[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VETERANS' PREFERENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-450 WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
Dakota HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona Carolina
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEFF MILLER, Florida
PHIL HARE, Illinois JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JERRY McNERNEY, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
September 6, 2007
Page
Veterans' Preference............................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 48
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 48
WITNESSES
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Hon. Neil A.G. McPhie,
Chairman....................................................... 24
Prepared statement of Hon. McPhie............................ 60
U.S. Department of Defense, Hon. Patricia S. Bradshaw, Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy)......... 26
Prepared statement of Hon. Bradshaw.......................... 63
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hon. Boyd K. Rutherford,
Assistant Secretary for Administration......................... 28
Prepared statement of Hon. Rutherford........................ 65
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Anita R. Hanson, Outreach
Group Manager.................................................. 37
Prepared statement of Ms. Hanson............................. 67
U.S. Department of Labor, John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service........... 40
Prepared statement of Mr. McWilliam.......................... 70
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Willie Hensley, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Human Resources Management, Office of
Resources and Administration................................... 41
Prepared statement of Mr. Hensley............................ 73
______
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Mary Jean
Burke, First Executive Vice President, National Veterans
Affairs Council................................................ 14
Prepared statement of Ms. Burke.............................. 54
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, C.J. ``Cliff'' Guffey,
Executive Vice President....................................... 15
Prepared statement of Mr. Guffey............................. 57
Disabled American Veterans, Brian E. Lawrence, Assistant National
Legislative Director........................................... 17
Prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence........................... 59
National Veterans Legal Services Program, Meg Bartley, Senior
Staff Attorney................................................. 3
Prepared statement of Ms. Bartley............................ 49
Tadsen, Roger, Wetumpka, AL...................................... 5
Prepared statement of Mr. Tadsen............................. 50
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Legion, Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic
Commission, statement.......................................... 76
National Association of Postal Supervisors, Ted Keating, National
President, letter.............................................. 81
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Hon. Neil A.G. McPhie, Chairman, U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board, letter dated September 17, 2007.......... 83
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Hon. Patricia S. Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy), U.S. Department of
Defense, letter dated September 17, 2007................... 85
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Hon. Boyd K. Rutherford, Assistant Secretary for
Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, letter
dated September 17, 2007................................... 88
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Ms. Anita R. Hanson, Outreach Group Manager, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, letter dated September 17, 2007...... 89
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Willie Hensley, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Human Resources
Management, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter
dated September 17, 2007................................... 91
VETERANS' PREFERENCE
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Donnelly,
McNerney, Hall and Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Veterans' Affairs Economic Opportunity Subcommittee hearing
on veterans' preference will come to order. Before I begin with
my opening statement, I would like to call attention to the
fact that Mr. Ted Keating, President of the National
Association of Postal Supervisors, has asked to submit a
written statement for the record. If there is no objection, I
ask unanimous consent that his statement be entered for the
record.
Hearing no objection, so entered.
[The statement of Mr. Keating appears on p. 81.]
When called to duty, service members must make a sacrifice
by leaving behind loved ones and a way of life for an extended
period of time. As four of our most recent Subcommittee
hearings have highlighted, many of these service members have
returned home to find themselves having a difficult time
securing employment.
In the early years of our Republic, veterans returning from
war have been provided assistance in their reintegration back
into civilian life to include being given preference in Federal
Government hiring so they may succeed after military service.
Generally, to qualify for such preference, a veteran must have
been discharged or released from active duty in the U.S. Armed
Forces under honorable conditions and be eligible under one of
the preference categories. These categories apply to certain
veterans who served during war; veterans with less than or a
greater than 30 percent service-connected disability; veterans
who have a service-connected disability and are receiving
benefits due to that disability, but do not qualify for other
preferences; and family members of veterans.
Unfortunately, as we will hear today, there are some
concerns that still exist, have existed over the past years.
Some of these include veterans improperly denied appointments
and veterans targeted during a reduction in force (RIF).
I hope this hearing will allow the Subcommittee to
determine the success rate of veterans' preference; if
veterans' preference has assisted our Nation's heroes in
acquiring jobs at Federal agencies; and if these agencies have
implemented veterans' preference properly.
I applaud the Federal agencies that have made strong
efforts in hiring veterans, especially disabled veterans. I
would also like to take the time to recognize the steadfast
dedication of all our panelists today and their willingness to
bring to light the serious issues that are being faced by many
of our veterans today. I know that those of us here in the
Congress, and the Administration officials on the third and
fourth panels, look forward to hearing today's testimony so
that we may all work together to properly recognize the
sacrifice of those who have answered the call to duty. This is
especially true at a time when our country is experiencing an
increased retirement rate among Federal employees, and the
military operations that are creating a larger population of
veterans.
I now yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Boozman, for his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 48.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you
and your staff, my staff for bringing this very important issue
before the Subcommittee.
The Federal Government has a special obligation to make
veterans part of its workforce, and I know that many Federal
agencies make a real effort to hire and promote veterans. For
example, the military services led by the Army with 43 percent,
Air Force with over 41 percent, Navy with 38 percent, and the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with over 23 percent
led the Federal Government in hiring veterans in fiscal year
2005. Unfortunately there are also agencies that make little or
no effort.
I hope that today's hearing will provide us with insights
as to how veterans' preference laws are working and in some
cases not working. I would say that overall numbers show the
Federal Government is making an effort. For example, according
to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) report on
veterans in the Federal workforce for 2005, veterans comprised
27 percent of the Federal full-time permanent employees, and
veterans hiring is up in all areas. If I am disappointed, it is
that agencies did not make better use of the special hiring
authorities, such as veterans recruitment authority, VRA, to
hire even more veterans.
I must say reading OPM's Web site sections devoted to
veterans' preferences is not an easy task, probably because of
the multiple laws, hiring authorities and programs in effect
for veterans and nonveterans.
Madam Chair, since we have no direct authority over Title 5
in the rest of the government, and again, I am thinking out
loud but, I wonder if we should consider using our jurisdiction
to simplify veterans' preference for the VA in the same manner
as we did for small business in Public Law 109-461.
VA has a good overall record relative to hiring veterans,
but I think that we could help them do even better without
tying the hands of the human resources staff.
Again, I appreciate very much the panelists here, and I am
very glad to hear the testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 48.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman, for your
suggestions and ideas on how we can best utilize our
jurisdiction in our work here together to ensure that other
agencies can meet the higher standard that the VA has in a
number of instances, and that we can share that information
with our colleagues on other Committees but also look to
simplify these procedures. I'm also interested in the
testimony, or the questions you may have, for our witnesses
along that line or thoughts they provide in their opening
statements.
I want to welcome on our first panel Ms. Meg Bartley,
Senior Staff Attorney of the National Veterans Legal Services
Program (NVLSP); and Mr. Roger Tadsen, a disabled Air Force
veteran, residing in the State of Alabama. Thank you both for
being here today.
I do want to remind you that your entire written statements
will be made part of the record. Please summarize your remarks,
you will be recognized for 5 minutes. We will have some
questions for you as well. We have two additional panels, so
please keep your opening statement to 5 minutes, we would
appreciate that.
Ms. Bartley, let us begin with your testimony. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF MEG BARTLEY, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL
VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM; AND ROGER TADSEN, WETUMPKA, AL
(DISABLED VETERAN)
STATEMENT OF MEG BARTLEY
Ms. Bartley. Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee,
on behalf of the National Veterans Legal Services Program. I am
honored to provide this testimony. And I hope it assists you in
ensuring that all veterans receive the preference to which
their service entitles them.
During the past 8 years, NVLSP has reviewed and
investigated complaints concerning veterans' preference
violations. During that time we have filed amicus briefs with
the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Federal
circuit on behalf of the American Legion and on behalf of our
own organization in important veterans' preference cases. Based
on discussions with individual veterans and review of numerous
complaints, we believe there are currently many violations of
both the spirit and the letter of veterans' preference laws.
I want to summarize three problems with the current system.
In the interest of time, I will omit the recommendations that I
have included in my written testimony. These are not the only
problems with how veterans' preference works, but I believe
they best illustrate the systemic weaknesses in the system.
They show us that agencies currently avoid consistent and even-
handed application of veterans' preference in appointments to
the competitive service.
I will first address the practice of canceling a
certificate of eligibles in order to avoid hiring a preference
eligible. And I have a little overview in my written testimony
of what can happen when an agency posts a vacancy. Usually
applicants apply. A certificate of eligibles is generated.
Sometimes there is more than one certificate, and I will get to
that in a minute.
But let's look at a case where there is a single
certificate. Let's assume it is headed by a preference
eligible. The hiring official doesn't want to hire that
veteran. They may request a passover from OPM, and if their
request for a passover is denied, the law currently provides
that if the agency decides to subsequently cancel the entire
announcement in order to avoid hiring the preference eligible,
veterans' preference rights are not violated. That is from the
Scharein case and also the Abell case of the Federal Circuit.
That outrageous statement is the current state of the law, and
allowing that situation to continue allows an agency to
intentionally foil veterans' preference laws.
A second problem that shows the systemic weakness of the
current system is that under veterans' preference laws,
emphasis is placed on the rank or rating of a preference
eligible on a single competitive examining certificate. That is
in chapter 33 of Title 5 USC. For many positions, the
preference eligible is at the top of the certificate. And years
ago when there was only one certificate, that provided
meaningful preference, right, because the veterans at the top
end would have to be chosen, or the agency would be required to
get authorization for a passover.
However, at the current time, agencies have the ability to
choose a candidate from among multiple certificates and
programs. The existence of multiple certificates and programs,
any of which may be used to fill a single vacancy, renders the
rank or rating assigned to the preference eligible on the
competitive open certificate potentially meaningless. What is
the benefit of being number one on the list if the agency has
the ability to choose from four or five other certificates or
programs in deciding who to hire? Veterans are completely
confused to find that they were at the very top of a
certificate, but someone from a completely different
certificate was appointed to the job.
A third problem is that agencies tend to ignore the primacy
of the competitive examining process in Federal hiring. The
existence of multiple hiring programs and certificates from
which agencies can choose leads agencies to a dangerous view of
Federal hiring, and that is that they are pretty much
unrestricted in choosing how to hire an individual. Competitive
examination is seen as one hiring method among several.
However, the statutory scheme in Title 5, chapter 33 requires
that an individual be appointed in the competitive service only
if they have passed an examination or of necessity been
excepted from examination.
Deviations from that method of choosing an individual for
the competitive service leads to serious violations of
veterans' preference laws. This is evidenced by the fact that
the Outstanding Scholar Program operated undisturbed for many
years and only recently was recognized as violating veterans'
preference. The growth of additional programs as alternative
routes into competitive service is a serious threat to
consistent application of veterans' preference.
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to present our views on this issue and look
forward to continuing working with the Subcommittee on
strengthening the application, oversight and enforcement of
veterans' preference.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bartley appears on p. 49.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Ms. Bartley, thank you very much for
your testimony.
Mr. Tadsen, thank you very much for taking personal leave
to join us today to share with us your insights and testimony.
You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROGER TADSEN
Mr. Tadsen. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Roger Tadsen, and I thank you for allowing
me to speak with you concerning my experiences under the
Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP),
established by 5 CFR 720 Subpart C. My military career started
when I joined the Air Force in January 1972 at the age of 17.
While on active duty, I had surgery which left me partially
paralyzed in both legs. The Air Force medically discharged me
in January 1987. As a result, the Veterans Administration
established my service-connected disability rating at 70
percent.
The Air Force Audit Agency hired me in June 1991 upon
completing the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation Program. My
previous Air Force experience paid off with my first audit,
which resulted in over a $3 million savings to the Air Force. I
thought I was doing well. Imagine my surprise when my region
chief, meeting me for the first time, told me, you should be
satisfied where you are because of your disability and that you
could not handle being an audit manager.
