|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 28, 2013 14:52:46 GMT -5
If they disqualified you then this form should be on file with OPM. www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf62.pdfIf they did not disqualify you then they had two options. First do not fill the position (but your post indicated that they did) or use other vets to pass you over. Mind you, that if you have vet preference and are at position #2 or #3 and if there is a higher non vet at the #1 or #2 position then they do not have to do anything regarding your vet preference. The vet preference only pertains to them passing you over for a non vet. As a veteran preference eligible you are also allowed to ask the agency for the reason you did not get the job, I do not have the CFR reference handy but the agency has to give you an explanation. It could be that another veteran was chosen, that they took the #1 or #2 candidate and you were #3 candidate etc..
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 28, 2013 15:09:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Oct 28, 2013 15:27:33 GMT -5
The problem you are having is presuming that just because you made a cert you are in the top three for a particular city, that is not necessarily so. As an example SSA requests a cert for 100 cities, they will receive a list of the top 300 (or a few more) individuals that have at least one city on their GAL that is on the list. You have a score of 65 and are a veteran. Your GAL consists of city A and city B. The top three individuals on the cert for city A (all non-vets) have scores of 82, 77, and 66. You, even though you are a vet, never get considered for city A because you are not in the top 3 for city A. That is not a violation of veterans preference rules. The same thing can happen for city B. The more cities on the cert give SSA more of a chance to manipulate the list to reach who they want.
There were extensive discussions of this in previous years. I suggest you go back and read them.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 28, 2013 15:29:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dropduff on Oct 28, 2013 16:02:14 GMT -5
Thanks for the info, albeit depressing news.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 28, 2013 16:59:40 GMT -5
I still think the date for NORs has next to nothing to do with when ODAR will hire next.
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Oct 28, 2013 18:17:00 GMT -5
Hasn't this been the CW on here for a while in re: April May hiring?
|
|
|
Post by juno64 on Oct 28, 2013 20:15:42 GMT -5
This may be a dumb question for those who were selected in the past or are in the know - but what is a NOR score that gets you in the top three. Understand it is variable based on location - but any SWAG will do...
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 28, 2013 21:10:11 GMT -5
This may be a dumb question for those who were selected in the past or are in the know - but what is a NOR score that gets you in the top three. Understand it is variable based on location - but any SWAG will do... Max Score is 110 although it seems that the high scorers even with vet points are in the low to mid 80s. I have read on here that folks with 60s have gotten hired and those with low 80s have not been hired. If you try to figure it out you will come away saying that it is all a lottery.
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Oct 29, 2013 7:28:02 GMT -5
Hasn't this been the CW on here for a while in re: April May hiring? ThE referenced report says 3Q 2014 hiring. But I believe at least one or two registers will be pulled before then based on...a hunch bc of board comments and the case backlog
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 29, 2013 8:30:34 GMT -5
3Q of Fiscal Year 2014 starts in April 2014. Are you saying they are going to hire before then even though we do not have a budget after Jan 15? Thats really wishful thinking...
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Oct 29, 2013 9:13:08 GMT -5
Just something to think about. I looked at the fiscal year reports ODAR maintains (and no, they are not on public access). They are available going back many years but I started with 10/2007. At that time ODAR had 1,057 judges. By 10/2012 the number had increased to 1,530. As of 9/2013 it had dropped to 1,469. Have no idea what the optimal number of judges is, but they need at least 61 hires to bring the level back to 1530 and that does not count for any retirements. But as someone noted, hiring will all depend on the budget.
Here's the counts for those who are interested: 10/07--1,057; 10/08--1,178; 10/09--1,293; 10/10--1,399; 10/11--1,458; 10/12--1,530; 9/13--1,469.
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Oct 29, 2013 9:29:52 GMT -5
Just something to think about. I looked at the fiscal year reports ODAR maintains (and no, they are not on public access). They are available going back many years but I started with 10/2007. At that time ODAR had 1,057 judges. By 10/2012 the number had increased to 1,530. As of 9/2013 it had dropped to 1,469. Have no idea what the optimal number of judges is, but they need at least 61 hires to bring the level back to 1530 and that does not count for any retirements. But as someone noted, hiring will all depend on the budget. Here's the counts for those who are interested: 10/07--1,057; 10/08--1,178; 10/09--1,293; 10/10--1,399; 10/11--1,458; 10/12--1,530; 9/13--1,469. That seems to dovetail with the testimony of the acting commissioner, referenced above.
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Oct 29, 2013 9:48:52 GMT -5
3Q of Fiscal Year 2014 starts in April 2014. Are you saying they are going to hire before then even though we do not have a budget after Jan 15? Thats really wishful thinking... I do wishful think most of the time. I was under the mistaken impression that 3Q meant fall 2014. I stand by a January 2014 cert. (one) Who knows after that.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 29, 2013 10:03:07 GMT -5
Until the budget impasse is taken care of by Congress, there will likely to be no hiring in January absent a mass exodus of ALJs by January 2014, leading to a severe shortage of ALJs to make decisions and an inability to keep up with caseloads.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Oct 29, 2013 10:12:21 GMT -5
Can anyone "inside" confirm the mass exodus of ALJs at the beginning of 2014 due to retirement eligibility that keeps popping up on this board? Are a high percentage of ALJs beginning to clean out their offices at your location? Is there much talk at the water cooler of beaches, trout fishing, sitting at a slot machine all day, going to see the grandkids, senior discounts at the Picadilly, etc.? I can confirm at least 4 retirements in my office alone beginning Dec 2013 through May 2014. There is talk of 2 more. This is not uncommon at all, and I know of people in other cities who have the same thing happening. This is why I said many months ago that there will be a large number of retirements in 2014 since these folks have been waiting on the application of sick leave which as of 2014 will be 100%. I think this was known and why OPM wanted to have a large register in place in preparation. It bodes well for those in the current process. Timing is everything!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Oct 29, 2013 10:26:12 GMT -5
I can confirm at least 4 retirements in my office alone beginning Dec 2013 through May 2014. There is talk of 2 more. This is not uncommon at all, and I know of people in other cities who have the same thing happening. This is why I said many months ago that there will be a large number of retirements in 2014 since these folks have been waiting on the application of sick leave which as of 2014 will be 100%. I think this was known and why OPM wanted to have a large register in place in preparation. It bodes well for those in the current process. Timing is everything! Sounds good. Give them a certificate and a plaque, change the passcode, and keep the seat warm for me. I hear that! LOL! Heck I just wish we had some sort of mechanism in place to put at least one "preference" for our cities. I know that has never been done, but it would sure save a lot of money in relocation to keep people in the general area they want. Oh well, I will be thrilled to just have an opportunity to be an ALJ .... then again, at this point, just getting an NOR and a place on the register will make me happy!
