Comments:

If valid comments are really being solicited from the DoD civilian workforce, you could present some kind of matrice that compares the existing system with the proposed one. 

  However, it is presented in such a way (as if the proposed system is greatand absolutely necessary) that I think we feel that this is going to happenno matter what we say.  If you simply want us to help tweak it, again somesimple indication of what is going to change, what benefits, what losses in a comparision of the proposed with the existing system.  If streamlining andmore flexible means getting rid of appeal processes, that is not a goodthing as far as I am concerned.  The unions of which I am not a member arefairly weak already since there is no provision to strike.  If this weakens them more, you might as well eliminate them altogether.  But I do know, eventhough I am not a member, if I am treated wrongly by a supervisor, it will fight for me. I realize that from a supervisor's point of view if he/she says "jump" all he/she wants is the person to say is "how high" (I do too) but that scenerio is not very conducive to whistle blowing.

  Although I think that there are many things wrong with the present system, to say that performance plays no roll is not true.  To present this as something that has to happen in a post 9/11 environment makes it appear to us that comments are really unwelcome and anyone who does provide anything is in danger of being considered a malcontent.