His statement took me aback. I filed an equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint. And his explanation: You
misunderstood what I said. And I gave him the benefit of the
doubt.
Between 1995 and 2004, I had ratings of excellent and
superior. I self-nominated for more than 15 competitive
promotions and was never selected. All the while, the Air Force
Audit Agency had continuous vacancies in California, Ohio,
Texas and the Pentagon. I watched as my peers with less time
and grade and service were selected and wondering, why not me?
When I asked, I was told by Agency officials, focus your
energies on job performance, which is the primary factor to
promotion in the Audit Agency, and apply for vacancies.
Since January 2000, I have completed 23 audits, identifying
over $54 million in savings for the Air Force. I have audit
experience in acquisition field operations and information
systems audits and am a certified fraud examiner. I have worked
with the Air Force Audit Agency for over 15 years and have more
than 31 years with the Air Force.
In October of 2002, I discovered the DVAAP. On my own time
I started to research its implementation in the Air Force Audit
Agency. Over the next year I asked my supervisor and other
agency officials why the Audit Agency was not following this
affirmative action program, focusing on disabled veterans rated
30 percent or more as outlined. My written testimony gives a
full account of who I wrote and their response since.
After many letters and e-mails and discussions, it became
apparent that the Audit Agency did not want to implement this
affirmative action program. As a result, I filed an EEO
complaint in December of 2003 based on the lack of their
responsiveness.
In January of 2004, I requested a humanitarian reassignment
for personal reasons. A Deputy Assistant Auditor General
offered me a job, which included a promotion in February 2004,
stating, this will kill two birds with one stone. I assumed he
was referring to my EEO complaint and humanitarian
reassignment. I accepted this promotion, knowing that this same
official had previously rejected my self-nomination a few
months earlier, and I withdrew my EEO complaint.
After our move, I continued to ask why the Audit Agency was
not implementing the DVAAP plan. My Associate Director said
that a Deputy Assistant Auditor General poignantly told me in
September of 2004, we don't want to hear any more about the
DVAAP.
Since January of 2006, to continue my career progression, I
have applied 11 times for vacancy in professional military
education since the Agency senior officials say I need depth
and breadth of experience. Yet again, I went unselected while
generally others with less time and experience were selected.
In June of 2007, I provided Audit Agency senior staff
contact information for the Supervisor of Employment Outreach
at the national VA headquarters. None of these officials
contacted his office even though he identified over 1,600
potential candidates rated 30 percent or more.
I believe my testimony has shown a pattern of deception
concerning the implementation of this affirmative action
program while supporting discrimination against disabled
veterans within my own organization, especially those rated 30
percent or more. And I just thank you for allowing me to take
the time to come and speak with you on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tadsen appears on p. 50.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you again, Mr. Tadsen. We
appreciate your willingness to share your experiences, clearly
as frustrating as they have been, so that we can help get some
answers to try to help others avoid being in this position.
Certainly it is our oversight role to make sure that programs
like DVAAP are implemented in the way that we had intended.
We have been joined by Mr. McNerney, the gentleman from
California. Did you have an opening statement, Mr. McNerney,
that you wanted to share with the Subcommittee?
Mr. McNerney. No. Go ahead and go on with the questions.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I will recognize the Ranking Member
first for questions and then recognize you, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bartley, you mentioned the three things that were
common barriers. In one I was a little confused. You quoted a
case, a citing from the case. Was that quoted from the law, or
is that a bad interpretation of the law? See what I am saying?
Laws are made all the time, and then judges interpret what the
law means. Is that a bad interpretation?
Ms. Bartley. That is both the Merit Systems Protection
Board and the Federal circuit's interpretation of the law. I
want to make clear that the MSPB and the court seem to be
interpreting the law correctly. It is just that the law has
this flaw in it that it would allow an agency to go ahead and
cancel. There is nothing to prevent that from happening. So
that was their interpretation of the law.
Mr. Boozman. So in your mind, there is a loophole in the
law.
Ms. Bartley. There appears to be a loophole in the law.
Mr. Boozman. It wasn't intended to be that way when the law
was written.
Ms. Bartley. I don't think when the law was written people
thought that that would occur.
Mr. Boozman. In many cases when you try to write law,
sometimes you don't cover every intended loophole.
Ms. Bartley. Right. It is impossible to foresee that
something like that would----
Mr. Boozman. You describe the three most common barriers.
What is the most common of the three?
Ms. Bartley. I think these are all significant flaws
structurally in the law. I did not attempt to say that they
were the most important or the ones that occur most frequently.
I would find it hard to choose among them or to put them ahead
of other problems that the other service organizations are
going to address in a little while.
Mr. Boozman. And I know in your written testimony it is
there, but would you summarize again, would you kind of go
through one, two and three? And then as one who works with the
problem, what would be your fix for the problem?
Ms. Bartley. Well, the first problem that I mentioned was
the cancelation of a certificate specifically in order to avoid
hiring a preference eligible. One recommendation or idea that
we have and that some veterans service groups and I have
discussed, some other service group members have discussed, is
to require an agency to request permission to cancel a
certificate that is headed by a preference eligible. A rule
that might be patterned after the current passover provision in
5 USC 3318(b), which requires an agency--the current rule, the
passover rule is if the agency wants to pass over a veteran on
a certificate, to essentially request OPM's permission to do
that, giving reasons why they want to do that; is the
preference eligible not qualified, et cetera. And sometimes
they can actually accomplish that. The OPM says, yes, go ahead
and pass over.
There could be a similar provision concerning the
cancelation of a certificate. Where the certificate is headed
by a preference eligible, they could have to give reasons to
OPM or give reasons to some agency as to why they want to
cancel the certificate. And OPM, if they found that there was a
valid reason other than just because the agency wants to avoid
veterans' preference laws, they could go ahead and approve the
cancelation of the certificate.
I am sure that there will be an objection, that that would
be quite bureaucratically burdensome, and I guess that would
have to be tailored so it wouldn't be burdensome, because I
understand there are a lot of cancelations of certificates. The
funding for the position might have failed, the agency may need
to tweak how they described the position, so they cancel the
certificate, and they add a new skill in there that needs to
be--you know, that the applicant should have. There are all
kinds of reasons why certificates are canceled. And I am not
saying that this is the main reason, but this is--there are
many cases that have--cited the Scharein case and the Abell
case. And so our assumption is, well, this is happening with
some frequency. And it is such an outrageous situation that it
just calls out for some kind of action.
As far as the second problem, the agency's ability to
choose from multiple certificates or programs in filling a
single vacancy, I admit that our recommendation there is a bit
vague: basically somehow to ensure that a certificate generated
through the competitive process, that is the open competitive--
open to all sources competitive certificate is somehow favored
over other hiring methods and over other hiring programs.
Again, I admit that that is a bit vague, but that is all I
can think of, because when you look at Title 5 as a whole, the
only place that appointments are really talked about is in
chapter 33. That is a structured--a structured method of
appointing someone to the competitive service. It is all in
chapter 33, and that is where all of the veterans' preference
rules are also.
So that should be the primary method of hiring. But again,
the recommendation there is admittedly a bit vague. And I am
sure perhaps other people have other suggestions on that.
The third problem is--and it is related to the multiple
certificate problem--is that agencies tend to ignore that the
competitive examination process is supposed to be the primary
hiring method for appointments to the competitive service. This
is routinely ignored. It is ridiculously routinely ignored, in
my opinion. The recommendation here, again, is to ensure that
the competitive examining process remains the primary
appointment method for entry into the competitive service, and
if an agency is going to use another hiring program, they
should have reasons why that is necessary.
Mr. Boozman. With your permission, can I ask Mr. Tadsen one
thing?
You told your story and then alluded to the fact that other
veterans, other friends, acquaintances or whatever were having
the same problem. Is it because that your supervisors feel like
you are thrust on them in the first place? See what I am
saying? If you are doing a good job, and if I were the
supervisor, and you want to have a good team that does a good
job doing these things, is it just getting off on the wrong
foot in the first place, or----
Mr. Tadsen. Well, most of our--most of the decisions that
are made aren't made at my first- or second-level supervisor.
It is upper management and at the Senior Executive Service
(SES) level that are making these decisions and trying to
inform the agency how they want to do it. So my first- and
second-level supervisors, they write glowing reports.
For example, when I put in for Air Command and Staff
College at Maxwell, my first- and second-level supervisors,
they wrote glowing comments. But when it got to the SES where
they are supposed to fill out their comments on this form,
their comments aren't supportive. And so the selecting
officials at the Board that they choose the people that are to
attend these professional schools, they wrote back to me saying
that the endorsing officials' comments don't relate to how the
Air Force would benefit from me attending this particular
college.
And again, I am just one. There are 13 other disabled
veterans, and they have told me their stories as well. But
again, they don't want to be under the gun, as it were.
Mr. Boozman. So you feel like the upper level is based on
the fact that you and these other folks have a disability as to
why they are--I guess what I am saying is you want to have a
good team of people that are doing the job, and evidently you
are doing the job.
Mr. Tadsen. You want to be qualified. You want to have
qualified people in those positions.
Mr. Boozman. So what is their motivation? What is their
motivation?
Mr. Tadsen. I don't know, because they have yet to respond
to any of my inquiries. You know, they just don't respond. They
tell my Associate Director they just don't want to hear any
more about it, and that is it. And even under National Security
Personnel System (NSPS) now, we have been under NSPS since
April of 2006, we have not hired any disabled veterans, we have
not promoted any disabled veterans, and nobody will explain
why. And when I write the Office of Primary Responsibility at
the Air Force level, they said, well, we have provided the Air
Force Audit Agency with six recommendations that would help
them to improve the disabled veterans' representation. And they
still have not implemented those recommendations.
Mr. Boozman. Well, thank you for coming, and we appreciate
your service. Thank you very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I also want to thank the two panelists. I know it is hard
to come forth, but this is what it takes to change the system
so hopefully we can make some things that are going to change
and make it better.
Ms. Bartley, I would like to ask you, in your opinion, is
the Office of Personnel Management capable of dealing with
veterans' preferences across the country, or are there major
structural changes that are needed?
Ms. Bartley. I think there are major structural changes
that are needed. I believe that one of the other service
organizations later will speak about the fact that the appeal
process and the complaint process for veterans' preference
violations is not streamlined at all. A lot of different
agencies have a hand in it: Office of Special Counsel, OPM, the
MSPB, et cetera. And often veterans don't know really what is
happening.
I also think that with the growth of a lot of--I mentioned
this in my written testimony--multiple student hiring programs
and things like that, it is hard for OPM to--you know, there is
like growth in the number of ways to hire people. It is hard
for OPM to keep their hands on each one. And then, of course,
sometimes all this is delegated to the agency, and OPM is just
doing minimal supervision. And then again, they don't really
have the--they have authority, but they don't have the
supervisory ability to make sure that things are happening the
right way.
Mr. McNerney. Well, in your view, then, does the veterans'
preference statute really help? Is there any level that it does
help, or are we sort of not getting anywhere at this point?
Ms. Bartley. Well, I certainly wouldn't recommend getting
rid of it. Of course it helps in situations. What we are trying
to highlight are the numerous violations and think about ways
that we could improve it so that those violations don't occur.
Sometimes, though, it seems as though you plug one hole, and,
you know, other potential ways of hiring people appear, you
know, and so you are busy kind of plugging holes.
And I would point to the Outstanding Scholar Program, as
you know, a hole that was plugged, but now--and after the--you
know, the Outstanding Scholar hiring program was frozen. I
believe it is still frozen. But I heard various things from
various people on that. After that was frozen, because it was
seen as basically a violation of veterans' preference laws and
the competitive examining process, then we did see some advice,
actually, among Federal hiring managers, what to use now that
Outstanding Scholar isn't available to us. And, of course,
there is nothing wrong with that, but a lot of these--seemingly
what has occurred is that there has been a bit of an explosion
in different student hiring programs, and we are not sure how
veterans' preference is being applied there and whether anyone
is doing any oversight or enforcement of those programs.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think that employers find any tools
that are useful in locating the appropriate person to hire for
vacancies, or is that an area that could use some work as well?
