|
Post by gary on Jul 28, 2016 15:46:56 GMT -5
I have a procedural question. A 10-point veteran submitted an application under the open ALJ job announcement. The veteran was notified that he did not meet minimum qualifications (missing a document), and he was given appeal rights. Can that veteran elect not to file an appeal, and instead, file a new application under the provisions of 5 CFR 332.311 which allows a 10-point vet to open the ALJ exam at any time? Yes. See www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/#url=10-Point-Preference-Eligibles
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Jul 29, 2016 20:38:29 GMT -5
I did not know where to put this so I am putting it here. Every once in a while I read a post here asserting something like"less qualified veteran." Is this simply based on the 5 or 10 points veterans get because they earned it. Am not a veteran but I am a minority and a female. And I have heard my share of ridiculousness in my lifetime from idiots about who is less qualified. Jose biased statements bring to mind stereotypical TV images of downtrodden vets. However living in the metropolitan DC area at this point I know more than a few retired or close to retired members of the forces, my neighborhood and church sampling is far from statistical; however they reflect capability at least if not at a higher level than the general population. Nonetheless I think if we were making such slurs about a protected group on this board it would not be tolerated. So let's not deflect our anxiety to veteran bashing.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 30, 2016 0:02:00 GMT -5
I did not know where to put this so I am putting it here. Every once in a while I read a post here asserting something like"less qualified veteran." Is this simply based on the 5 or 10 points veterans get because they earned it. Am not a veteran but I am a minority and a female. And I have heard my share of ridiculousness in my lifetime from idiots about who is less qualified. Jose biased statements bring to mind stereotypical TV images of downtrodden vets. However living in the metropolitan DC area at this point I know more than a few retired or close to retired members of the forces, my neighborhood and church sampling is far from statistical; however they reflect capability at least if not at a higher level than the general population. Nonetheless I think if we were making such slurs about a protected group on this board it would not be tolerated. So let's not deflect our anxiety to veteran bashing. I certainly concur with your thoughts about “slurs” based on veteran’s preference but I also think that this is a complex subject that is worth more than a simple, “they earned it” type of conclusion. However, much like other sensitive topics, it is difficult to discuss without being accused of bashing a beloved group. So, I certainly don’t want to come across as bashing. I disagree with your implication that veteran’s preference does not lead to the hiring of less qualified individuals. For example, consider the ALJ process in which we are all engaged at the moment. For discussion purposes, let us assume that the OPM process actually reveals who is the most qualified. I know that is a whole other can of worms but just go with it for illustrative purposes. Say candidate 1 ends up with a score 79 and candidate 2, who is a 10 point vet, scores a 70. Candidate 2, who is objectively less qualified, will end up with an 80 and block candidate 1 who is substantially more qualified. So, is this a bad thing? Well, I see guys on a daily basis who are in their 30s and can barely walk because of combat injuries. They have literally given their bodies for me, you, and this country. So hell yeah, they deserve to be treated better and rewarded for sacrifice. On the other hand, from a strategic efficiency of the government view, is it best to have less qualified persons in jobs because of something that did in an unrelated field? Do we pay for past performance or pay for what they can do in the future? Do the many claimants waiting on a disposition of their case deserve to have their cases impacted because we are trying to reward vets for their service? Then again, does the potential incentive of vet’s preference help DoD attract better members, thus making DoD more effective and does that increased effectiveness outweigh the decreased effectiveness caused by vet preference in hirings in other agencies so that it is a net positive for the government as a whole? To be crystal clear, I do not mean to paint with too broad a brush here and imply that the vet population is less qualified than the general population. I think that vets are just like any cross section of the general public, filled with peeps that are squared away and peeps that are absolute oxygen thieves. I’ve seen soldiers that are gifted and would have exceled in whatever field they choose, regardless of whether they wore the uniform or not. I’ve seen some that couldn’t spell cat if you spotted them the c and the a. So, vet preference does not equal less qualified in the abstract to me. Another issue is group think. With so many vets flooding the market, it is difficult for outsiders to be hired by DoD. So, you end up with virtually no new voices entering the agency. Everybody talks alike, walks alike, thinks alike… I often wonder whether it is good or bad that so many take off the uniform on Friday and show back up in the same office on Monday in civilian attire on Monday. Like I said, it is a complex issue to me and one that I waffle back and forth about all the time.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 31, 2016 8:17:23 GMT -5
bayou,
I know you are a newer member to the board, so I don't know much about you. But are you a veteran? If so, your post is understandable somewhat as you sound like you have served in the Army with soldiers having observed them in day to day duties.
