Veterans' Preference

[chieftain]

This was a subject that I dared not get into on the old board but I am curious. In the ALJ job posting, there was mention that veterans' preference applied at the initial screening of applications/ARs. Was there a specific formula or is just a "factor" to be considered?

There was also some discussion on the old board that when OPM sends three names to an office they group veterans together to "get around" the preference issue. I don't see how this is possible, given that the highest scorers who selected that office are supposed to be referred.

For the curious, I'm a ten point veteran. Thanks for any insight.

[workdrone]

chieftain said:

This was a subject that I dared not get into on the old board but I am curious. In the ALJ job posting, there was mention that veterans' preference applied at the initial screening of applications/ARs. Was there a specific formula or is just a "factor" to be considered?

Veteran's Preference (VP) is a very touchy subject to many people in the running for ALJ. So usually when it pops up on the old board, there are inevitable flames and counter flames. I hope we can avoid that here (write to your Congress person if you want to express your political views) and just focus on answering the questions.

The reason why it's so touchy is that under the old system (before the new one that just got started in June), if you meet the minimal requirements, you get 70 out of 100 points. Most people ends up in the 80-90 range. However, VP candidates gets 5 or 10 points added to it. At first blush, it looks like a 5 or 10 percent bump, but when the actually margin was only about 20 points (70-90), a 5 pt bump has a 25% impact while a 10 pt bump has 50%. In fact, VP candidates can go as high as 105 or 110 pts, depending on prefence. Hence they do have a significant edge under the old system, and is evidenced by the high number of veterans in the ALJ system (and the amount of bitterness on the old board).

As for the new system that just got started, no one really has a clue outside of OPM, since its procedures are like a Chinese black box.

chieftain said:

There was also some discussion on the old board that when OPM sends three names to an office they group veterans together to "get around" the preference issue. I don't see how this is possible, given that the highest scorers who selected that office are supposed to be referred.

Here's the thread on Hearing Offices, page 3, Hooligan's post in the middle explains it better than I can. Thanks.

Drone

[bartleby]

Interesting link from the old site today regarding veterans preference and not being utilized: www.federaltimes.com/

As far as how they play the Vets off against each other, they pick three vets for a city and keep one and then use the other two against a third for a second city and then use the last two against a third for another city and they have eliminated two out of five veterans. Unfortunately, the Rule of three's is not set in stone. While doing the above on vets, on the same certificate, they reached down as far as 325th and gave that person, a non-vet, 8 turns before being selected. My buddy was 16th and a vet and didn't make the cut. He had a 10 point preference and after his third bounce he was not reconsidered. He got the info under the FOIA and the blatantness of OPM was unbelievable. OPM said they did not have to apply the rule of threes if they didn't want to, basically saying they could do anything they wanted.

[zugswang]

As a six-year veteran myself, I do not find the system you describe at all unfair toward veterans. Assuming the anecdote is not urban legend, you are saying that your un-named buddy got the benefit of a full ten-point bump, moving him to the top of the list. With the benefit of that ten-point bump he was fully considered three separate times, and each time found to be inferior to others with a full ten-point bump. There are literally thousands of folks who would love to have had a shot at full consideration three times. But having failed to land a position, despite the benefit of three fair opportunities to do so -- and with each of those three positions having gone to veterans -- it seems pretty fair to me to then give someone else a look. Someone else who is likely also a veteran, or scored remarkably higher than your buddy when viewed without his ten-point bump. How is it unfair to veterans that all three positions went to a veteran? Truth be told, what is unfair is that this system in the past has given so much of a bump to veterans within the limited 30-point span of the rating formula. The veterans' preference system was supposed to provide a preference, not a stranglehold on positions, and really should be revamped this time around to more equitably add-in the veterans preference to tip the scales, not topple them. IMHO.

[bartleby]

Obviously you think it is okay for someone that is 325th to get 8 turns at being hired and think it is okay for the 16th person to get only 3 turns at being hired?? The differences in the two were that my buddy was a 10 point veteran and the 325th was not a veteran and my buddy made a lot more points than the guy that was 325th. How is it okay for OPM to not give the veteran 8 turns if they do so for a non-veteran? My buddy was shot down in Viet Nam and deserves his 10 points. Furthermore, the government has said he deserves them and as pointed out in the above link, there is some consideration in congress as we speak/write whether certain Agencies are playing fair with the veterans preference. If veterans are to be given a preference, why is it fair to run them against each other rather than to run them against non-veterans where they will truly have a preference?? The whole idea was to give them a preference against non-veterans in honor of their sacrifices for this country. I have a hard time understanding veteran bashing and the attempts to take away their rights..

[ALJD]

Guys,

Good posts so far, but lets not turn it into a flamefest on VP. It's been beaten to a bloody death on the old board, so we don't need to refight it all over here again (if you don't belive me, click on this link for the most recent example). So I would like to ask everyone to take a deep breath, stay on topic, and be mellow. Thanks!

Drone

[zugswang]

Well, I tend to agree with the administrator on this one. This is not worth flaming over. It is for that very reason that I have left the old board. Bartleby, if you would like my actual thoughts on the actual numbers and statistics, simply e-mail me the pdf images of the FOIA results your reference so that I may actually review them and come to informed conclusions as to what they actually show. My email is not blocked. Indeed, it is [e-mail].

[chieftain]

I actually wouldn't mind looking at those myself. If you are willing to share them, please let me know.