Ms. Bartley. Did they have--it is possible that an human
resource (HR) professional might have a better view of that
than I do because I really don't do HR work. I know they clamor
for hiring flexibilities. And, of course, no service
organization in this room has a problem with that as long as
veterans' preference laws, including, you know, passover and
enforcement, are followed.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Tadsen, do you think that the Air Force Audit Agency
retaliated against you in any way, or do you feel like there
was unintentional action?
Mr. Tadsen. Oh, I think it was well directed at me, because
my first line supervisor and a deputy director for my region
worked together, I think, to put me in the hospital, as it
were. They were--the VA, they were thinking I was having heart
trouble, but it was all stress-related, because, again, they
were attacking my character, my work. As I said in my previous
testimony, my ratings from 1995 until 2004 were superior or
excellent. And since that time--now I am just average. And I
think that is part of the process.
And just to add with what Ms. Bartley had said as far as
certificates being cancelled and how the preferences are given,
in my own organization, I believe that they purposefully tried
to do what they can so that they don't have to have a disabled
veteran in a supervisory position or mid or upper management,
because there are none currently.
Mr. McNerney. Can I ask one more question? Do you have any
specific recommendations then on what should be done to improve
the situation or--you don't have to answer in detail now, but
if you do, if you would submit those, I think it would be
useful.
Mr. Tadsen. One recommendation I would give is that the air
staff, the A1X folks that are the Office of Primary
Responsibility (OPR) office for the DVAAP plan, is that they
should have the authority to not necessarily encourage my
organization to participate in this program, but actually
monitor how they implement the DVAAP for hiring using veterans'
preferences or promotions under the DVAAP, because now it is
just not satisfactory.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me continue with you then, Mr.
Tadsen. In your testimony you said that between 1995 and 2004
you self-nominated 15 times?
Mr. Tadsen. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. For competitive promotions. You were
never selected, and there were continuous vacancies at the
time?
Mr. Tadsen. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And you were never proffered a reason
as to why you were not selected?
Mr. Tadsen. No, ma'am. Well, I assume in some instances, as
Ms. Bartley had alluded to, some certificates were withdrawn.
We chose not to fill the position at this time. In other
things, they just never filled the position.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I think you stated this in your
response to an earlier question. This wasn't an issue, it
doesn't sound like, even at the outset, that was just someone's
lack of awareness of DVAAP, right?
Mr. Tadsen. Well, in 2003, I gave the auditor general a
copy of the law, the 5 CFR Subpart C, and a paper I had written
when I was attending the Professional Military Comptroller
School on how the Air Force should implement this affirmative
action program. So they were well aware of it in 2003. Myself,
I wasn't aware of it until I was doing research on another
audit project that I just happened to cross the law. Otherwise,
I would have never even known of the DVAAP. And once I found
out, that is when I started to ask questions.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I am asking these questions so that we
can figure out, as a Subcommittee, the best way to address
different cases. Whether it is an agency that has some folks in
certain positions of responsibility that aren't as familiar as
they should be, and is, therefore, obviously not taking
adequate steps to implement it; or do we have instances in
which people are fully aware of it, those that are responsible
in a particular agency for knowing about it and implementing
it, and there is an intentional, willful refusal to implement
the law.
Do either you or Ms. Bartley want to respond to whether or
not you think that we have situations in which either are true?
Do you think in your experience with other agencies, that
people are familiar with the various programs we have in place
to ensure adequate enforcement of veterans' preference?
I raise this question because we have had other hearings
where workload issues are identified for people and primary
responsibility to keep up with changes in the law, whether it
is in contracting issues or what have you. Or do we have a
systemic situation in which individuals with responsibility are
purposefully not doing enough to implement the programs?
Ms. Bartley. Well, that is an interesting question, and I
tend to think it is a mixed bag. But I did want to note from
what Mr. Tadsen said that--I believe I am correct in this,
although I don't have all the laws memorized. veterans'
preference doesn't apply to the SES. And he was just mentioning
that the problem is with SES. I don't want to draw too much out
of that--out of that connection I am making, but it is possible
that because upper management--there may not be. I don't know a
lot of disabled veterans there--that there may be some
resistance to following the many parts of the veterans'
preference or affirmative action laws. I don't know.
But as far as your general question, I do believe it is a
matter of both workload and ignorance, or I believe there is
often outright resistance to applying the law and thinking of
ways to getting around it, like canceling certificates or
tweaking the requirements for a position so that the veteran
may no longer qualify, things like that.
Mr. Tadsen. If I might add, ma'am, when I was trying to
discover how the Air Force was implementing this plan, it took
me almost a year to get the Air Force to provide me two sheets
of paper that looked like a Word document. It was not properly
staffed. Most regulations that I review, they have an OPR
identified on the face of the document whose office is
primarily responsible, just the staffing. But the plan that
they provided me, and they called this the Air Force fiscal
year 2003 DVAAP plan, I provided it to my Civilian Personnel
Office at Elmendorf. That is where I was stationed at the time.
They had never seen it. I contacted the Civilian Personnel
Office for the Pacific Air Command because that is where
Elmendorf falls under. They had never seen it.
So as she has alluded to, I think it is a mixed bag of just
knowledge and knowing that it is there. So I--again, I think it
is a mixed bag. But in my own organization, I gave them a copy
of the law. I gave them a copy of the Air Force plan in 2003,
and we have yet to hire or promote disabled veterans within my
organization. We remain constant between 10 and 13 disabled
veterans that have a rate of 30 percent or more. And that is a
concern for me, not necessarily from my own progression, career
progression, but for the other 10 or 12 other 30-percent
disabled veterans that are out there that have had these
comments made to them, you know, the only reason you were hired
is because you are disabled; it should have gone to a woman.
Those kind of comments are just irresponsible from mid and
upper management.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Ms. Bartley, you had already addressed
the issue of your concerns about OPM. Let me ask you both this:
If it is a workload issue and a lack of familiarity with some
of the laws that are in place, then going to the issue that Mr.
Boozman brought up in his opening statement, when there is
familiarity, is it still too complex? Do you think it needs
simplification? Are there certain agencies, in your opinion,
that you have seen canceling a certificate of eligibles more
frequently than others, particularly since the decisions that
you have referenced from 2002? I think it is the Scharein
decision in 2002 and the Azdell decision. What are your
thoughts on the complexity of administering veterans'
preference across agencies? Which agencies may have taken these
decisions from the last few years and started issuing more
cancelations of the certificate of eligibles? That is a
question more directed to you, Ms. Bartley, and I may have
another one to directed Mr. Tadsen. What are your thoughts?
Ms. Bartley. We haven't looked into the--well, I did call
OPM to try and see how they track the cancelation of
certificates. They do track the cancelation of certificates. I
didn't talk--I wasn't able to talk to the person who is
actually in charge of that. So I don't have any sense of what
agencies might be doing this more than others.
As to your question about the complexity, I think that is
an issue. It has become very complex. If you read, you know,
Title 5 and the appointment and selection process there, it all
sounds really simple. But there is just so many regulations and
different parts of the mosaic that it is very complex. I mean,
I have some sympathy with, you know, human resources people
just because it is hard to walk that line. But again, the most
important thing to me and to our organization is that veterans'
preference laws are applied. But it has become a very, very
difficult thing with all of these different programs.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that. We may explore with
the next panel their thoughts on this. Perhaps after the
hearing, taking the testimony we are getting today, if there is
a consensus about that, we can help develop proposals, as Mr.
Boozman suggested, to help simplify this process that would
also help in the training for those being familiar with what
laws apply and how to best implement them.
We do have three more panels, so I think we may have some
additional questions that we will submit to you in writing, if
you can get back to us, because I think if they are agency-
specific, Mr. Tadsen, for us to get more information from your
experience. We may want to submit some additional questions to
you.
I again appreciate your testimony today and share your
concerns. Of course, it raises some other issues, as Ms.
Bartley pointed out. If we have got veterans' preference
applying to initial hires and protection against reduction-in-
force actions, we want to focus on what is currently the law. I
also think if we have continuous vacancies, and someone has
demonstrated their qualifications and has consistently received
positive reviews, then in supervisory managerial roles there
needs to be not so much flexibility for agencies to just be
canceling certificates of eligibles or just leaving vacancies
open when we know we have got people who applied that appear to
meet the qualifications for the position.
Thank you both. I appreciate the time, and we appreciate
your service to the Nation. Thank you.
Mr. Tadsen. Thank you kindly.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I now invite the second panel to the
witness table. Joining us on the second panel of witnesses
today is Ms. Beth Moten, Director of the American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE); Mr. Cliff Guffey, the Executive
Vice President for the American Postal Workers Union (APWU);
Mr. Brian Lawrence, Assistant National Legislative Director for
the Disabled American Veterans; and Mr. Rick Weidman, Executive
Director for Policy and Government Affairs for the Vietnam
Veterans of America.
Well, evidently Mr. Weidman wasn't able to meet with us
today, so we will move right to Ms. Moten. You are recognized
for 5 minutes. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your
written testimony. Again, your written testimony will be made
part of the record in its entirety, and we look forward to your
summation.
STATEMENTS OF MARY JEAN BURKE, FIRST EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS COUNCIL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; C.J. ``CLIFF'' GUFFEY, EXECUTIVE
VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO; AND
BRIAN E. LAWRENCE, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
STATEMENT OF MARY JEAN BURKE
Ms. Burke. Thank you. Ms. Moten wasn't able to be here
today. So I am Ms. M.J. Burke.
Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for inviting AFGE to testify today. Being a union officer and a
physical therapist at the Indianapolis VA Medical Center gives
me a unique ability to understand veterans' vocational needs
during the recovery process and as employees try to advance
their careers once they return to civilian life.
The Federal Government should be a role model for all
employers in this country not only when it comes to hiring
practices, but also for career advancement and placement of
qualified employees in leadership positions. Veterans'
preference rules must change with the times. Currently
veterans' preference rules only apply to Title 5 positions or
positions covered by the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act.
There are roughly 85,000 Federal employees in the VA who are
covered by Title 38. More recently, the Department of Defense
and the Department of Homeland Security have put in place their
own personnel rules. Therefore, we urge Congress to expand
current civil service protections for veterans to cover
employees under all personnel systems.
Veterans' preference rules must also change as the nature
of military service changes. For example, members of the Guard
and Reserves are being redeployed more often and for longer
periods than in the past. Therefore, they are particularly
disadvantaged by the fact that veterans' preferences does not
currently apply to promotions and transfers. For example, a
Title 5 employee working in my medical hospital as a biomedical
engineer technician is in the Reserves and is activated. He
perhaps then earns preference status through this new military
experience. When he returns to work at my hospital, this
additional status is of no help to get him promoted or
transferred.
Our employees in the Reserves and Guard deserve better.
They deserve a civil service system that recognizes their own
personal sacrifice. Only through my personal experience at the
Indianapolis VA Medical Center have I come to realize something
about today's veterans and their employment options. At one
point in my life, I assumed that people with Bronze Stars and
Purple Hearts were set for life financially, that their record
would ensure them a decent wage and good benefits. The reality
is many of these veterans at the VA who fold our sheets, mop
our floors, repair our air conditioners and fix our wheelchairs
have exemplary military records, but what they, in fact, rely
on is their Federal employment to give them a consistent living
wage, health and pension benefits. And even though most of
these jobs are lower skilled, they find tremendous satisfaction
in caring for other veterans.