If not, that explains most of your comments. Nobody and I mean nobody joins the military as an enlisted person or Officer to get a vet preference points later in their life, because NOBODY going into active duty has a clue about post-separation benefits.
As to the position of ALJ, your military experience has nothing to do with your qualifications to be an ALJ. Your experience as a litigator and lawyer is all that matters in the testing process, but the Vet Pref points is what you have EARNED under Federal Law, so if you have a problem with that, run for congress and change the law, but I earned my points after 20 years in the Army(CPX status) and after serving two years as an ALJ, I can tell you that prior military are easy to spot in both training and in the office.
It might be difficult for outsiders to be hired by DoD, but the remedy is real simple, serve your country!
tiger
Not a vet but work in DoD. Nothing in my post was intended to be a complaint about anybody claiming the preference and I agree that it it something you have earned under the law. I fully support anybody that has earned that preference to claim it. They are indeed entitled to it. I was simply wondering whether that is the best approach from a strategic viewpoint of the entire government. In short, I believe that vets should be rewarded but is this the right benefit that is the best for entire government/country?
|
|
|
Post by southernfun on Jul 31, 2016 15:08:50 GMT -5
For discussion purposes, let us assume that the OPM process actually reveals who is the most qualified. I know that is a whole other can of worms but just go with it for illustrative purposes. Say candidate 1 ends up with a score 79 and candidate 2, who is a 10 point vet, scores a 70. Candidate 2, who is objectively less qualified, will end up with an 80 and block candidate 1 who is substantially more qualified. You miss a big point here that makes you completely wrong. The government has decided that the military service experience is worth ten bonus points in the process. It is not a 79 verse a 70 becoming an 80, it is an 79 verse an 80, who has ten of their 80 points from military service, likely war related military service as well. The ten points is not a gift, it reflects the value we decided to place on the experience the injured military vet has. You are clearly confusing protected classes bonuses with earned military veteran points. You are approaching it like, in order to hire more African Americans we have added ten points to all their scores. NO! These ten points were earned by training and experience. Even the experiencing of dealing with a war related mental of physical injury makes a person better suited to be an ALJ then someone who has never gone through military training, experience, and dealt with an injury. Stop perpetuating the myth that disabled vets are being given a ten point gift as a reward. Ten points are added to reflect how much better a candidate they are for having been trained and serving our country.
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Jul 31, 2016 20:41:14 GMT -5
I disagree with your implication that veteran’s preference does not lead to the hiring of less qualified individuals. For example, consider the ALJ process in which we are all engaged at the moment. For discussion purposes, let us assume that the OPM process actually reveals who is the most qualified. I know that is a whole other can of worms but just go with it for illustrative purposes. Say candidate 1 ends up with a score 79 and candidate 2, who is a 10 point vet, scores a 70. Candidate 2, who is objectively less qualified, will end up with an 80 and block candidate 1 who is substantially more qualified. Then again, does the potential incentive of vet’s preference help DoD attract better members, thus making DoD more effective and does that increased effectiveness outweigh the decreased effectiveness caused by vet preference in hirings in other agencies so that it is a net positive for the government as a whole? To be crystal clear, I do not mean to paint with too broad a brush here and imply that the vet population is less qualified than the general population. I think that vets are just like any cross section of the general public, filled with peeps that are squared away and peeps that are absolute oxygen thieves. I’ve seen soldiers that are gifted and would have exceled in whatever field they choose, regardless of whether they wore the uniform or not. I’ve seen some that couldn’t spell cat if you spotted them the c and the a. So, vet preference does not equal less qualified in the abstract to me. Another issue is group think. With so many vets flooding the market, it is difficult for outsiders to be hired by DoD. So, you end up with virtually no new voices entering the agency. Everybody talks alike, walks alike, thinks alike… I often wonder whether it is good or bad that so many take off the uniform on Friday and show back up in the same office on Monday in civilian attire on Monday. bayou,
I know you are a newer member to the board, so I don't know much about you. But are you a veteran? If so, your post is understandable somewhat as you sound like you have served in the Army with soldiers having observed them in day to day duties.
If not, that explains most of your comments. Nobody and I mean nobody joins the military as an enlisted person or Officer to get a vet preference points later in their life, because NOBODY going into active duty has a clue about post-separation benefits.
As to the position of ALJ, your military experience has nothing to do with your qualifications to be an ALJ. Your experience as a litigator and lawyer is all that matters in the testing process, but the Vet Pref points is what you have EARNED under Federal Law, so if you have a problem with that, run for congress and change the law, but I earned my points after 20 years in the Army(CPX status) and after serving two years as an ALJ, I can tell you that prior military are easy to spot in both training and in the office.