I'm sorry to have opened a can of worms on this issue. I'm in private practice and don't know much about the hiring process other than what I have gone through thus far. I understand that some folks have issues with veterans' preference and I respect that but it is what it is.

[observer]

Having observed this process from the inside, I have to agree with "zugswang" here. VP gets a vet a fair chance; it does not guarantee selection, nor should it. And being a vet, I think it fair to say that not every vet merits selection, especially for a senior position such as this. The "pass overs" that I observed were not done out of bias against vets; they were done to avoid a loser and select a clearly more capable candidate.

[chris]

Through the years I've a heard a variety of people (vets and non vets) complain that they were on some state or federal list and despite a high ranking and numerous interviews they were never hired. Most thought it was some form of discrimination. My personal observation was that they all had significant personality problems. There was a definite reason they were passed over and it had nothing to do with their height, weight, sex, skin color, vet status or religion.

[zugswang]

By the way, does anyone know: In this process is there any reason why OPM has to grade even remotely as they have in the past? For instance, if it was possible to score 400 points on the Application, 100 points on the WD, and 100 points on the SI, couldn't they simply add those three scores -- for instance, 310/400 + 90/100 + 75/100 -- then add a 5 or 10 point VP on top for a total score of 480 or 485 out of a possible 600? I assume they could still be deciding of or even if to weight various factors without violating any rule.

[doctorwho]

There is nothing that keeps OPM from scoring this exam anyway that it wants to score it. It could, for example, score the exam: App- 50%; WD 30%; SI 20% -- and then add the VP. This, IMHO would attribute a real value to the VP without giving it the inordinate weight it has had in the past (when everybody started at 70%. What does everybody else think?

[zugswang]

But do you know, does the 5 or 10 point VP preference have to be added into a 0-100 rating system, or, could it for instance, be added into a 0 to 500 rating system? By the way, it is a joy to be able to simply ask questions on this board without responses going nuclear.

[chieftain]

The job posting for ALJ says that once all portions of the application process is completed, a numerical score of 1-100 will be assigned. I disagreeumption is that the 5 or 10 points gets added to the final score of 1-100.

[southerner]

I am aware there has been discussion as to whether verterans points are added at early stage or at later stage and can see arguments for both sides. But, it seems fairer, if indeed vet points are to be used, that they be added initially. Otherwise, if they were not added to the app evaluation of the 6 competencies, the vet preference could be mooted for a number of individuals. Since the procedure now is to meet a certain threshhold and score sufficently high enough to move on the the WD and SI, if points were not awarded at time of app, then those vets would never have an opportunity to be even considered. Thoughts?

[zugswang]

Curiously, I see that VP is actually factored in not once but twice in the process, beginning back at the "Accomplishment Record" stage, which determined who got invited to the WD and SI.
See jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=57072250&aid=37248727%2D557&WT.mc_n=MKT000125&TabNum=3&rc=3
Then it comes into the mix again in the final phase. "Final Rating: A numerical rating on a scale of 0 – 100 will be assigned to you once all parts of the examination have been completed. This rating will be based on the scores assigned for the AR, WD, and SI parts of the examination with a maximum possible total score of 100, excluding veterans' preference. If you do not claim veterans' preference, this numerical rating will be your final numerical rating. If you claim veterans' preference and have submitted the required documentation, five (5) or ten (10) points, as appropriate, will be added to your total earned rating to determine your final numerical rating."

[zugswang]

Thanks. I should have known to look there. Curiously, I see from the original OPM announcement that VP has already been factored into the process, and is thus factored into the process twice.
First, at the Accomplishment Record (AR) stage the OPM announcement advised: "In determining the highest group of AR scores, veterans' preference will be considered....":
Then in the Final Rating: "A numerical rating on a scale of 0 –– 100 will be assigned to you once all parts of the examination have been completed. This rating will be based on the scores assigned for the AR, WD, and SI parts of the examination with a maximum possible total score of 100, excluding veterans' preference. If you do not claim veterans' preference, this numerical rating will be your final numerical rating. If you claim veterans' preference and have submitted the required documentation, five (5) or ten (10) points, as appropriate, will be added to your total earned rating to determine your final numerical rating."
jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=57072250&aid=37248727%2D557&WT.mc_n=MKT000125&TabNum=3&rc=2
I am not sure what this means re: the old "transmutation" language ( www.opm.gov/employ/var/5C930203.HTM ("This variation is necessary because OPM used a scale of 70 to 100 to score applications for Administrative Law Judge positions, instead of the "transmuted scale of 0 to 100, with 70 required to pass." Although the use of the 70 to 100 scale was described in the March 1993 announcement for the Administrative Law Judge examination, OPM did not obtain a variation or modify the regulation to permit the use of such a scale. ... The precedent set by this variation is limited to transmutation scales used by unassembled examinations that are specified in regulation.")

[southerner]

This is more puzzling. It would seem that vets preference is then used on 2 occasions: when the AR (competencies) was scored per zugswang's initial comments and yet again at the "final" point total for addition of the 5 or 10 points. I can see one or the other, but not both occasions. Use of the vets preference twice seems to be undue advantage. Is there another explanation? Some of OPM's secrecy is damn annoying.

[judicature]

To do otherwise would result in vets getting cut without consideration of their VP even though if they had gone through the complete process, their final score with the VP would have put them in the top tier of candidates.

[zugswang]

So if the AP was scored from from 0 to 50, and 10 points was added on, then a VP resulted in a 20% bump at that stage?