per week, all year round, and no other employment. I say how many cases per year, and how many trials on average per year. I summarize/estimate how many trials in total over those years. I list some of the more serious charges defended. I describe in second paragraph how I receive those cases - explain court appointment system, and explain how much I have billed the system to demonstrate it is full time. Then in third paragraph I describe charging entities, names of government agencies bringing charges and how they are brought. In fourth paragraph I threw in the appeals, appellate arguments, and neglect system cases I have handled.
I suspect being a criminal defense attorney is easy for any reviewer to recognize as litigation. More complicated, motion laden litigation may not have sounded like litigation to all reviewers.
After this information on litigation, I DID include information about those 13 competencies, just for overkill. I did long paragraphs on Decision Making through Self Management, though I ASSUME they never looked at all that.

Thank you for the information! I am a little concerned with being able to quantify my experience in as much detail as you have described. I represent a state agency in administrative hearings ranging from disability claims to termination of retirement benefits and anything in between. We don't really keep track of the number and types of cases we handle. Bascially 100% of my time for the past 8 years has been dealing with the administrative process in some fashion, whether it be trying to negotiate a settlement before, preparing for and participating in hearings, and then if appealed, representing the agency before Circuit Court, Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of my state (and all that entails such as filing briefs and participating in oral arguments). Anyone else work for a governmental agency? If so, how did you describe your experience and were you successful in getting to the next step? Again, thank you everyone for your input

[71stretch]

May 7, 2013 9:37:33 GMT -5 JSteele said:

May 6, 2013 8:10:12 GMT -5 avril503 said:

I am keenly aware that getting to phase 2 was by chance. People with more experience than mine were declined - even judges! Go figure. I wanted to let folks know what was in my application in case it will help in the appeal process. It is probably identical to many of the folks who got NOR, but if it helps, here is my description.
I cannot find the location where I put my bar admission, but I thought I only put month and year. Maybe I added the actual date before I hit submit. On litigation experience, I have only 4 paragraphs, and the last two are single sentence. I say from month/year to the present I am working as criminal defense attorney. I say how many hours per week, all year round, and no other employment. I say how many cases per year, and how many trials on average per year. I summarize/estimate how many trials in total over those years. I list some of the more serious charges defended. I describe in second paragraph how I receive those cases - explain court appointment system, and explain how much I have billed the system to demonstrate it is full time. Then in third paragraph I describe charging entities, names of government agencies bringing charges and how they are brought. In fourth paragraph I threw in the appeals, appellate arguments, and neglect system cases I have handled.
I suspect being a criminal defense attorney is easy for any reviewer to recognize as litigation. More complicated, motion laden litigation may not have sounded like litigation to all reviewers.
After this information on litigation, I DID include information about those 13 competencies, just for overkill. I did long paragraphs on Decision Making through Self Management, though I ASSUME they never looked at all that.

Thank you for the information! I am a little concerned with being able to quantify my experience in as much detail as you have described. I represent a state agency in administrative hearings ranging from disability claims to termination of retirement benefits and anything in between. We don't really keep track of the number and types of cases we handle. Bascially 100% of my time for the past 8 years has been dealing with the administrative process in some fashion, whether it be trying to negotiate a settlement before, preparing for and participating in hearings, and then if appealed, representing the agency before Circuit Court, Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of my state (and all that entails such as filing briefs and participating in oral arguments). Anyone else work for a governmental agency? If so, how did you describe your experience and were you successful in getting to the next step? Again, thank you everyone for your input

I do, and i was. Just restate it, using all the information you already provided, showing that you've been doing X things (list the various tasks, particularly the ones in the ALJ job description) 100 percent of the time for the last X years. I didn't use the phrase "100 percent of the time", but I described what I've done with my various agency jobs, making sure that I used the words and phrases that OPM did in the job description/announcement.

[JSteele]

May 7, 2013 10:10:12 GMT -5 71stretch said:

May 7, 2013 9:37:33 GMT -5 JSteele said:

Thank you for the information! I am a little concerned with being able to quantify my experience in as much detail as you have described. I represent a state agency in administrative hearings ranging from disability claims to termination of retirement benefits and anything in between. We don't really keep track of the number and types of cases we handle. Bascially 100% of my time for the past 8 years has been dealing with the administrative process in some fashion, whether it be trying to negotiate a settlement before, preparing for and participating in hearings, and then if appealed, representing the agency before Circuit Court, Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of my state (and all that entails such as filing briefs and participating in oral arguments). Anyone else work for a governmental agency? If so, how did you describe your experience and were you successful in getting to the next step? Again, thank you everyone for your input

I do, and i was. Just restate it, using all the information you already provided, showing that you've been doing X things (list the various tasks, particularly the ones in the ALJ job description) 100 percent of the time for the last X years. I didn't use the phrase "100 percent of the time", but I described what I've done with my various agency jobs, making sure that I used the words and phrases that OPM did in the job description/announcement.