Currently the Federal Government does not have the tools it
needs to see how well its policies are working to promote
veterans employment. There is a ready-made model that the
government could use to monitor veterans employment practices:
Management Directive 715, which currently tracks race, age,
national origin, disability and gender trends in Federal
employment. This report could be easily expanded to include
data on veterans in the Federal workforce.
Finally, those who are making hiring decisions and those
who decide how to rate an applicant's past work experience for
qualification purposes need more training to ensure that
military service is properly recognized and uniformly applied.
I have been troubled by the lack of consistency in rating
decisions. I have seen very little guidance from VA central
office about this very important function for fair treatment of
veterans and employment.
For example, there have been complaints by veterans who
have worked as medics in the military who felt they were
unfairly denied step and/or grade increases when being rated as
a licensed practical nurse. We have similar examples by other
occupations.
This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer
any questions for the Subcommittee.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Ms. Burke, thank you very much.
Ms. Burke. You are welcome.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke appears on p. 54.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Guffey.
STATEMENT OF C.J. ``CLIFF'' GUFFEY
Mr. Guffey. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Cliff Guffey, Executive Vice President of
the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, the APWU. I am
proud to say that I am a 10-point veteran. I was a member of
the Marine Corps in Vietnam 1968 and 1969. My President,
William Burrus, was a member of the 101st Airborne, and with me
today is Steve Raymer, our Director of the Maintenance
Division, and he is also a Marine Corps veteran.
It is no coincidence in my mind that those of us who are
willing to fight for the rights of our country are also willing
to fight in our workplace for the rights of working employees,
veterans included. Postmaster General Potter recently reported
that nearly 25 percent of the postal employees are veterans.
Among postal workers of my generation, the numbers and
percentages of veterans in the Postal Service has been higher.
The fact that large numbers of veterans are employed by the
Postal Service tends to obscure the fact that Postal Service
effort on behalf of our veterans is not as strong and
beneficial as it should be. There has been a continuous decline
in the number and proportion of its workers who are veterans.
This trend is particularly significant in light of the large
number of veterans, particularly disabled veterans, who are
returning from fighting in the Middle East. The Veterans
Administration has reported that our returning veterans are
suffering levels of unemployment and homelessness that I am
sure the Committee will agree are not acceptable.
According to the Veterans Administration, the reality is
that unemployment usually affects younger, less experienced
workers than most, and that includes young veterans who are
attempting to enter the civilian workforce after they are
discharged from the military service. The VA estimates nearly
200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and nearly
400,000 to 1 million veterans experience homelessness each
year. Conversely, one out of every three homeless men who are
sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural
communities have served in our military.
While great efforts have been made to provide housing,
these have not been nearly enough. More importantly, our
veterans need good jobs, good-paying jobs, a living wage with
adequate fringe benefits. Studies show that gainful employment
with a living wage with the opportunity for advancement is the
foundation for maintaining economic stability and reducing the
risk of homelessness.
There is no doubt that the Veterans' Preference Act has
provided important assistance to veterans, but this assistance
is not as effective as it should be. Perhaps the largest
problem is that veterans are not aware of their veterans'
preference rights. Neither the military nor the Veterans
Administration nor the Postal Service is doing enough to inform
veterans of their veterans' preference rights.
In our experience, the vast majority of veterans are not
aware of their rights. Even knowing their rights under the law
will not really assist veterans unless the Postal Service makes
an effective effort to inform them of employment opportunities.
Veterans who are informed of their rights and also informed of
the available postal positions are more likely to gain U.S.
Postal Service (USPS) employment because they have access to
the entrance exam upon discharge.
Currently the best employment information vets are offered
is at sporadic job fairs that do not regularly include a
representative from the USPS. We recommend that all Federal
agencies be given timely notice of these fairs and that all
agencies within the geographic area of the fairs be required to
send knowledgeable representatives.
Additionally, we urge the Committee to take steps to ensure
that the Veterans Administration and the military provide exit
counseling that includes useful information regarding Federal-
sector employment, recruitment and available positions.
The Subcommittee also needs to be aware of another
significant impediment to the veterans' preference and the
Postal Service. The Postal Service has systematically
eliminated or contracted out the six job classifications under
section 3310, Title 5 of the Veterans' Preference Act
restricting those jobs to applying veterans. For years the
Postal Service has sought to contract more and more of these
restricted jobs over the objections of the APWU.
We think that this effort by the Postal Service is contrary
to the spirit of the Veterans' Preference Act and not in the
best interest of the Postal Service. Veterans are losing their
postal employment rights because the Postal Service is not
preserving these restricted jobs for them in accordance with
Federal policy. It may be that the most effective way to
provide employment opportunities for veterans would be to
identify additional positions that could be restricted for the
employment of veterans.
If veterans are to be provided meaningful postal employment
opportunities as they have in the past, effective steps needs
to be taken to inform veterans of their rights. The military
should be required to provide effective exit counseling to
discharging veterans, informing them of their preference
rights. The Veterans Administration needs to provide effective
job counseling services that include information about
veterans' preference rights and employment opportunities. And
the Postal Service must systematically provide information
about employment opportunities to the military, to the Veterans
Administration and to the veterans themselves.
In closing, I want to thank the Committee. I want to make
two quick comments, personal comments.
When I was discharged, I got no counseling. I was sent to
the VA hospital for my exit physicals. I thought it was
atrocious at that time. I was lined up in the hallway with
hundreds and hundreds of other veterans. At that time, I said I
would never go back to a VA hospital.
Today I go back to the VA hospital, and I am very pleased
and very proud of what you all have done for us in those areas,
because what I get from the clinics and the VA hospitals has
been outstanding as far as I am concerned. Conversely to that,
the VA benefits, the processing the claims now is atrocious,
and you need to do something.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guffey appears on p. 57.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Guffey. Thank
you for your service and your testimony today.
Mr. Lawrence, welcome back to the Committee. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN E. LAWRENCE
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you.
Madam Chair, Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the 1.3 million members of the
Disabled American Veterans, I am pleased to present our views
regarding veterans' preference in Federal employment.
Commenting on veterans' preference is a bit like discussing
the Emperor's new clothes. There is an abundance of important-
sounding words, but no real substance. Someone who is
knowledgeable about veterans benefits can tell you about the 5-
point preference or 10-point preference, and on the surface it
would seem as if there were real advantages in place to help
veterans obtain Federal employment. But from the veterans'
perspective, the provisions that are in place are empty
rhetoric, and there is no significant veterans' preference.
This is inexcusable. The proportion of our population that
serves on the active duty is about 4 out of every 1,000
citizens. A very small percentage ensures that the rest of us
can enjoy the freedom and security of a great Nation. Men and
women of the Armed Forces serving the Federal Government in its
most demanding roles; therefore, they should be assured that
they will be the first in line for any Federal position for
which they may qualify. Doing so is not only a moral
obligation, it is wise economic policy from a national
perspective.
By virtue of their service, military veterans have already
established that they are disciplined, task-oriented workers
who are drug free.
Veterans will break the potential to fortify any job
market. But more than any other segment of the workforce, our
Federal Government should be among the first employers seeking
to fill those ranks with those who have served.
I have in my notes examples of how preference is avoided,
but I won't reiterate what Meg Bartley has so eloquently
pointed out. And I will move toward closing by saying that the
DAV urges the Subcommittee to support legislation that will
restore the value of veterans' preference laws. These laws
should be simple, unavoidable advantage for Federal employment,
and there should be a clear procedure for veterans to appeal
when consideration has not been afforded to their military
service. Should a fellow job candidate be selected over a
veteran based on greater credentials, it is proper. However,
the hiring official must be able to state in specific and
certain terms precisely why the veteran was less qualified than
the job recipient.
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, that
concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence appears on p. 59.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.
Thanks to all three of you.
Let me just start with a question that I had raised with
the first panel and I am going to pose to all of you. I think
some of you have addressed it to a degree. Is there a consensus
among the three of you that we have to figure out a better way
for a veteran to be better informed of his or her employment
rights, particularly as these relate to veterans' preference?
Mr. Guffey. There needs to be stronger exit counseling. I
realize we have a professional Army or military at this time,
and they are not expecting people to leave, but X amount of
people do leave and there needs to be better exit counseling.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I would agree with you on that point.
We have addressed that point even as it relates to National
Guard and Reserve when we have mobilized them more over the
years. In doing that, in terms of the exit interview or
counseling, we also know that sometimes there is so much
information coming at somebody retiring out of active duty or
leaving National Guard or Reserve service. We have also
inquired about the importance and the need for some follow-up,
6 months down the line or some regular reminder. Particularly
perhaps for some of our younger veterans who are looking at
different options and maybe more of a state of transition,
especially if they are not coming back to families.
I worry in particular, as some of you mentioned, about some
of the younger veterans who are falling through the cracks. Let
me go specifically to the veterans' preference laws.
One, do you think they need to be updated? In updating
them, do they need to be both simplified and expanded? Or would
we be better served to first update them in a way that
simplifies and focuses on those making the hiring decisions
before we expand veterans' preference? I'm interested in your
thoughts on how we go about better implementation.
Mr. Lawrence. I think you are right. They are outdated. I
mention the 5 and 10 point preference, and that was based on
the test that used to be given for Federal employment. To my
understanding, a lot of those agencies don't even have a test
that is based on a 100-point system. So a 5- or 10-point
preference is really meaningless outside of that context.
But I think you were right in what you said to the last
panel, the need to kind of gather the people at the--
authorities on this and find a simple way of having the
veterans' preference that can't be avoided and somebody that
knows, you know, more about hiring process than I do, or is
familiar with the Federal hiring process.
Mr. Guffey. Within the Postal Service in the hiring
process, I don't see the problems that other people have. We
have a large industrial workforce, and many people are hired at
the same type of job at the same time, and veterans get the
preference and that works out great.
Where we do have a problem with the Veterans' Preference
Act, where I think it may need to be updated, is in that area
where it lists specific jobs that are reserved specifically for
veterans, and where those jobs are basically defunct and other
situations where some of those jobs are being contracted out
and not being reserved for veterans.
So there could be new jobs added and changed out and what
have you.
Ms. Burke. I agree with what has been said already. I don't
think it should matter if you are a physical therapist or what
kind of appointment authority that you come into the Federal
service with. There should be administrative redress ability
for all employees, who are veterans.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Also, Mr. Guffey, specifically with
the Postal Service, are you aware of what reasons the Postal
Service is giving for contracting out those positions?
Mr. Guffey. Generally speaking, it is economics. I mean,
the Congress has put special provisions on the Postal Service
and our ability to compete in different things. And they have
to find different ways to save money and what have you.
I don't think--I don't think it is a retaliation. I don't
think there is anyone in the Postal Service who has a bone to
pick with veterans or anything like that, like the other
witness testified to. Once again, when you come into the Postal
Service--and we have a union, and the union rules. There is
nothing subjective about promotions within the area that we
represent; it is all objective and very set rules. So no one,
veterans or any other group, can be discriminated upon based on
their service.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Where are they contracting out most of
the positions? Is it rural mail delivery?
Mr. Guffey. Custodial positions in rural areas and suburbs
and what have you. Those are jobs that may not sound great, but
they are great entry level positions to positions of very high
level within the bargaining units, all the way to level 12s
that does electronic technician work. Those are the entry level
positions, and they are very coveted positions.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for mentioning the area
where we could look at updating the Postal Service has been the
fact that some of the jobs that have been specifically
designated are now defunct in terms of----
Mr. Guffey. There are not many elevator operators left in
this country.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right. Well, I appreciate your
responses to those questions.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madame Chair. I don't have a lot of
questions.
Mr. Lawrence, can you tell me--and I know you can say
specifically for yourself about the relationship that the
Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) have with OPM? Is it a
good one or a bad one?
Mr. Lawrence. Yeah, I don't think there is any animosity
between the VSOs and OPM that I am aware of.
Mr. Boozman. Do you all meet regularly?
