Comment Number: OL-10502843
Received: 3/3/2005 8:41:33 AM
Subject: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment
Title: National Security Personnel System
CFR Citation: 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901
No Attachments

Comments:

5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 I have been employed by the Department of the Navy for thirty two (32)years; twenty (20 as an active duty commissioned officer and twelve (12) as a GS-12 Supervising Civil Engineer. For twenty seven (27) of those years I have supervised GS rated personnel starting as a young Navy LT (03), and to date as a GS-12. In none of my thirty two (32) years have I had a civlian supervisor, rather they were/are all senior military officers. The main reason I chose to remain in the employee of the Department of the Navy after military retirment [even though I first fell under the Dual Compensation Act that withheld a significant amount of my military retirement pay] was the fairness of the graduated GS rating system that allowed performance bonus payments when I or my subordinates did an outstanding job. That type of system promoted a team approach to task accomplishments and did not enhance the development of individualism for better pay that is commonly applied in the civilian sector. I am sure that you will receive numerous comments of how federal civil servants contribute to the success of our active duty military, especially in a time of war. And, the sacrifices that civil servants make to insure success of those forces. I would rather give you a specific example of what will happen to many of GS rated employees if Pay Banding and Performance Pay is instituted from personal experience as both a military officer and a civilian supervisor. First, as a military officer, I was never trained on how to evaluate civlian performance. The graduated GS pay schedule allowed my civilians to get regular pay raises and step increases without my personnel lack of management skills. I feel the current military supervisor system is no different. I see "the good ole boys" network well instilled in senior military officers. A 'Pay for Performance' system using senior military supervisors will inhance this type of acknowledgement. That comment should not be considered a derogatory statement towards senior military supervisors of civlians; just a fact of life. Senior military leaders are not taught how to manage civilians, they are tought how to manage subordinate military by giving direct orders to accomplish specific missions. And rewards go to those that fight "crisis management" rather than plan and execute. Also, a military officer may not supervise a civilian during thier entire military career; retaining management skills for their civilians would require constant refresher training. Let me give you a direct example. My military supervisor has three GS-12s under him. One is a Safety Manager that he sees him about crisis problems every day. One is the head of the Computer section, so he sees her every day fixing his computer. I am the facility manager and keep the lights on, the temperature in his office stable and very seldom see him on a regular basis as I manage without crisis. Under a pay for performance system, who do you think will recieve that annual pay increase? Correct, first the computer person, second the safety person and lastly the facility manager; if sufficinet funds are available to the command. Second, and more personnel. I am at the Step 8 level of my GS-12 rating. The new bay band for GS-12s tops out at my current level. That leaves only 'Pay for Performance' pay raises. Again, left up to my military supervisor and the funds available to our command for such pay raises, I feel I will never see another pay raise in the eight years I have remaining with civil service before I retire at age sixty three if the new NSPS system is incorporated at DoD. I feel very strongly that the new personel system proposed by DoD is not only unfair, but will allow discrimination in pay based on performance and pay banding. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.