Thanks observer53. Question for you and the board: I have worked at the same agency since 1996, as an attorney only since 2005. However, during my tenure prior to graduating law school my primary duties were to review decisions of the Hearing Officer to ensure compliance with applicable law and regulation; make recommendations to the Appeals Committee regarding disposition of administrative cases (who were the final adjudicators of a claim); draft Final Orders for the Appeals Committee signature; and attempt to settle disputes in lieu of having an administrative hearing. While this is not time as an attorney it does show lengthy experience in the administrative appeals process. Should I include for that reason or leave out in case it confuses the reviewer??

[bartleby]

Truthfully, if you have the minumums without it, why risk confusing the beast??

[71stretch]

May 7, 2013 14:39:31 GMT -5 JSteele said:

May 7, 2013 10:10:12 GMT -5 71stretch said:

I do, and i was. Just restate it, using all the information you already provided, showing that you've been doing X things (list the various tasks, particularly the ones in the ALJ job description) 100 percent of the time for the last X years. I didn't use the phrase "100 percent of the time", but I described what I've done with my various agency jobs, making sure that I used the words and phrases that OPM did in the job description/announcement.

Thanks observer53. Question for you and the board: I have worked at the same agency since 1996, as an attorney only since 2005. However, during my tenure prior to graduating law school my primary duties were to review decisions of the Hearing Officer to ensure compliance with applicable law and regulation; make recommendations to the Appeals Committee regarding disposition of administrative cases (who were the final adjudicators of a claim); draft Final Orders for the Appeals Committee signature; and attempt to settle disputes in lieu of having an administrative hearing. While this is not time as an attorney it does show lengthy experience in the administrative appeals process. Should I include for that reason or leave out in case it confuses the reviewer??

Did you put it on your original submission? If not, I would not include it now. If you did, then you can explain it as you did here, but you've got the seven years plus AS an attorney. I'm not sure they would count (or did count, if you included it before) anything before you passed the bar, even though it involved the administrative appeal process.

[JSteele]

May 7, 2013 15:03:53 GMT -5 71stretch said:

May 7, 2013 14:39:31 GMT -5 JSteele said:

Thanks observer53. Question for you and the board: I have worked at the same agency since 1996, as an attorney only since 2005. However, during my tenure prior to graduating law school my primary duties were to review decisions of the Hearing Officer to ensure compliance with applicable law and regulation; make recommendations to the Appeals Committee regarding disposition of administrative cases (who were the final adjudicators of a claim); draft Final Orders for the Appeals Committee signature; and attempt to settle disputes in lieu of having an administrative hearing. While this is not time as an attorney it does show lengthy experience in the administrative appeals process. Should I include for that reason or leave out in case it confuses the reviewer??

Did you put it on your original submission? If not, I would not include it now. If you did, then you can explain it as you did here, but you've got the seven years plus AS an attorney. I'm not sure they would count (or did count, if you included it before) anything before you passed the bar, even though it involved the administrative appeal process.

Yes it was included in my resume which I am convinced they used as TP and didn't look at at all. Ok thanks, I will omit then.

[hopefalj]

May 7, 2013 14:39:31 GMT -5 JSteele said:

May 7, 2013 10:10:12 GMT -5 71stretch said:

I do, and i was. Just restate it, using all the information you already provided, showing that you've been doing X things (list the various tasks, particularly the ones in the ALJ job description) 100 percent of the time for the last X years. I didn't use the phrase "100 percent of the time", but I described what I've done with my various agency jobs, making sure that I used the words and phrases that OPM did in the job description/announcement.

Thanks observer53. Question for you and the board: I have worked at the same agency since 1996, as an attorney only since 2005. However, during my tenure prior to graduating law school my primary duties were to review decisions of the Hearing Officer to ensure compliance with applicable law and regulation; make recommendations to the Appeals Committee regarding disposition of administrative cases (who were the final adjudicators of a claim); draft Final Orders for the Appeals Committee signature; and attempt to settle disputes in lieu of having an administrative hearing. While this is not time as an attorney it does show lengthy experience in the administrative appeals process. Should I include for that reason or leave out in case it confuses the reviewer??

My thoughts on that would be no. I would be leery of highlighting any job information that was not performed as an attorney. The announcement says you must have a full seven years experience as a licensed attorney. I would not give them the opportunity to become confused. They will quite possibly seize that opportunity. :-)

What I would try to do if I were you is restate your work experience provided on your résumé and your responses in terms of qualifying experience under the announcement with the applicable dates. I would not have guessed you were so close to the line in experience, but because of this, I would try to only describe qualifying experience. Obviously if half your job is non-qualifying experience, you'll have some trouble. But if it's a deminimis amount of NQ work, like giving presentations or something along those lines, I don't see the need to include it.