Mr. Lawrence. We have at least quarterly meetings over at
OPM.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Thank you all very much for your
testimony. It is helpful. You don't get to go yet, though. You
are just done with me.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We have also been joined by another
colleague, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall.
Let me go to Mr. McNerney for any questions he has of the
panel, and then we'll recognize Mr. Hall for his questions.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. First of all, I
want to thank Mr. Guffey for his comment about the service that
he sees at the VA now. He or she is treated with a lot of care
and just a lot of basic desire to do good for the veterans.
And I am not sure what it is like to sign up for veterans'
benefits; that is another story. Once you are in the program
and in the hospital, they do take care of you. And if they
don't, we need to know about that especially.
Ms. Burke, how many positions do you think have been lost
to outsourcing? Is that a widespread problem that we need to be
concerned about or are there just specific cases here and
there?
Ms. Burke. Traditionally, we have used the quote about
four-fifths of the jobs that have been targeted for outsourcing
are held by veterans. Our fellow panelist has mentioned there
are some targeted positions that are reserved especially for
preference eligibles, but I think it would be a good idea to
update that and take a look at that. What I think veterans who
are highly service connected need are more simple jobs to get
them used to showing up for work every day, just the routine of
social interaction and so forth.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
This outsourcing is kind of hard to get your hands around.
Mr. Guffey, do you think that the jobs that are outsourced are
targeted as being veterans jobs?
Mr. Guffey. No, I won't make that comment against the
Postal Service because we have a union, and we represent the
people well, and those jobs are reserved for veterans. We have
probably disproportionately--those jobs pay very well, and they
believe--compared to the jobs in the private sector.
So it becomes more economically favorable for the Postal
Service to contract out those jobs as opposed to hire someone
for those jobs. And we just don't believe that is a good public
policy issue when the Postal Service is supposed to be the
ideal employer, set up as a model employer.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. So a lot of it is just the evolution of
the postal system, a lot of the jobs are going to be outsourced
anyway. Although I don't agree with outsourcing postal jobs,
but--I will make that little plug--there is nothing specific
about veterans' positions, in your opinion anyway?
Mr. Guffey. No. I don't believe anyone in the Postal
Service is targeting veterans. I believe that it is just a
position that happens to be one of the reserve positions that
they contract out in great numbers.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Lawrence, what is the most common
complaint you receive from veterans that are having problems in
placement?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, as I said, there are a number of ways
that veterans feel their preference was avoided. They feel that
they lose out to Outstanding Scholar Program picks or other
special interests; or if, you know, the job order, if that is
the right terminology, was just canceled altogether. A position
was posted and they applied for it, and they felt that they
were leading the certificate and then the job was just
cancelled. And that is, to my understanding, a legal way of
avoiding granting the job to the preference eligible. But
veterans really just don't know.
The anecdotes I have heard, you know, they check the
veterans' preference box and, you know, they are getting a
notice back that they weren't selected and they have absolutely
no idea why. I mean, they don't know who to appeal to. They
don't know what good it did to check the veterans' preference
box in the first place.
Mr. McNerney. So, it is not a real targeted area then
either. In terms of----
Mr. Lawrence. No, I think there is an array of areas that
needs to be looked at.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. That is all my questions.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I just have a couple
of questions.
Mr. Guffey, if you could, what are the others of the six
jobs that are reserved by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3310 for veterans? I
have heard you mention custodial services and elevator
operators.
Mr. Guffey. Elevator operators is a job that has
disappeared. I would probably have to turn and get some help
from someone else.
It is custodial, it is mechanical--it is junior-type,
mechanic-type jobs that are reserved and two or three other
defunct jobs.
If you want to know exactly what they are, I can turn
around and ask real quick.
Mr. Hall. I would like to know, sure.
Mr. Guffey. Yeah, messenger and guard and those types of
jobs have disappeared.
Mr. Hall. Veterans would make good guards.
Mr. Guffey. Obviously.
Mr. Hall. Probably better than, or at least as good as,
those that would be contracted by an outsourcing company. Well,
I will just state for the record that I oppose the outsourcing
of these jobs, as well; probably because they should be
reserved for veterans, and we don't seem to have a mechanism to
make sure that if they are outsourced, the contractor hires
veterans for those positions. Maybe that could be specified.
But I wanted to ask, because you had mentioned in your
testimony that the VA estimates there are approximately 200,000
homeless veterans on the streets every night. In my district of
New York, the 19th District, which includes one of the
wealthiest counties in the country, WestchesterCounty, where it
is estimated that 23 percent or so of the homeless population
on any given night is made up of veterans--and maybe Mr.
Lawrence you might be in a good position to respond to this.
But all of you, do you think that the Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission has
considered homelessness adequately in looking at the use of VA
facilities and the reduction of VA facilities or the disposal
of some of them to other purposes?
Mr. Lawrence. I am not sure I understand. Has the VA
addressed----
Mr. Hall. There are a lot of ways to address it, but one of
them would be to use facilities that are--like, for instance,
we have in my district the Montrose VA Hospital, which has at
least five empty buildings. There are proposals by Westchester
County and by the town of Cortland and by veterans groups, the
Montrose Elders being one, of all veterans that came up with
the proposal for independent living, assisted living and
nursing care, transitional care for homeless veterans while
they are training for a job, et cetera, to be--you know, these
buildings to be, which are currently standing empty, falling
into disrepair--and my understanding is they are about to be--
the CARES Commission may be about to sell them off because it
is invaluable real estate on the Hudson River.
You know, I would just--my own personal opinion is these
things, these properties should be used only for the care of
veterans. And I am just curious if you--what your opinions
might be about that in terms of whether they have been--the
homelessness problem has been looked at adequately by CARES?
Mr. Lawrence. I think the VA has found it more effective to
provide grants to homeless veteran operations that are up and
running. And I think there was a proposal--and I don't know if
this could be a similar problem, where your district is, but
Balboa Hospital in San Diego, there was a proposal to use the
old hospital for a homeless veterans shelter, and it wasn't
Earthquake proof, wasn't up to standard; so that was denied.
I have no clue as to what reasoning might be behind not
using the buildings in your district, but it could be something
along that line.
Mr. Hall. I understand there are various ways of dealing
with the problem, and this may not be the best one. I just, off
the top a little bit, but I wanted to get your expert
observations on that.
And last I just wanted to ask, Ms. Burke, if you would
say--in your observation, is the outsourcing succeeding in
improving the government's bottom line or are the contractors
merely building a profit and paying less to the people that
they are hiring?
Ms. Burke. Well, what I would like to say in regard to that
is, really, my personal experience with veterans who are on
compensated work therapy programs that, I think--I think if I
even personally ask them, would you rather have a Federal
Government job or work for Goodwill Industries, which has taken
over a lot of these cleaning, custodial type of jobs, and
overwhelmingly he would say, I would rather have good health
benefits and possibly Federal employment.
I think that is the design and the purpose of these
programs. It is to allow the government to serve as a role
model, a safety net for these people who are in a fragile
state.
Mr. Hall. We would like to think so. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Madame Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
We have also been joined by Mr. Donnelly of Indiana. I
would ask Mr. Donnelly if he has any questions or comments?
Mr. Donnelly. No, thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I have one last question. A simple
response, yes or no. Would you agree with this statement?
Does the Office of Personnel Management need additional
resources to be the agency of primary responsibility, to
continue to be, to ensure that veterans' preference laws are
fully implemented; and not just abdicate that responsibility by
going to the agencies and having the agencies give a short
response to the issue of veterans' preference if there is a
complaint that has been filed?
That is a very convoluted question.
Do you disagree with the statement that OPM needs
additional resources to ensure adequate implementation of these
laws?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, I agree. And I had in my written
statement that vets also need additional resources to be able
to investigate such cases.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Both OPM and vets. I know you had
mentioned OPM in your testimony, but vets as well?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Guffey. I would say yes and no. In the areas where we
represent the veterans once they come in and their promotions
and everything, I say no.
Once they leave the umbrella of the union, move up into
management and how the selection process occurs in management
and beyond our union control, they may very well be, but I am
not very familiar with it. They may need the additional
resources.
Ms. Burke. I think oversight definitely is helpful in a
reporting-back system so we get better data than we are getting
right now. I also think that the laws need to be changed to
cover all employees or applicants.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony
today. There may be some questions from other Subcommittee
Members that we would submit to you in writing.
Thanks again.
I now invite Panel 3 to the witness table. Joining us on
our third panel of witnesses is the Honorable Neil McPhie,
Chairman of the U.S. Merit System Protection Board; Ms.
Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Civilian Personnel Policy for the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD); and the Honorable Boyd Rutherford, Assistant Secretary
For Administration for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
Thank you for joining us today and for your written
testimony.
We will go right to Mr. McPhie and recognize you if you are
ready. Again, everybody's written statements will be made part
of the record in their entirety. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HON. NEIL A.G. McPHIE, CHAIRMAN, U.S. MERIT
SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; HON. PATRICIA S. BRADSHAW, DEPUTY
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY), U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND HON. BOYD K. RUTHERFORD, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL A.G. McPHIE
Mr. McPhie. Thank you, Madame Chair. Glad to be here with
the Subommittee Members. I am Neil McPhie and I am the seventh
Chairman of the Merit System Protection Board. And I ask that
my official statement be submitted for the record.
Today I will give a short description of the MSPB structure
and operations, a summary of the most common veterans'
preference issues that the Board considers in the course of
deciding cases and a review of some of the findings concerning
the employment of veterans.
The Board is an independent, quasi-judicial agency in the
executive branch, whose main responsibilities are deciding
individual cases arising under the civil service laws and
performing studies of the civil service. The Board has three
members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
who serve staggered 7-year terms.
Cases are first filed in one of the agency's eight regional
offices, where an administrative judge considers the evidence
and renders an initial decision. Either party can seek review
of the decision before the full board. The Board receives about
7,000 cases in its regional offices every year, and in about 20
percent of those cases, roughly one-fifth, one of the parties
files a petition for review which comes before the full board
in Washington, D.C.
Regarding the subject of the hearing, veterans' preference
in Federal employment has existed in some form since the Civil
War era. The Veterans' Preference Act 1944 consolidated
veterans' preference rules found in prior laws, regulations and
executive orders. The 1944 act remains the main source of
veterans' preference rights to this day.
Veterans' preference rules apply in two major areas,
reduction in force or RIFs and hiring. Since its creation in
1978, the MSPB has had the authority to resolve veterans'
preference issues in the RIF context as part of its general
jurisdiction over RIF appeals.
There does not appear to be much confusion over how
veterans' preference operates in RIFs. In fact, the Board has
not received large numbers of RIF cases in recent years. The
last reported RIF case was back in the nineties.
Veterans' preference in hiring is another matter. The
Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) became law in
1998. That act for the first time gave the Board the power to
decide cases brought by preference eligibles and certain other
veterans who allege a violation of their employment rights.
Since 1998, the Board has received approximately 1,600 VEOA
cases, most of which have been filed by unsuccessful applicants
for Federal jobs.
The most common claims that the Board sees in VEOA cases
are that the hiring agency failed to conduct a competitive
examination with written ranking and veterans' preference
points, failed to correctly apply veterans' preference rules in
a comparative examination, failed to provide veterans'
preference in a promotion action, denied a veteran the right to
compete for a vacancy and improperly cancelled a vacancy
announcement.
As a neutral adjudicator, the MSPB has been hesitant to
maintain statistics on the success rates for individuals who
bring cases. However, the MSPB would certainly be willing to
consider developing a data collection system for VEOA cases if
Congress prefers that this information be gathered.
I would like to emphasize that the Board decides only those
cases that individuals choose to file and ordinarily addresses
only the arguments raised in those cases. The Board's Office of
Policy and Evaluation does perform studies of the civil service
and has gathered some noteworthy information concerning the
hiring of veterans by the Federal Government.
