Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ruling expands veterans' access to federal jobs

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by kc12 View Post
    Your post confused me. The way I understand/recall the ops tempo from the period between 92-01 the person without a campaign medal is the rarity. So the majority of the former military members from this time period would qualify for preference.
    IIRC, the only major ops that received a campaign or expeditionary medal during this period were Somalia, Haiti, Liberia, and specified units in Bosnia. This would not even include the majority of combat arms units; let alone support units. It is my understanding that the majority of veterns who served during that time frame do not get preference.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bruce Wayne View Post
      IIRC, the only major ops that received a campaign or expeditionary medal during this period were Somalia, Haiti, Liberia, and specified units in Bosnia. This would not even include the majority of combat arms units; let alone support units. It is my understanding that the majority of veterns who served during that time frame do not get preference.
      I, as well as memebers of my unit, received Expeditionary medals for service in Saudi in 2000.
      But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

      For the intelectually challenged: If the government screws the people enough, it is the right and responsibility of the people to revolt and form a new government.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by kc12 View Post
        I, as well as memebers of my unit, received Expeditionary medals for service in Saudi in 2000.
        Okay, so that is one other instance, but the bottomline remains, few veterans whose service fell between those dates receive veterans preference.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by vacop4274 View Post
          No I understand and agree with veterans preference in regards to points. What I was trying to (poorly apparently, sorry) ask/discuss was if they remove the age restriction for veterans only from 37 how will this decision affect other non vets trying to apply and get LE jobs???? With how sue happy society has become, I can forsee this getting challeneged by non vets.

          Please understand, I am happy that vets are able to apply beyond 37, I was mearly bringing up some points that may come up later when John Public decides to make issues with it. That is all!!!!
          Glad you clarified, I understand what you meant now.
          Here's the latest on this from the Reserve Officers Association (military officers that is) website:

          LAW REVIEW 0761—UPDATE

          By Captain Samuel F. Wright, JAGC, USN (Ret.)

          In Law Review 0761, I wrote about Isabella v. Department of State, 2006 MSPB 163 (Merit Systems Protection Board June 9, 2006). Section 3312(a)(1) of title 5 of the United States Code [5 U.S.C. 3312(a)(1)] provides that a federal agency is required to waive a maximum age rule with respect to the hiring of a preference-eligible veteran unless the agency can establish that the age limit rule is essential (not just convenient).

          Robert P. Isabella is eligible for the five-point veteran’s preference based on having received a campaign medal for active duty service in a qualifying military expedition. In 2004, a few months prior to his 37th birthday, he applied to the Department of State (DOS) for a Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) appointment. DOS refused to process his application, stating that his 37th birthday was fast approaching and that there simply was not time to process Mr. Isabella’s application and get him into a training class by Nov. 8, 2004 (his 37th birthday).

          Mr. Isabella made a timely appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a quasi-judicial federal agency that adjudicates matters of federal civilian employment. In the cited case, the MSPB firmly rejected the DOS claim that the age-37 rule was essential and held that DOS violated 5 U.S.C. 3312(a)(1) by dismissing Mr. Isabella’s DSS application based on his approaching 37th birthday.

          The MSPB remanded the matter to its Administrative Judge, who again ruled for the DOS. Mr. Isabella appealed again to the MSPB. More than a year after its original decision, the MSPB reaffirmed its holding that the age-37 rule cannot lawfully be applied to a preference-eligible veteran and ordered DOS to process Mr. Isabella’s DSS application without regard to the age-37 rule. The MSPB ordered DOS to act promptly (within 20 days after the order) and to process Mr. Isabella’s application to completion, despite the fact that he was then approaching his 40th birthday. Isabella v. Department of State, 2007 MSPB 186 (Aug. 10, 2007).

          The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) then intervened, asserting that the MSPB’s decision would have a “substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive.” OPM asked the MSPB to reconsider its decision once again, and another 11 months went by before the MSPB reaffirmed once again its holding that DOS must process Mr. Isabella’s DSS application to completion, without regard to the age-37 rule. Isabella v. Department of State, 2008 MSPB 146 (July 2, 2008). Mr. Isabella is now approaching his 41st birthday, and it is not clear that he even still wants to join the DSS, but this case has important implications for many folks, not just Mr. Isabella.

          It is likely that DOS and OPM will appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We will keep the readers apprised of further developments in this important case.

          Comment


          • #20
            Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a quasi-judicial federal agency
            Is this the definition they really go by?

