|
|
Post by inquisitive on Aug 14, 2008 22:44:45 GMT -5
So is 5 CFR 332.405 the means by which SSA ODAR passed over so many individuals with higher scores to reach further down on the 2008 Certificate of Eligibles?
The language suggests that SSA ODAR could have used the fact that it passed over an individual three times off of the 2007 Certificate of Eligibles to avoid even considering that very same individual for an ALJ position off of the 2008 Certificate of Eligibles.
Moreover, it suggests that many on the existing register may not have to be considered by SSA ODAR for an ALJ position off of a 2009 Certificate of Eligibles if they were on the 2008 Certificate of Eligibles or the 2007 Certificate of Eligibles and were previously considered "for three separate appointments."
Note the "same or different certificates for the same position" language.
It does appear that an ALJ candidate can make it onto a de facto blackball list at SSA ODAR and remain there for as long as this register exists. There are no temporal limitations within 5 CFR 332.405.
And the language does not appear limited to non-preference eligibles. Ostensibly it may have been applied to preference eligibles as well, which would explain what happened to some of our high scoring preference eligible brethren.
[Title 5, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 5CFR332.405]
[Page 223]
TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
PART 332_RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION THROUGH COMPETITIVE
EXAMINATION--Table of Contents
Subpart D_Consideration for Appointment
Sec. 332.405 Three considerations for appointment.
An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who
has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same
or different certificates for the same position.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Aug 20, 2008 8:02:58 GMT -5
Of course note that the rejection letter of August 8th states: "We look forward to considering you at such time your application is again forwarded to us from OPM." (Oh, I just bet they do....)
This is, BTW, exactly what the rejection e-mail of April 8th said.
...One could argue that they waived that opportunity to not consider.....
|
|
|
|
Post by jennifer on Aug 20, 2008 9:22:35 GMT -5
Glad to see you're still with us. Sorry we're in the same boat. Here's to switching boats some day!
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Aug 21, 2008 11:55:19 GMT -5
They gave you a number ? ? ? ? ? !? ? ?  |
|
|
|
Post by lawandorder on Aug 21, 2008 13:07:05 GMT -5
Is it just an exaggeration? If they call someone "Failed ALJ Candidate", besides sounding unpolite and unprofessional, is it because of the score or because one has been rejected. In any case, it really surprises me the use of that ugly adjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandea on Aug 21, 2008 13:09:24 GMT -5
They gave you a number ? ? ? ? ? !? ? ? They called you "Dear" ? ? ? ! ? ?  |
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Aug 21, 2008 13:56:03 GMT -5
My envelope came addressed to "Loser Residing at..."
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 22, 2008 9:58:09 GMT -5
Actually I've always liked "dazedandconfused" and proclaim her handle is the most descriptive and sadly, for this lawyer, prophetic .
Coming back to this Board is a little like reading old "Dear John" letters...
|
|
|
|
Post by lawdog98 on Aug 22, 2008 10:31:20 GMT -5
Ladies and Gentlemen I suggest we start our own thread or even our board for those of us who recently received our heartfelt rejection letters.
We could call it something like "untouchables utterances" ;D
I leave the naming to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero on Sept 3, 2008 10:22:11 GMT -5
What does the rejection mean? Does it mean SSA rejected you but you could (in theory) be picked up by another agency? Does it mean SSA rejected you for all locations or just the location at which SSA had a slot to fill?
|
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Sept 3, 2008 20:02:17 GMT -5
What does the rejection mean? Does it mean SSA rejected you but you could (in theory) be picked up by another agency? Does it mean SSA rejected you for all locations or just the location at which SSA had a slot to fill? While no one likes to be rejected - it merely means that you were not selected. Many candidates do not get picked up the first time around. This whole process can mess with your mind if you let it and try to read more into things than justified. The key is that it is very hard to know WHY you were not selected. It could be as simple as being up against a batch of more qualified candidates. If that is the case, the game is still afoot, Sherlock. You should get another chance with a new mix of competitors. On the other hand, if you had a really bad interview they will have those notes in your file and it will follow you for other certificates within SSA. If they brought you to DC in 2008, they will likely not bring you back again in 2009 but will use notes from the prior interview. If you blew it, that is a bad thing. Those notes will not be available for other agencies who may get your name on a certificate. However, other agencies hire only 1 or 2 at a time and a high score and veteran's preference tend to be critical for those hires. |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Nov 12, 2008 14:08:10 GMT -5
I believe SSA is, indeed, utilizing 5 CFR 332.405.
|
|
|
|
Post by inquisitive on Nov 19, 2008 1:28:35 GMT -5
JH -
Please check your in-box. I sent you a personal message.
Regards,
Inquisitive
|
|
jcse
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by jcse on Jan 10, 2009 22:17:09 GMT -5
Jagghagg, patriotsfan, morgullord: sorry to hear of your experiences.. Out of curiosity, were any of you on the cert. list? do any of you have SSA experience, either as private attorneys or SSA attorneys? I also heard if you are a white, non-veteran, non handicapped male, it hurts you...
|
|
|
|
Post by deaddisco on Jan 11, 2009 0:17:29 GMT -5
ok...post deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jan 11, 2009 8:25:58 GMT -5
Oh, cut him some slack. (I provided him some anwers via PM so we don't need to clutter the board.)
|
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Aug 1, 2009 16:28:47 GMT -5
More on the Three Strike Rule....
|
|
|
|
Post by lawdog98 on Aug 5, 2009 16:54:31 GMT -5
I have been told that you might just call and ask if you were considered and then ask if you would be again. What is the worst that could happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Aug 5, 2009 17:24:19 GMT -5
First, the person answering the phone will not have the knowledge to answer the question nor the authority to answer it even if he did. Second, they would tell you - when you called - that you will (or did) receive all the consideration due. (JH had a poster tell her that they actually DID call and that is the answer they got.) Bottom line is that they are not, under any circumstances, going to answer that question.
|
|