For example, in fiscal year 2005, 18 percent of the new
hires in full-time, permanent, professional and administrative
jobs at GS-5, -7 and -9 levels were veterans. The rate of
hiring veterans for entry level positions, which includes
technical and blue collar operations, was 21.5 percent.
In higher level positions, that is, grades 12 through 15,
42 percent of all hires in fiscal year 2005 were veterans,
which is a 12-percent increase from the level of veteran hiring
in fiscal year 2001. About 55 percent of veterans hired for
upper level positions in fiscal year 2005 were appointed under
the authority of the VEOA, which requires agencies to allow
vets to compete for vacancies that would otherwise have been
closed to non-status, outside candidates. The total number of
veterans appointed under the VEOA in 2005 was 3,132.
The MSPB has not yet undertaken any study aimed at
determining the extent to which agencies are following
veterans' preference rules. Furthermore, I would not be
comfortable venturing an opinion on how well agencies are
following veterans' preference rules based on results of
individual cases that are brought before the MSPB. The MSPB
will be happy to work with Subcommittee Members and their
staffs to discuss the potential for any study topic along those
lines.
The MSPB feels secure in its record of being a neutral,
objective adjudicator of cases. We take the law as we find it.
We try very hard to get it right. And I will tell you about--of
the cases appealed to our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, 93 percent of those cases across the
board are affirmed. We think we are getting most of them right.
I am happy to take any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McPhie appears on p. 60.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. McPhie.
Ms. Bradshaw, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICIA S. BRADSHAW
Ms. Bradshaw. Thank you, Madame Chair and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I
appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Department of
Defense views on veterans' preference as it applies to
employment and our successes.
The DoD values the expertise and commitment of our service
members, and we place special emphasis on supporting our
wounded service members. We currently have over 227,000
veterans with preference working for the Department or about
one-third of our DoD civilian workforce. As the largest Federal
employer of veterans, we are committed to providing employment
opportunities as civil service employees for the men and women
who have served so honorably on behalf of our Nation.
We recognize that the transition from military service to
civil service can be challenging. To ease this transition, the
military components--the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, as well
as the Coast Guard--in coordination with the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labor (DoL) and the Office
of Personnel Management provide comprehensive assistance and
support to separating veterans, including preseparation
counseling, benefits, job coaching, resume writing and
information on employment opportunities not only in the
Department of Defense but also the rest of government and the
private sector.
Within the Federal authorities, there are three special
appointment authorities available to all Federal agencies that
are primarily used by the Department of Defense to appoint
eligible veterans. The first one, with which I am sure you are
familiar, is the Veterans Recruitment Appointment, or the VRA,
which is an authority which is used to fill both permanent and
temporary positions noncompetitively up to the GS-11 level or
equivalent. To date in fiscal year 2007, DoD has hired almost
11,000 vets using this authority. That is out of 109,000 hires
to date.
The second authority is the 30 percent or more disabled
veteran hiring authority. This authority can also be used to
fill both temporary and permanent positions noncompetitively.
This authority, however, has no grade level restrictions, and
the veteran must have a compensable, service-connected
disability of 30 percent or more. To date, fiscal year 2007,
about 2,200 vets have been hired under this authority for a
total of 33,681 veterans with a compensable service disability
of 30 percent or more currently working for the department.
The third authority is the Veterans Employment Opportunity
Act, or VEOA, which provides veterans with the opportunity to
apply under merit promotion procedures when the agency is
recruiting from outside its own workforce. There is no grade
limit limitation there either. And to date in fiscal year 2007,
DoD has hired over 8,600 veterans under this authority. Again,
approximately one-third, or over 227,000 employees of DoD
civilians, are veterans with preference. Of that total, 34
percent are in GS-9 or above positions in a variety of
occupations. It is also noteworthy that currently 24 percent of
our career SES members are veterans.
The Department is actively engaged in a targeted
recruitment program that we call Hiring Heroes. The goal of the
Hiring Heroes career fairs is to inform and educate our wounded
service members on the various employment opportunities
available to them after they complete their military service,
as well as to introduce them to potential employers and
nonprofit organizations that can offer assistance to them
during their transition. The fairs provide a unique environment
where our service members can meet face-to-face with employment
recruiters, learn firsthand about jobs and career choices and
establish connections with potential employers. Typically, 50
to 70 organizations, including State and local governments,
nonprofits and other Federal organizations, participate in
these fairs. Generally lasting 2 days, the fairs provide our
service members with technical workshops covering a variety of
topics, resume writing, job interview skills, other benefits to
which they are entitled.
To date we have held 11 job fairs. Nine of them have
actually been held at medical treatment facilities. Two of them
have been held offsite on military installations, but away from
the military facilities in order to attract a greater area of
veterans. The most recent Hiring Heroes career fair was held at
the Marine Corps Air Station in San Diego, California. This
location was ideal because Miramar is a central location in
southern California and could target service members at Balboa,
the hospital at Camp Pendleton, 29-Palms and any other service
members in the area.
While each job fair was a success, I would submit that this
was the best. We had over 350 attendees, 70 employers. Of
significance was the number of medical holdover patients from
Balboa and the hospital at Camp Pendleton. These are the
service members who are waiting for final evaluation and still
in rehabilitation, but still looking at what will they do when
they decide to get out. So while we expanded the audience to
include any veteran in the surrounding area, we were able to
concentrate on ensuring that the targeted audiences received
particular attention.
The most impressive part of this job fair was the
coordination of efforts with the staff at Balboa and Camp
Pendleton and their transition centers, which are staffed by
Department of Defense, Navy, VA and Department of Labor-funded
State government personnel to provide transition employment
assistance services. The collaboration efforts for these
centers can serve as a model for how we can structure others to
successfully coordinate member transition preparation.
As a result of this specific career fair, 50 onsite job
offers were extended and employers advised us that they planned
to extend approximately 191 additional ones immediately
following the event.
We continue to support our Hiring Heroes job fairs. We have
our next one planned for this month at Madigan Army Center in
Fort Lewis, Washington; another one at Brooke Army Medical
Center at Fort Sam Houston.
In addition to that, we have a multitude of Web resources
as well online. We recognize that not everybody can show up at
these job fairs. We have developed an interactive Web site
titled Disabled Veterans: Opportunities to Use Your Abilities,
and in my statement, you can find the Web site. It contains a
section with clear and detailed answers to commonly asked
questions regarding veterans' preference and the transition to
civilian employment.
Additionally, it contains information on scholarships,
grants, loans, financial aid. Furthermore, more importantly,
there is a section that provides information for our managers,
those individuals who are making the decisions. Our managers
are on the frontline and are able to help break the barriers to
employment by thinking creatively and resourcefully and
ensuring that they understand the rules. Within DoD, we have a
wide range of occupations that offer disabled veterans diverse,
challenging and rewarding careers.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Ms. Bradshaw, are you close to summing
up?
Ms. Bradshaw. I am done.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bradshaw appears on p. 63.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Again, your entire written statement
is made part of the record. Thank you.
Mr. Rutherford, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOYD K. RUTHERFORD
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madame Chair, Ranking Member
Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to come before you to discuss veterans' preferences
and the success the U.S. Department of Agriculture is having in
recruiting and retaining its veteran workforce.
As you know, USDA is a leader in America's food and
agricultural systems, helping the farm and food sectors operate
in a highly competitive marketplace, to respond to changing
consumer demands for high-quality, nutritious and convenient
food in agricultural products. USDA also carries out a wide
variety of services and activities related to the management,
research and conservation of the Nation's agricultural
resources.
In carrying out its mission and achieving its goals, USDA's
human capital is its greatest asset. As the Department's Chief
Human Capital Officer, I have the duty to assure that USDA has
the workforce capable to carry out the Department's mission.
With a growing retirement-eligible workforce, USDA is
compelled to design and implement a multifaceted approach to
succession planning and recruitment that will ensure the
continued existence of mission-critical talent pools. The
challenge of an aging workforce is exacerbated by the increase
in competition for skilled employees in an increasingly
technical environment. The demand for people with expertise in
information technology, public health and science-based
technologies requires more attention toward effective
recruitment training, retention and knowledge-transfer
strategies. At USDA, we use these strategies to fill the more
than 300 different job series that include everyone from
firefighters to research scientists, agricultural economists to
food inspectors and veterinarians, as well as procurement and
human resources professionals.
To attract a diverse and highly skilled workforce, USDA
markets itself as an employer of choice. All USDA job
opportunities, including announcements identifying
noncompetitive appointing authorities and merit promotion
authorities for veterans, are posted on OPM's USAjobs.gov Web
site. All vacancy announcements post name and telephone numbers
for applicants to contact if they want to obtain reasonable
accommodation for any part of the application process. Vacancy
announcements are also sent weekly to State employment
services, various veterans organizations, rehabilitation
agencies to help alert veterans to career opportunities with
the USDA.
I have become personally involved in the Coming Home to
Work Initiative, which is sponsored by the Veterans
Administration in their vocational rehabilitation and
employment program. This initiative places special emphasis on
assisting Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) service members.
Through the Coming Home to Work Initiative, civilian work
experience is made available to these eligible service members
pending their medical separation from active duty at military
treatment facilities. Through these positions, we hope to
provide not only work experience to our Nation's veterans, but
a stepping stone to permanent positions in the Federal
workforce.
Our human resources offices continue to use various
electronic resume databases to establish contact with a variety
of veterans' programs, as well as attend veterans, or I should
say, attend job fairs that target veterans. However, in many
instances we find that our own veteran employees tend to be our
best recruiters.
I am pleased to report that of the 108,000-plus USDA
employees, 10.6 percent, or 11,000, are veterans of which 6,700
occupy positions at GS-9 salary levels or above. In 2006, USDA
hired 21,000 new full-time employees, of which 1,332 were
disabled veterans.
But statistics and recruitment efforts do not tell the
whole story. In 2003, Steve Dickerson was just completing his
Masters' program in social work at the University of Nevada,
Reno, when he came to the attention of our Forest Service
recruiters. Mr. Dickerson is a Vietnam vet who was injured
during the war in an aircraft incident that left him blind and
requiring a wheelchair for mobility. In spite of his injuries,
he returned to school earning his undergraduate degree and went
on to pursue a Masters' degree as well.
USDA's Forest Service recognized Mr. Dickerson's potential
and referred him for vacancies within the agency. He was
eventually hired in a competitive selection in our Forest
Service's intermountain regional office in Ogden, Utah. Mr.
Dickerson is a valuable member of our family not just because
he is a veteran, but because of who he is and what he has
accomplished and what he continues to contribute to the agency.
At USDA, veterans' preference is not only the law, it is an
honor and a commitment we make to our Nation's heroes who have
sacrificed so much to keep this Nation free and safe.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rutherford appears on p.
65.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Rutherford. I
appreciate your testimony. I serve on the Agriculture Committee
as well, so I have a few questions about what USDA has been
doing on the veterans' preference issue.
I would like to start with Ms. Bradshaw, if I might. I also
understand that you are a South Dakota native; is that correct?
Ms. Bradshaw. I have lots of family in Aberdeen.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Oh, very good. My family is from that
area as well. A lot of what I heard in your testimony is what
we offer to service members who are transitioning through the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP), which I don't believe is
mandatory, save for the Marines. I appreciated a lot of what
you were saying in terms of these fairs that you are hosting
and how successful those have been.
Are you aware of whether or not the Federal agencies and
their State or county offices have been invited to participate
in the fairs?
Ms. Bradshaw. Yes, ma'am, they are. We are very closely
connected. Every time we hold a fair, the VA is invited, Labor
Department and OPM.
The reason I highlighted Miramar is because it was unique,
and I can share with you more specifics. But every place we go,
all of these agencies--we are joined together in making sure
that the local folks know about that.