It might be difficult for outsiders to be hired by DoD, but the remedy is real simple, serve your country!
tiger,
One other point that I would like to make in support of the veteran's preference, is that I believe that in addition to all of the arguments that tigerlaw makes is that the military is probably the most diverse place that we have in this country. Although it was probably even more diverse when we had the draft, my time in the Navy exposed to a wide range of individuals from all over the country. I like to think that I went to a good college and a law school that is usually in the top 20 list, and I met a lot of people, but most of them were from the East, and most of them came from middle class or above backgrounds. In the Navy I met people from back grounds who I could never have imagined. I had one client who got into trouble and got the crap beat out of him when he "lent" some money to someone who he met on South Street, then went back to the borrower's home in a notorious housing project, while wearing his white cracker jack uniform and got the crap beat out of him. While I was getting ready to say how could you have been so stupid to loan money to someone you just met, go into that housing project with someone you just met, while wearing your uniform, I learned that my 17 year old client, who had never left the county in Nebraska that he was born in until he joined the Navy, came from a culture where befriending strangers was actually the cultural norm. I think one of the values of being a veteran that is rarely considered is the fact that veterans have all had to work with a wide range of individuals, from all over this country. I could list a lot more examples from my own experience but I feel that the time that I spent on active duty in the Navy was a valuable experience at many levels. I've often thought that the current rancorous political climate is being caused by the fact that military service is no longer universal, and we have a lot of individuals who have just never met and worked with or for anyone who is not just like them self. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 31, 2016 21:38:39 GMT -5
For discussion purposes, let us assume that the OPM process actually reveals who is the most qualified. I know that is a whole other can of worms but just go with it for illustrative purposes. Say candidate 1 ends up with a score 79 and candidate 2, who is a 10 point vet, scores a 70. Candidate 2, who is objectively less qualified, will end up with an 80 and block candidate 1 who is substantially more qualified. You miss a big point here that makes you completely wrong. The government has decided that the military service experience is worth ten bonus points in the process. It is not a 79 verse a 70 becoming an 80, it is an 79 verse an 80, who has ten of their 80 points from military service, likely war related military service as well. The ten points is not a gift, it reflects the value we decided to place on the experience the injured military vet has. You are clearly confusing protected classes bonuses with earned military veteran points. You are approaching it like, in order to hire more African Americans we have added ten points to all their scores. NO! These ten points were earned by training and experience. Even the experiencing of dealing with a war related mental of physical injury makes a person better suited to be an ALJ then someone who has never gone through military training, experience, and dealt with an injury. Stop perpetuating the myth that disabled vets are being given a ten point gift as a reward. Ten points are added to reflect how much better a candidate they are for having been trained and serving our country. The actual stated purpose of the preference is essentially compensation for your service. It's not a reward but also has nothing to do with your experience or training making you a better candidate. I'm sure that's an added benefit with vets, but it's not why there's a vet preference.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 31, 2016 21:50:24 GMT -5
For discussion purposes, let us assume that the OPM process actually reveals who is the most qualified. I know that is a whole other can of worms but just go with it for illustrative purposes. Say candidate 1 ends up with a score 79 and candidate 2, who is a 10 point vet, scores a 70. Candidate 2, who is objectively less qualified, will end up with an 80 and block candidate 1 who is substantially more qualified. You miss a big point here that makes you completely wrong. The government has decided that the military service experience is worth ten bonus points in the process. It is not a 79 verse a 70 becoming an 80, it is an 79 verse an 80, who has ten of their 80 points from military service, likely war related military service as well. The ten points is not a gift, it reflects the value we decided to place on the experience the injured military vet has. You are clearly confusing protected classes bonuses with earned military veteran points. You are approaching it like, in order to hire more African Americans we have added ten points to all their scores. NO! These ten points were earned by training and experience. Even the experiencing of dealing with a war related mental of physical injury makes a person better suited to be an ALJ then someone who has never gone through military training, experience, and dealt with an injury. Stop perpetuating the myth that disabled vets are being given a ten point gift as a reward. Ten points are added to reflect how much better a candidate they are for having been trained and serving our country. If the vet preference is a reflection of being a better candidate because of military experience, then why don't all persons that serve in the military receive the preference? Do you have anything to back up your position that it is a myth that the vet preference is a reward and is really a measurement of the experience of the vet, such as the legislative history or other source? I'm seriously asking. I'd be happy to read that; perhaps it would change my viewpoint. For the record, I never said it was a gift. Y'all aren't going to paint me into a corner as some vet basher who thinks y'all are getting something to which you aren't entitled or that it shouldn't be part of this process.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 31, 2016 22:04:56 GMT -5