[JSteele]

May 7, 2013 15:16:51 GMT -5 hopefalj said:

May 7, 2013 14:39:31 GMT -5 JSteele said:

Thanks observer53. Question for you and the board: I have worked at the same agency since 1996, as an attorney only since 2005. However, during my tenure prior to graduating law school my primary duties were to review decisions of the Hearing Officer to ensure compliance with applicable law and regulation; make recommendations to the Appeals Committee regarding disposition of administrative cases (who were the final adjudicators of a claim); draft Final Orders for the Appeals Committee signature; and attempt to settle disputes in lieu of having an administrative hearing. While this is not time as an attorney it does show lengthy experience in the administrative appeals process. Should I include for that reason or leave out in case it confuses the reviewer??

My thoughts on that would be no. I would be leery of highlighting any job information that was not performed as an attorney. The announcement says you must have a full seven years experience as a licensed attorney. I would not give them the opportunity to become confused. They will quite possibly seize that opportunity. :-)

What I would try to do if I were you is restate your work experience provided on your résumé and your responses in terms of qualifying experience under the announcement with the applicable dates. I would not have guessed you were so close to the line in experience, but because of this, I would try to only describe qualifying experience. Obviously if half your job is non-qualifying experience, you'll have some trouble. But if it's a deminimis amount of NQ work, like giving presentations or something along those lines, I don't see the need to include it.

Thanks! Well I don't think I am that close to the line, it only requires 7 and I have 8. And since 2006 I also have been doing JAG work which requires me to represent the Commander before administrative boards. I would think between the two I would be fine.

[Deleted]

Jsteele, I have 14 years as a lawyer with 11 years of litigation, two years as SSA AA and one year that I did not work as a lawyer. I am being realistic and hoping I make it through just to get on the register. Given the competition for this position you and I are competing with a significant number of attorneys who have 20+ years of complex litigation experience and agency insiders who have the inside track. Just having the minimum qualifications allows you to apply but it would be a monumental effort to get on the register let alone get hired. So be realistic and know that you will have more opportunities to apply in the future if you do not get through on this round.

[hopefalj]

JSteele, I didn't mean to imply that you do not meet the qualifications. But unless you were licensed in March 2005, you didn't have 8 years of experience. If you got your license in the fall of 2005, then you're looking at less than 7.5 years licensed experience at the time of your application. To me, that's pretty close to the minimum amount of experience. I would definitely focus the appeal on your qualified experience to the exclusion of non-qualifying experience if possible given how close you are. For instance, if you were licensed in the fall 2005 and had 7.5 years of experience at the time of the application, having even 7% of your work counted as non-qualifying experience puts you below the 7-year mark (83.7 months instead of the requisite 84 months). Maybe they're not that detailed to go down to the fraction of the month, but it's not a chance I would be taking. I wish you the best of luck!

[Taylor20]

JSteele: I agree with exafjag and hopefalj, having only 8 (or 7.5) calendar years of post-licensure experience makes you closer to the cutoff line than you think. I think your decision to include pre-law-licensure non-qualifying activities in the litigation or admin law text boxes may have had the detrimental effect of just highlighting to OPM your lack of post-licensure qualifying experience and may have made you seem desperate to add everything up to 7. It might be fair to assume that OPM's thinking would be: (1) why would he list it in the text boxes if he doesn't expect us to add it to his sum of qualifying years, since all that matters in those boxes is qualifying experience, and (2) if he wants us to include pre-licensure non-qualifying experience, then he may not have the requisite qualifying time and he can't follow instructions very well. In your appeal, I would recommend simply apologizing for confusing the issue by including that pre-licensure non-qualifying time in the text boxes and try to convince them that: (1) you have at least 7 years of qualifying time, and (2) that you included sufficient information in the original text boxes to establish the 7+ years of qualifying time.

Hopefalj brings up a good and related point. Nobody did a poll on this, but I would think that very few applicates reported 100% of their post-licensure calendar years as qualifying. So, that too (if you did that), may look suspect.

Good luck to you.

[Taylor20]

applicates = applicants

[JSteele]

I was licensed in May 2005, so 8 years as of the time of my earlier comment, 2 months shy at the time of application, but either way, it's still over 7 years which is all that is required.

Exafjag - Understanding that other applicants with more experience may get the nod over me in the ultimate selection process, at this stage of the game that should be irrelevant. Further are they really going to do this kind of nit-pick fraction business? My job is to represent the agency in administrative actions. If I have to write a collection letter or help draft a statute, are they really going to ask me to give a percentage of time spent doing this? I couldn’t possibly do that. These other non-adm hearing duties are incidental and not my primary job and probably account for 1% of what I do.

Taylor20 – I didn’t include any non legal experience in my free form comments but of course it was included on my resume as part of my work history. However, I broke down each of my positions so it was clear to see my experience and time as a staff attorney vs. my experience and time in a non-attorney position.