Now, whether they send someone every time, I can't really
tell you. But I am sure we have representatives at least from
the----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. From those four agencies?
Ms. Bradshaw. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Say, for example, that we had a TAP
program at Ellsworth Air Force Base in western South Dakota. If
there were other Federal agencies, say the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, that have a presence either through their State
office being invited or the county offices that might have
vacancies, are other Federal agencies being invited that have a
presence near or in the region of the base?
Ms. Bradshaw. There are two things. There is the TAP
program, which is the Transition Assistance Program, and that
is now--that was an initiative that was started by the Defense
Department actually in the early nineties, and fortunately I
was around then when we were actually drawing down--and now I
understand the Department of Labor actually has ownership of
that--and the objective of that is the resume writing, the
preseparation counseling. It is strictly that.
The job fairs about which I was speaking are ones that the
Department of Defense run, and we do a front end that looks
like the TAP, but we target earlier while people are still on
active duty. It is a much more--again, we started out targeting
our wounded and injured folks because we could get to the
medical treatment facilities where individuals, like I said,
are still in medical holdover. But State, local, county, every
level of government is invited to send people to the job fair
portion of that. So that is the actual opportunity for them to
hire.
The TAP piece is run and is available to--I don't know that
the Marines do not require it, but it is available to every
exiting service member.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Great, and I appreciate that. We are
very familiar with the TAP program, but I was specifically
asking about the fairs. My recommendation would be, if they
have been successful, to help with the particular issue that we
are focused on today: veterans' preference rights. I think it
would be helpful to make sure that other Federal agencies that
have a presence be invited to the job fair, because even if you
have many employers locally, it is particularly helpful when it
comes to veterans' preference rights to have any Federal agency
that has a presence locally be invited, as well, outside of
just those four.
Ms. Bradshaw. Yes. And that is the case. I apologize; I was
focusing on the State and local. But it is every Federal agency
is invited if they care to come.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
I am sorry I cut you off--we have one more panel. I
appreciated you referencing the Web site. As we know, a Web
site can be a very helpful tool for people who can't get to the
fairs. I know that even with TAP having recently become an
electronic format for people to utilize, there are always a few
bumps to iron out whenever you make that transition; and I have
been informed that even as of today, there are a number of
links that aren't working on the DoD Web site. We wanted to
just bring that to your attention.
Ms. Bradshaw. Which one is it, the DoD----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. It is the www.DoDvets.com. The links
that evidently weren't working earlier today are the Search For
Jobs link, various DoD agency links, Defense Intern link,
Montgomery GI bill Selective Reserve link, Army Training and
Leadership Development link and others. We wanted to bring that
to your attention.
Ms. Bradshaw. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Maybe there is something that happened
in the last few days that is causing those problems. I am not
sure if that is something that has been a recurring problem,
but we know how important the tool is.
Let me ask Mr. McPhie--and this goes to the issue of how
well, as Ms. Bradshaw stated in her testimony, when you have
got a third of the civilian workforce that are veterans in
DoD--although I may come back to Ms. Bradshaw and ask her about
retention in that regard.
Why is DoD so high and the rest of the agencies much lower
when it comes to hiring from Veterans Employment Opportunities
Act selections?
Mr. McPhie. You are asking that of me, Madame Chair?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes.
Mr. McPhie. I don't know.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But that is the case, right, that DoD
appears to be much higher?
Mr. McPhie. I couldn't respond. I just don't know. I don't
have that information.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I thought in your testimony you stated
that DoD hired 86 percent of all of the Veterans Employment
Opportunities Act selections.
Mr. McPhie. No, I did not. I am unaware that I said that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I think you also stated--although I am
going to have our Staff Director check--that 42 percent of new
hires in 2005 were veterans.
Mr. McPhie. Let me--I need some wiggle room for myself
because it could be in my written testimony. May I inquire
quickly?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes. I am sorry. I maybe should have
clarified that it came from your written testimony, page 6 of
the written testimony.
Mr. McPhie. I apologize. I see. I see. From our studies
function, yes. We develop information from--I suppose from
OPM's Web site and OPM's databases and whatnot, from which we
do different studies.
And you are correct in--let us see now, page 6.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Perhaps you can take this question for
the record and provide any explanation from the studies you
have compiled to get that percentage. Any reasons that you
believe can be documented or backed up with some evidence as to
why DoD is much higher. According to pages 6 and 7 of your
written testimony, which documents that DoD is responsible for
86 percent of all of the hires under Veterans Employment
Opportunities Act selections.
Then we have another 10 percent on page 7 of your testimony
from four other agencies.
We have 96 percent of all of those selections coming from
five agencies, and I am inquiring as to why the other agencies
are so low.
Mr. McPhie. And this is data as it exists. We haven't done
a study as I said early on. So I can't really--anything I say
as to why they have more, others have less would be speculation
on my part. We have not done a study that is designed to answer
the question of how well our agency is doing.
I suppose a study would look at folks like DoD, that is
doing, apparently, quite well, and try to figure out what they
are doing that others are not and report objectively in that
regard. But at this point in time, I mean, the data is the
data. But I can't really tell you why.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I think that is the issue that we have
to get at and the issue we were exploring in some of the
earlier panels. Is the issue one of complexity? Is the issue
one of inadequate resources for hiring managers, as you
mentioned at the beginning of your oral testimony today? I know
you would be more than happy to work with us to find some of
the answers to those questions and go beyond just the raw
statistics to doing a study and perhaps comparing agencies'
performance.
Have you compiled where the complaints that come in to you
regarding veterans' preference are coming from? Do you have a
listing of the top five agencies in which there have been the
most complaints filed on veterans' preference?
Mr. McPhie. We don't keep information on veterans'
preference in that regard. I suppose you could pull it out by
massaging the records, but it requires some special effort.
Again, you know, we have shied away from trying to develop
success rates because we think that is a slippery slope.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you share your information in terms
of the agency that the complaint is directed at with OPM?
Mr. McPhie. Well, we obviously--if a case is filed, it
ultimately results in a written decision. And most of our
written decisions are published and are readily accessible on
our Web site.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. But no one you are aware of? You're
not responsible, beyond publishing those written decisions, for
maintaining any kind of tracking of the agencies that have had
complaints directed at them? That would be--you don't do that?
Mr. McPhie. Right. In fact, the way the system works
governmentwide, there may be many more complaints in any area
of Federal employment than we even are aware of, because if you
know the process, it comes up; there is an internal
conversation.
I suppose if it is really bad, it is taken care of real
quickly. So by the time we get a complaint, it is some--you
know, some portion of the big universe of complaints.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right. Which is why, if they have come
to that level, I think it is important to track which agencies
may have a more problematic track record.
I am going to turn it over to Mr. Boozman for some
questions he may have. We would like to work with you to
perhaps develop something that would better track these
complaints once they rise to the level or make their way
through the process to the point they get to you for a
decision.
Mr. McPhie. We would be happy to do that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Rutherford, I will come back, but
I want to recognize Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. I would agree with the Chair. You said it was
a slippery slope in doing the tracking and that you didn't want
to track success. But I guess the way I view it is just holding
people and agencies accountable. That is what it is really all
about.
And I think that is to their benefit also and certainly it
is to our benefit in the sense of having oversight and things
like that and trying to find out how entities are doing. So you
don't track veterans--they are not treated any differently than
anybody else? Do you track anything?
Mr. McPhie. No. There are some--and these data sets have
existed for many years. And I know that it is always open.
Recently, another issue came up, similar to this one, with
respect to whistleblower cases. I asked the question, how many
do we have? It is not a question easily answered given the way
our data is kept.
Similarly with----
Mr. Boozman. Why keep the data if you can't use it?
Mr. McPhie. We keep lots of data and there were decisions
made many years ago as to--as an adjudicative agency, what are
the kinds of data that would be necessary for MSPB's function.
Now, data is kept in the Federal Government, lots of it. In
fact, I have a complete department, the Office of Policy and
Evaluation, which conducts studies. They study the merit
systems throughout the civil service. We have to survey
sometimes agencies governmentwide. And lots of time, we have to
work with OPM and utilize their very extensive database and
cull from their database lots of information.
Now, with respect to our own case statistics, we are more
case oriented, just like any court. We really pride ourselves
in being set up as an adjudicative agency. So we come at it
completely different.
Mr. Boozman. So you do keep data on the outcomes of
veterans, but it is just not readily accepted?
Mr. McPhie. I could have somebody go through our data sets
and cull from it outcomes. You would need some sort of a
systemic fix to be able to put the query, get the answer and
report it.
Mr. Boozman. How many appeals did you have last year and
how many were resolved in favor of veterans?
Mr. McPhie. I couldn't tell you how many were resolved in
favor of veterans. I couldn't give you that information. I
could tell you--and if I brought--I brought some numbers with
me, as I spoke; and I said, we do roughly 1,600 cases since
1998, and that is only VEOA.
There is another statute called the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA). That is a whole other
conversation.
So there are two statutes that we administer for vets,
USERRA and VEOA. But the number I have here is how many VEOA
cases that we have done since 1998. That number is 1,600. I am
not including USERRA, and it seems to me, from just my sense of
it, USERRA is perhaps the one that is going to get more active.
I have seen a little bit more activity around USERRA and that
is for reemployment rights and for discrimination.
Mr. Boozman. Maybe, Madame Chair, since the data is in
there, maybe we could submit some questions along that line and
maybe you could have your staff dig around and find out some of
the specific things that we would like to know.
Mr. McPhie. Absolutely. And let me be certain. We are not
opposed to keeping data in any particular format. If the
Congress decides that this is something it needs, it wants to
see, we are more than happy to talk about how that can be done.
[The information was supplied by MSPB in the responses to
the post-hearing questions for the record, which appear on p.
84.]
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Ms. Bradshaw, the Balboa model seems to be working well.
Are there any plans to take and use that same model in other
military centers?
Ms. Bradshaw. We are hoping to expand that this coming
year. Right now we have two planned, as I mentioned, at
Madigan, which is a treatment facility; and the next one will
be at Brooke. And this will be the third time we have been to
Brooke, and we will continue to expand that.
What was significant there--and I don't know exactly how
the Army has built in their onsite assistance there, but it was
the interaction of the VA, OPM, the local Department of Labor
folks; and I know OPM has been working with us to add resources
to some of these sites. So there certainly is opportunity, and
we are looking at that.
Mr. Boozman. Good. Thank you.
And I also probably might have another question or two, but
we will submit it.
[No questions were submitted by Mr. Boozman.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Just one additional line of
questioning, Mr. Rutherford. I appreciate your testimony.
I am glad to hear some of the numbers that you provided
today in terms of what USDA has been doing. How many veterans
are in the Senior Executive Service?
Mr. Rutherford. I don't have that number handy. Let me just
check. I don't have that. But we can get that information to
you.
[The information was supplied by USDA in the response to
question two in the post-hearing questions for the record,
which appear on p. 88.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. And how many veterans'
preference cases hires, did the U.S. Department of Agriculture
make in the last 3 years? Do you have that number available? If
you could, take that for the record, too, if that is not
readily available.
How successful has the USDA been in recruiting veterans by
sharing vacancy announcements with the American Legion and the
VFW?
Mr. Rutherford. We have been doing that. We will have to
check to get that specific information for you.
[The information was supplied by USDA in the response to
questions one and three in the post-hearing questions for the
record, which appear on p. 88.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. How long have you been doing that?
Mr. Rutherford. That has been done primarily in the
individual agencies. But also, as we mentioned--or as I
mentioned in the testimony, along with the posting--we send it
to the veteran agencies.
But I can see, we will have to get when we started doing
that and how long it has been in place.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. That would be helpful.
I am pleased to know of USDA's participation in the Coming
Home to Work Program targeted to OEF and OIF veterans. Is that
formally implemented now?
Mr. Rutherford. It has been formally implemented.
