|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 14, 2014 16:51:59 GMT -5
I have seen a few references to IMSI, IMSJ, and IMWD in several posts now. I am thinking (not sure since this is the first time we have seen these), that it means "insufficient minimum" and then what part, i.e., WD (written demonstration), SJ (SJT earlier in the rounds), or SI (structured interview). Does this seem to be the case with those who have seen this? Perhaps this will be explained in the pending appeal email. Perhaps it will be helpful to others to correlate these codes.
|
|
|
|
Post by papresqr on Mar 14, 2014 17:08:31 GMT -5
I had IMWS so that could be insufficient minimum on the "W"D and "S"I, since I flunked both.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 14, 2014 17:16:49 GMT -5
I had IMWS so that could be insufficient minimum on the "W"D and "S"I, since I flunked both. Sent from my SCH-I535 using proboards Sounds like we could be cracking the code! Of course, this may all be moot as it may be explained in the next email. Or not.  |
|
|
|
Post by basileia on Mar 14, 2014 17:16:59 GMT -5
I have IMBL for my bar license disqualification.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 14, 2014 17:20:52 GMT -5
I have IMBL for my bar license disqualification. Didn't want to do a thumbs up...totally a thumbs down.  But there is a clear pattern to the coding. |
|
|
|
Post by haobuhao on Mar 14, 2014 18:50:36 GMT -5
Tango Uniform on the Whisky Delta. As Tigger might say Tango Tango Foxtrot November.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 14, 2014 19:21:23 GMT -5
Once you start parsing the minimum requirements, some OPM clerk is going to bounce you. I get that you folks met the minimum requirements insofar as the requirements of your job demanded that you be inactive, but then you get into the "clerk" issue that was well discussed here.
Lookit, this is a hard, rather brutal process. I have no doubt that those applicants who met the minimum standards deserve better than what OPM has dealt you. Believe me, as one who was unfairly rejected by OPM back in 2006, you have my sympathy. But you have to dust yourselves off, and face forward to another day. That's what we lawyers do.
However, I stand by my post in the technical denial thread. If you want to appeal and prove beyond any doubt that you met the minimum standards, go for it. As this Board has shown there have been many successes. But if it was me, I'd want to stack the deck.
|
|
But there is a clear pattern to the coding. 