            M-11
            “All men dream...... But not equally..
            Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
            but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
            for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

            TE Lawrence

            Comment


            • #21
              I never did understand the whole age-37 thing.

              What does the fed gov have against people approaching their 40's? They're good enough to deploy around the world for months (or years) at a time, getting mediocre pay and having to live in lousy environments, dodging suicide bombers and IED's, and do it all long enough to retire with a pension, and then as a reward for all that duty and sacrifice, they're not good enough to employ in a Federal LE position. Seems like a load of crap to me. Makes me so glad I retired and went to a civilian agency. The Fed Gov and their age restrictions can kiss my *****!

              Hell, if they can get a person who's still physically qualified (not broken) at that age, with an advanced experience and maturity level, I would think they would jump at the chance. They're still liable to get a good 15-20 years out of the guy/gal. But whoever said the gov't did anything rationally and logically. I'm sure they'll get their money's worth out of that 22-23 year old COLLEGE GRADUATE, with zero life experience, no work ethic, and a load of college loan debt.

              Please excuse my rant and rave
              Do I look like a freakin "people" person??? Sign here, press hard, five copies.

              Comment


              • #22
                The rule was in place to keep angry Vets away.

                See, it worked.

                Seriously, I think it's just a hold over for one of two reasons:

                1) to prevent double dipping.

                2) back when the rules were made, our life expectancy was about 60 years so they figured we'd be useless at 45.

                M-11
                “All men dream...... But not equally..
                Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
                but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
                for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

                TE Lawrence

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TopRad View Post
                  I never did understand the whole age-37 thing.

                  What does the fed gov have against people approaching their 40's? They're good enough to deploy around the world for months (or years) at a time, getting mediocre pay and having to live in lousy environments, dodging suicide bombers and IED's, and do it all long enough to retire with a pension, and then as a reward for all that duty and sacrifice, they're not good enough to employ in a Federal LE position. Seems like a load of crap to me. Makes me so glad I retired and went to a civilian agency. The Fed Gov and their age restrictions can kiss my *****!

                  Hell, if they can get a person who's still physically qualified (not broken) at that age, with an advanced experience and maturity level, I would think they would jump at the chance. They're still liable to get a good 15-20 years out of the guy/gal. But whoever said the gov't did anything rationally and logically. I'm sure they'll get their money's worth out of that 22-23 year old COLLEGE GRADUATE, with zero life experience, no work ethic, and a load of college loan debt.

                  Please excuse my rant and rave
                  I agree with your rant, and so did the MSPB. They said that it makes no sense for the Gov't to claim on one hand that special agents are fit to serve until age 57, and on the other hand that someone on the "cusp" of their 37th birthday is not fit.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I always thought the "37" rule was so that the feds could get 20 years of work out of you before they made you retire.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ssgtwg View Post
                      There are many reasons this would effect only Preference eligible vets, first the law recognizes the service provided. Also understand that the average (not all) 38 year old vet is in better shape than the 38 year old civilian who has never been in the Military or other LE/Fire type job. Also a VA study shows that vets have on average, a better fitness level and better health than there civilian counterparts. This holds true up until their late 50s or early sixties where they both are about the same. However the same study also showed that service members with service connected disabilities of 50% or more tended to be less healthy than either group.

                      Until this no retired soldier was able to apply to any 6C/12D position because you can not retire less than 37. The issue with only Preference eligible vets is really a non issue. All vets since 91 are preference eligible, which are the majority in the hiring pool at this time. The only vets that are not Preference eligible are those post Vietnam (75) pre-Gulf War (91) vets that have not served in Korea (The Korea Defense Service Medal for post 54 service was established in 03 and gives a preference to any service member who has served at least 30 days in Korea its air space or waters) Grenada, Panama, Sinai Peace Keeping force. So the the only way a vet is not covered by this is if he or she only served in in the States or Europe. So I believe the majority of vets will be covered under this.

                      As to non vets suing for the same rights, I don't see any grounds for it. Just because the vet gets this why shouldn't I? Why not sue the VA for free health care or prescriptions? Why not a Government subsidized home loan for those who chose not to serve as well. And lets open the National Cemeteries to the civilian as well, after all without him there would be no need for the military at all, right? Several persons and groups have sued OPM and the Fed for coverage, and for the age limit violating the anti discrimination laws, they have all failed. They failed because the Fed exempted themselves from the law and when it comes down to the job what you actually do does not matter, its what the agency say you do.

