| Comment Number: | OL-10510412 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 9:26:54 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 Section 9901.512 Probationary Periods. Probationary Periods should be consistent as per occupational series and should not be adjusted downward merely due to preference eligibility for hiring and RIF. The CFR provision excepts preference eligible entrants from serving more than a 1 year probationary period. This is not supported by the trial period concept. If a particular job justifies an extended probationary period, that suitability assessment period should be universally applied to all entrants into that position. Under the Demo Project covering the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, the Scientists and Engineers serve a three year probationary period, and all others serve a two year probationary period. If a preference eligible scientist is working on a research project that takes 20 months to result in publication of research results, it may take more than a year to ascertain they are unsuitable for retention. Likewise, if a preference eligible attorney does not have his/her first court appearance until 15 months into employment we may not know that they are not suitable for the trial counsel portion of their job. The removal of such a person would be for observations during the trial period evaluation. Furthermore, there is no definition of preference eligible in the Federal Register. If you are referring to Vet Preference, Repromotion preference, or some other preference, you should clearly state that. I believe the underlying Vet Preference for hiring is still justified. I also believe that Vet Preference categories for RIF competitive levels are also justified, because all the employees are generally suitable, or they would have been removed prior to the RIF. In a narrow RIF affecting few employees, it is conceivable that a superior performing disabled vet new hire will have a higher retention standing than an above average performing disabled vet. This type of system does support the merit based concept, while still retaining some of the old Vet Preferences. (Although there is a greater justification for limiting the RIF Vet Preference to disabled vets - I say this in spite of the fact that I am a Gulf War Vet and would lose out in such a redefinition). However, I don't think it makes sense to apply that type of preference in an arena when suitability for employment is being assessed (during the probationary trial period). We may think someone is qualified when we bring them on board. If we find that our initial assessment was flawed, then we should be able to use the probationary termination mechanism without invoking the incredibly cumbersome adverse actions processes in Subpart G and appeals process in Subpart H of 5 CFR Part 9901. Furthermore, I believe each entrant into DoD service should be required to serve at least a two year period before being permitted to invoke any MSPB or negotiated grievance review process for suspensions or removals.