Comment Number: | OL-10507413 |
Received: | 3/14/2005 10:52:20 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:
I am a retired Air Force Colonel, and I am amazed at the concept that DOD is proposing concerning the National Security Personal System (NSPS). At a time when we have so much of our military fighting the war on terrorism, DOD has a need for the civilian defense abilities even more so. If it were not for them, we would definitely lose the battle. The civilians have a very important role of doing numerous functions that the military does not have the time nor the personnel to accomplish now. They are already intregated with the military and the changes that you propose are not needed. Even though I am retired, I keep abreast of what the Defense Department is doing. Veterans and Veteran preference is very near and dear to me. When I retired, I went to work for private industry where the majority of their work was for the DOD. What they do and the work performed is very important to the war fighter, as is the work performed by the federal civilians. There is a huge number of federal employees who themselves are veterans and they have a full understanding of what the soldiers need and the speed that it is needed. It is beyond my comprehension how you can state that you need these flexabilities in order to accomplish the mission. We have had over 100,000 of our young men and women injured during this conflict and I would expect that when they are able to begin working again, the federal government would be the first place that they would look for employment. They have already lost so much, why would they also want to lose their rights by working for the government? You have stated that they will not lose their veterans preference during the hiring procedure and during a reduction in force. When you are going to limit their competitive area, yes, they lose most of their rights. When they cannot bump nor retreat to other areas that they are qualified for, the end result is separation. This pertains to Subpart E and F. I cannot foresee why anyone would want to come to work for the government. Even in the military, they have some form of appeal rights (Subpart H). Your proposal of an internal DOD panel is unjustified. They have a right to a neutral third party to hear their case involving adverse actions. Management can and does make mistakes and often times it is nothing more than a personality conflict between two people. You are talking about someone’s livelihood and they should be heard by someone who is impartial. I sincerely hope that DOD will relook at what they are proposing and consider making major changes. Bill Cardwell, Cedar Rapids, Iowa