                      I don't think you will see a flood of new competition for the god of all jobs here (the 1811 series). First of all the decision states the age limit would have to be necessary and mentioned the possibility of continuing service until age 60. So at most I see this giving the vet just 3 more years of eligibility or to 40. With several agencies already there I don't see it causing a big stir. I have already seen a HUD 1811 with the vet pref waiving the age but I would like to see if that actually goes to anyone over 40.
                      Here's the question I have - I would have thought this age waiver for Veterans preference eligible people would apply to other agencies (besides DOS), but I was just looking at the announcement for Special Agent for the USSS at the usajobs site and under: "Qualifications and Evaluations" they have this:

                      "Prior to appointment, applicants must not have reached their 37th birthday unless they have previous service in a Federal Civilian Law Enforcement position covered by special civil service retirement provisions, including early or mandatory retirement. The maximum entry age limit was established under the age discrimination prohibitions contained in Section 15 of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. Maximum age limitations may not be waived for any applicant, including those entitled to veterans’ preference."

                      http://jobsearch.usajobs.gov/getjob....&TabNum=3&rc=2

                      Does anyone know why the USSS can still keep their age limit even for veterans preference eligible applicants?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It is likely that DOS and OPM will appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
                        This is far from a done deal.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by vacop4274 View Post
                          So why is this only for veterans????? This may lead to other issues if the normal non vet pushes it, at least that is what I forsee. Hell ya got some sorta deaf person suing McDonalds because of a drive through incident!!!! I see a can of worms on this one here though!!!!
                          I would assume because the military time counts as federal time toward civilian retirement. Makes sense to me.
                          "Would I ever leave this company? Look, I'm all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what I'm being paid for here is my loyalty. But if there were somewhere else that valued loyalty more highly, I'm going wherever they value loyalty the most. " --Dwight K Schrute (The Office)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Hey gents new to this thread and just speaking from my owwn experience. I am a 42 year old retired Marine and I just went through and passed the interview process with DSS for their 1811 position. Received a conditional offer on the spot. This is pretty much a done deal and the only reason the other agencies haven't changed their vacancy announcments is becuase no one has challenged them yet and held up the case that went before the MSPB (Merit System Protection Board). WHether or not those agencies will comply or take their own cases before the MPSB remains to be seen but I would venture to say not as the legal precendence has already been set. It would be like the Supreme Court making a decision on a case and then someone bringing an identical case before them and saying "but I'm different because" . Once legal precedence has been set it is pretty difficult to get around it. Just my take.

                            So if you're a Pref eligible vet over 37 I say go for it. I'm glad I did.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              This is pretty much a done deal and the only reason the other agencies haven't changed their vacancy announcments is becuase no one has challenged them yet and held up the case that went before the MSPB (Merit System Protection Board).
                              Well, lots of people in this job love to stand on the sidelines and predict what is or isn't going to happen, but the one constant is that they're almost always wrong. Case in point: "FBI is going to merge with DEA...". And my personal favorite, and one that was heard for 20+ years before it finally happened in July: "Customs and Immigration Inspectors are going to get 6c..."

                              Another example is your conditional offer, because it's "conditional." A person in my office got one two months ago and had it yanked. Point being nothing is a "done deal" or a sure thing until it's actually done, as in you're on the payroll, are no longer a conditional employee, or - in the case of this age issue - every swinging dic% over age 37 is now eligible for 6c-covered positions. Which they most certainly are not. Don't believe me? Call your local FBI Applicant Coordinator and tell them you want to drop an application at age 42.
                              "Sir, does this mean that Ann Margaret's not coming?"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by GreenLine View Post
                                Well, lots of people in this job love to stand on the sidelines and predict what is or isn't going to happen, but the one constant is that they're almost always wrong. Case in point: "FBI is going to merge with DEA...". And my personal favorite, and one that was heard for 20+ years before it finally happened in July: "Customs and Immigration Inspectors are going to get 6c..."

                                Another example is your conditional offer, because it's "conditional." A person in my office got one two months ago and had it yanked. Point being nothing is a "done deal" or a sure thing until it's actually done, as in you're on the payroll, are no longer a conditional employee, or - in the case of this age issue - every swinging dic% over age 37 is now eligible for 6c-covered positions. Which they most certainly are not. Don't believe me? Call your local FBI Applicant Coordinator and tell them you want to drop an application at age 42.
                                this one isn't going to be decided by an "applicant coordinator" from any agency, but a federal judge (and perhaps even by the USSC).

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 7463 users online. 307 members and 7156 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X