*** Although it was probably even more diverse when we had the draft, my time in the Navy exposed to a wide range of individuals from all over the country. *** Actually, in terms of race and gender, I would expect that it is more diverse today than ever. In terms of economic status, I expect you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Aug 1, 2016 5:49:48 GMT -5
For discussion purposes, let us assume that the OPM process actually reveals who is the most qualified. I know that is a whole other can of worms but just go with it for illustrative purposes. Say candidate 1 ends up with a score 79 and candidate 2, who is a 10 point vet, scores a 70. Candidate 2, who is objectively less qualified, will end up with an 80 and block candidate 1 who is substantially more qualified. You miss a big point here that makes you completely wrong. The government has decided that the military service experience is worth ten bonus points in the process. It is not a 79 verse a 70 becoming an 80, it is an 79 verse an 80, who has ten of their 80 points from military service, likely war related military service as well. The ten points is not a gift, it reflects the value we decided to place on the experience the injured military vet has. You are clearly confusing protected classes bonuses with earned military veteran points. You are approaching it like, in order to hire more African Americans we have added ten points to all their scores. NO! These ten points were earned by training and experience. Even the experiencing of dealing with a war related mental of physical injury makes a person better suited to be an ALJ then someone who has never gone through military training, experience, and dealt with an injury. Stop perpetuating the myth that disabled vets are being given a ten point gift as a reward. Ten points are added to reflect how much better a candidate they are for having been trained and serving our country. I am not sure I agree with this. The VP was started after WWII because military personnel were behind their peers, professionally. For example, great uncle served in WWII and Korea and always felt that his 8 years had stunted him professionally - he worked in the private sector, and many of his peers felt the same way. My understanding is that was intended to level the playing field not reward service. BTW - I am a proud vet myself - 5 points.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 1, 2016 7:32:53 GMT -5
You miss a big point here that makes you completely wrong. The government has decided that the military service experience is worth ten bonus points in the process. It is not a 79 verse a 70 becoming an 80, it is an 79 verse an 80, who has ten of their 80 points from military service, likely war related military service as well. The ten points is not a gift, it reflects the value we decided to place on the experience the injured military vet has. You are clearly confusing protected classes bonuses with earned military veteran points. You are approaching it like, in order to hire more African Americans we have added ten points to all their scores. NO! These ten points were earned by training and experience. Even the experiencing of dealing with a war related mental of physical injury makes a person better suited to be an ALJ then someone who has never gone through military training, experience, and dealt with an injury. Stop perpetuating the myth that disabled vets are being given a ten point gift as a reward. Ten points are added to reflect how much better a candidate they are for having been trained and serving our country. I am not sure I agree with this. The VP was started after WWII because military personnel were behind their peers, professionally. For example, great uncle served in WWII and Korea and always felt that his 8 years had stunted him professionally - he worked in the private sector, and many of his peers felt the same way. My understanding is that was intended to level the playing field not reward service. BTW - I am a proud vet myself - 5 points. This is my understanding as well. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Aug 1, 2016 8:40:10 GMT -5
*** Although it was probably even more diverse when we had the draft, my time in the Navy exposed to a wide range of individuals from all over the country. *** Actually, in terms of race and gender, I would expect that it is more diverse today than ever. In terms of economic status, I expect you are correct. I agree completely that in terms of race and gender the services are much more diverse now then ever before, and the opportunities for success are far more available regardless of race or gender than they were in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Aug 1, 2016 8:59:04 GMT -5
[/quote] I am not sure I agree with this. The VP was started after WWII because military personnel were behind their peers, professionally. For example, great uncle served in WWII and Korea and always felt that his 8 years had stunted him professionally - he worked in the private sector, and many of his peers felt the same way. My understanding is that was intended to level the playing field not reward service. BTW - I am a proud vet myself - 5 points. The veterans preference was added in an era when it was virtually a prerequisite to have served in the military in order to be a Congressman or a Senator. I am sure that the veterans in Congress whos passed this had some valid point for doing it, and when they did it, military service was universal, at least for males, so when it was done it was designed to potentially help a wide segment of society. At one point in the post WWII era the Congress was about 80% veterans, now we are at slightly less than 20%. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/04/members-of-congress-have-little-direct-military-experience/I think that there are several factors that have evolved that have resulted in the strident polarized positions that have made it difficult for Congress to accomplish much. Lack of military service is definitely up there on my list.
|
|
surly
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by surly on Aug 8, 2016 9:47:26 GMT -5
Sorry for my delayed response. I did not end up going. I was too jet lagged from having just flown back from London. Given that you can only reschedule once and the fact that I pushed my testing back by a week, I have sent OPM an email asking to start over again, twice. I have yet to hear back from them on restarting the process. Good luck to everyone else going forward, Surly
|
|