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 29, 2013 10:43:50 GMT -5
juno's question is a compelling one. we all want to know 'what is the magic number?' and i agree with ssaogc's response - the answer is essentially unknowable with any certainty - too many variables. if you score in the 80s, you are likely to be in the ball park for competitive GALs. It didn't help me, and I'm a vet, but I still believe that based on the ALJs that I personally know, who were selected in the last two rounds. by variables, i essentially mean those who have wide open GALs. if alot of high scorers also have wide open GALs, it helps those who have narrow GALs. this allows maximum flexibility for ODAR "horse-trading," and I don't mean this in any improper or inappropriate sense. examples always help me and i am certain some of the keen minds on this board can come up with more illustrative examples, but here is my simplified illustration:
--ODAR has 1450 judges now with 200 retirements during CY 2013 (90 have already retired so far this year). With the application backlog expected to peak in FY 2016, ODAR looks to hire 250 ALJs in 3Q 2014 to bring them back up to 1500; with another 150 to be added in a later 2nd or 3rd round of hiring (FY 2015)? --there are 1000 aljs who make this new register, 200 of whom score in 80s or above, and 300 of whom score 60s and above. --of the top 200, half have wide-open GALs. --ODAR will fill 2 ALJ positions in each of the "top 20" cities, e.g., NY, SF, LA, DC, etc. (I realize that transfer list is a major issue here); the other 210 ALJ selections will go to "non-top 20" cities where 1 or more slots could be filled in each of the cities.
If half of the top 200 scorers with wide-open GALs get sent to "non-top 20" cities, the folks with the narrow GALs will only be competing against 100 competitors for 40 "slots." Of course, there are alot of "ifs" here, including, whether ODAR would skew the high scorers in this manner. But if they did, in order to "get at" other high scorers that they wanted or maybe even those with vet preference, it is certainly easy to do. this is also why it is theoretically possible for a 60s scorer with a narrow GAL to slip in. much depends, of course, on who else happened to pick that particular GAL. When you consider that some ahead of you will be chosen for other GALs; and some who scored higher than you simply did not choose one of your GALs, the odds can increase in your favor dramatically. On another thread, some of us put the odds somewhere around 1 in 3 or 1 in 5, for most folks, depending upon GAL selection. But as ssaogc noted, even a score in the 80s won't help much if you have a narrow GAL in very few popular cities.
I also think that several have already dropped out of the register pool and that there will be more to come. Some may have been selected for a Vet Law Judge or other professional position. Keep the faith!
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 30, 2013 6:36:51 GMT -5
have not read all posts but if you're on the list, you have a chance. If you have a score in the 80's, you have a better chance of getting picked up sooner. if it's a low score(and I'm not sure how low makes it, I know it was around 60 and maybe a little lower in the past), it could take a while, and more likely, a VERY long while, but don't give up hope. Agreed a narrow GAL can make it harder but I've know several ALJ's with small GAL's who got picked up and some got picked up quickly. Having a smaller GAL to me makes more sense than having a big GAL and ending up somewhere you don't want to as transferring offices can take YEARS depending on size of transfer list for where you want to be. Just my opinion on last point regarding size of GAL. Some have transferred to nearby offices rather than their first choice due to time needed to transfer to desired office so that is an option too. eg if you're from Chicago, better to get an into an office in Wisconsin or rural Illinois than stay in Anchorage for 10 years. However, I think once you transfer once, you may have to wait awhile before being allowed to transfer again. Not sure on last point. Maybe some judges could chime in.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Oct 30, 2013 7:31:17 GMT -5
If you have a score in the 80's, you have a better chance of getting picked up sooner. if it's a low score(and I'm not sure how low makes it, I know it was around 60 and maybe a little lower in the past) I think it bears repeating that all of the new variables can have a significant effect on the scoring range. I think 80s has been considered high in the past, and I'm not sure I've heard of scores in the 90s or 100s (with the maximum supposedly at 110). Certainly in the 70s was considered an "okay" score, and 50s - 60s were at the lower end. But, we have a longer application period, an additional "phase", and 2 additional "objectively" scored portions (SJT and LBMT). Depending on the weight of those and the somewhat altered nature of the applicant pool (much smaller percentage of ODAR insiders), for all we know, a 74 could be a "high" score - or, on the other hand, there could be a decent-sized group in the 90s. As a vet, I would prefer that the scores be lower, as the preference would count for more and give a greater advantage. However, I don't think we will have enough information on just what exactly constitutes a "good" score with this testing methodology until NORs come out and board members start sharing their details - at least in my humble opinion.
|
|