Initially, it was randomly done. As mentioned, some of our
veterans knew about the program and went forward with it.
I became aware of it back in March of this year and at that
point started the process of working with VA to implement it,
first within my department, but then throughout USDA.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. How many veteran employees has that
generated thus far?
Mr. Rutherford. We have only had one at this point, but it
is just starting.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Even when it was randomly implemented?
Mr. Rutherford. That was the random one, yes. That was
within my office, or I should say, within the offices that I
manage.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. And if
you could, get me those numbers. Some of the anecdotal evidence
in the past doesn't rank the Department of Agriculture as high
as I would like to see it in terms of veterans' preference
rates in hiring veterans.
Again, I appreciate these efforts. I am pleased to know
that you are working more closely with the VA to get that more
fully implemented.
And the testimony you offered to date, the numbers
themselves address in a different way, the anecdotal evidence
we have received in the past. So I am pleased that you are here
whenever we serve on different Committees given the number of
county, and State offices and USDA's presence, and some of the
concern that we have expressed on the Subcommittee as well as
the full Committee with regard to veterans in more rural areas.
I am just hopeful that--it sounds like under your leadership
you will continue to be making efforts to ensure that that
outreach for hiring veterans continues within the agency.
Mr. Rutherford. Yes. We will work in that direction. I
guess I am at somewhat of a disadvantage. And I hate to ask
this, but I haven't heard the anecdotal evidence. But if you
can provide that to me, we can look into that information as
well.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We will do so. Thank you. I thank the
panel for your testimony.
Mr. Boozman. One more thing, Ms. Bradshaw, before you do
leave. With Mr. Tadsen's testimony, he implied that the Air
Force Audit Agency was not doing a good job. I think he
implied, maybe he is right that they weren't doing a good job
of promoting veterans. Could you look and give the Subcommittee
some data on the agency's hiring, promotion of veterans over
the past 5, 10 years?
Ms. Bradshaw. Specifically for the Air Force Audit Agency?
Mr. Boozman. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bradshaw. I will. I assure you I have taken a few notes
myself. Absolutely.
[The information was supplied by DoD in response to
question one of the post-hearing questions for the record,
which appear on p. 86.]
Mr. McPhie. One clarification, if I may. Should I wait
until I get some questions and then respond and start the
conversation about data sets that way? Or do I----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes. Our Subcommittee staff will be in
touch with you following this hearing to talk about some
additional information we would like to get and then work
through some reporting system of sorts. As I was saying, I was
involved a number of years ago in a study on communication
between the courts and Congress on issues of statutory
interpretation by Federal appellate courts in getting those
interpretations and holdings back to the Committees of
jurisdiction in the Congress. There is no ready reporting
system in place even on that front. I think that as you have
those cases, that are published, that we have got to set up a
mechanism whereby we can see if there are trends given our
oversight authority that we can more readily identify as you
continue to take these complaints and make records of decision.
Mr. McPhie. Sure. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I appreciate Mr. Boozman
following up with you, Ms. Bradshaw, on the particular issue
that was raised by our witness in the first panel. Thank you
all for being here, and we look forward to following up with
you.
Ms. Bradshaw. Thank you.
[Additional information was supplied by DoD in response to
the post-hearing questions for the record, which appear on p.
88.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I would now invite our fourth panel to
the witness table. I want to thank not only our third panel but
certainly all of our panelists today and everyone's service to
our Nation's veterans and working with us on a whole host of
issues in this Congress and the previous Congress. I know that
with Mr. Boozman's leadership we can work together to best
implement the laws that we have enacted and to make changes to
some of those laws if need be and some of the updating issues
that we addressed earlier with the folks on the first and
second panels.
On the fourth panel, we have Anita Hanson, Outreach Group
Manager for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Mr. John
McWilliam, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment
and Training Service (VETS) for the U.S. Department of Labor;
and Mr. Willie Hensley, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human
Resources Management and Labor Relations with the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs. Welcome to the Committee. Thank
you for being here.
Ms. Hanson, we will start with you. You are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ANITA R. HANSON, OUTREACH GROUP MANAGER, U.S.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; JOHN M. McWILLIAM, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; AND WILLIE HENSLEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF RESOURCES AND
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF ANITA R. HANSON
Ms. Hanson. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss veterans' preference and the role
of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. I serve as the
outreach group manager at OPM where I have the primary
responsibility on behalf of Director Linda Springer for
outreach to returning service members and to all our Nation's
veterans on Federal employment hiring preferences they have
earned.
As a disabled Navy veteran, this is a topic I am very
passionate about, and I am proud to serve my country and help
my fellow veterans. Director Springer and all of us at OPM take
very seriously our obligation to ensure veterans have full
access to Federal civilian jobs following separation from
military service. Our obligation is grounded in veterans'
preference laws that have been the cornerstone of America's
civil service since its beginning.
Veterans' preference is also at the very core of OPM's
mission, which is to ensure the Federal Government has an
effective civilian workforce. I would like to take a few
moments today to focus on our efforts across government to
promote and preserve veterans' preference, as I work to educate
veterans on Federal job opportunities as we help to prepare
these American heroes for their transition from military
service. As part of our oversight of human capital management
responsibilities at OPM, we use an audit-based approach to
ensure that competitive hiring practices used by Federal
agencies comply with veterans' preference laws and merit system
principles. Since 1996, when OPM began broadly delegating
examining authorities to Federal agencies, we have conducted
almost 1,200 audits of agency delegated examining units. All
our audits cover all aspects of competitive examining including
the application of veterans' preference. We also annually
conduct human resource operations audits that examine a number
of agencies' human resources programs, including competitive
examining and the use of veterans' preference hiring
authorities and practices. As part of every OPM audit, we
rigorously examine recruitment actions, how applications are
handled and processed and how selection decisions are made. We
carefully examine whether veterans' preference was properly
applied, and we review certificates of eligibles to see if
there are patterns in how those certificates are used or not
used that would indicate whether or not veterans' preference
veterans are receiving legitimate consideration.
For the past 2 years, OPM has been helping agencies
establish sound internal accountability systems to ensure human
resources programs operate within merit system principles and
comply with veterans' preference laws and regulations. When
agencies conduct their own audits, which are key components of
these accountability systems, OPM actively participates to
ensure compliance with laws and regulations, including the
application of all aspects of veterans' preference. When we
find violations of law or regulation, we take steps to ensure
corrective action is taken. We can direct an agency to give a
veteran priority consideration for the next job vacancy he or
she is qualified for if we believe a veteran has been denied
preference previously. If we find evidence that veterans'
preference is knowingly denied, which is a prohibited personnel
practice, we would then refer the matter to the Office of the
Special Counsel or the agency's Inspector General. We may also
withdraw an agency's delegated examining authority if we find
systemic problems. In our experience, the vast majority of
Federal agencies follow veterans' preference laws to the letter
of the law. We typically do not see systemic violations of
veterans' preference across an entire agency. When we do find
problems, they tend to be isolated to a specific installation
or organization and are typically caused by inadequate
direction or lack of adequate accountability systems. OPM works
diligently to make sure all Federal agencies understand the
value and the importance of hiring those who have answered the
call to duty. As you may know, we have predicted more than 60
percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible to retire
over the next decade. As such, we have an enormous recruitment
challenge ahead of us where we simply cannot afford to overlook
a talent pool as rich and varied as veterans. The dedication
and professionalism of these men and women who have served in
the armed forces are without equal. And members of the best
trained military--volunteer military in the world, veterans
have demonstrated an aptitude for excellence, hands-on
experience and teamwork. OPM works directly with veterans to
educate them on employment opportunities with the Federal
Government. Our educational and recruitment initiatives provide
veterans and agency hiring managers with timely and useful
information on veterans' preference and Federal employment
opportunities.
Over the past 2 years, OPM has established veterans
outreach offices at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in
Washington, D.C., at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio,
Texas, and a third outreach office will soon open at Fort
Carson, Colorado. As you know, work at these hospitals is aimed
at helping the wounded veterans recover physically and
psychologically as they transition back to civilian life. We
provide these wounded veterans with Federal job information and
counseling. We offer classes that teach resume writing and
offer tips on how to translate military accomplishments into a
set of documented knowledge, skills and abilities that can be
used when applying for Federal jobs. Most recently, OPM hosted
the first of its kind Web cast offering comprehensive
information on veterans' preference rights and eligibility. A
tape of the Web cast is now available to veterans and their
families 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on OPM's Web site. Our
most recent annual report to Congress in November 2006
indicates that one out of every four Federal workers is a
veteran. That is 456,000 out of 1.8 million; 93,000 of those
veterans are disabled; nearly 50,000 of whom are seriously
disabled, meaning they have a disability rating of 30 percent
or more. It is clear from this report that the Federal
Government continues to lead the Nation as the employer of
choice for veterans and especially disabled veterans. And we
expect this to continue to be the case when our next annual
report is presented to Congress this coming November. We are
particularly proud of our record at OPM where nearly 30 percent
of our new hires have been veterans, making us a leader among
independent Federal agencies. Your letter of invitation also
asked OPM to discuss veteran retention rates. Our review of
available data from 93 Federal agencies indicates on average
88.4 percent between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006.
Some of the highest retention rates are found in the Department
of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Army and the Department
of Homeland Security. Only 9 out of the 93 agencies we reviewed
had retention rates less than 60 percent. We believe the
numbers confirm that, on average, Federal agencies are
succeeding in retaining veterans in the Federal workforce.
Madam Chairwoman, I can see that I am out of time. My
statement has been submitted to the record and contains
additional information on OPM's outreach efforts and
governmentwide activities. OPM is proud of its efforts to
preserve and protect veterans' preference, and we are committed
to making sure Federal employment opportunities are made
available to our veterans. I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanson appears on p. 67.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for your testimony, Ms.
Hanson.
Mr. McWilliam, welcome back to the Subcommittee. Good to
see you again. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. McWILLIAM
Mr. McWilliam. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking
Member Boozman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today to talk about the role of the Department of Labor in
ensuring veterans' preference is applied in the Federal
Government hiring process. We appreciate the interests of the
Subcommittee in this very important benefit to veterans. First,
let me say that we have a very close working relationship with
the Office of Personnel Management. DoL works with OPM to
implement and enforce veterans' preference in Federal hiring.
We are both champions of veterans' preference. We believe that
the Federal Government has an excellent record in hiring
qualified veterans. Both agencies are committed to ensuring
veterans receive all the rights and benefits to which they are
entitled under Federal employment laws. Labor is responsible
for investigating and attempting to resolve veterans'
preference complaints against Federal agencies filed under the
Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. We carry out our
investigative responsibility through the use of trained
investigators at each of our 52 State offices. To further
support these efforts, VETS has entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in
December of 2000. All meritorious cases are referred to OSC for
review for potential prohibitive personnel practices. My
written testimony provides detailed data on our investigations.
We have seen a slight decrease in caseload this year.
We believe this decline may be due to several initiatives:
First, the efforts of the State employment specialists, the
Disabled Veteran Outreach Programs (DVOPs) and the Local
Veterans Employment Representatives (LVERs) and the Veterans
Service Organizations in explaining veterans' preference to
job-seeking veterans. Second, the Department's Employment Laws
Assistance for Workers and Small Businesses program. This elaws
program is a series of online advisors that provide easy-to-
understand information in a question-and-answer format. An
advisor is available for veterans' preference. There is also
one available for real lifelines for disabled service members
that talks about veterans' preference. And finally, VETS focus
on informing service members of veterans' preference during the
Transition Assistance Program employment workshops.
Participants receive information on the Federal hiring program
and veterans' preference. Information on veterans' preference
is also available in Turbo TAP, which is the new transition Web
site that I believe the Subcommittee is very familiar with.
Our data shows that most of our veterans' preference
complaints filed with the Department have been determined to
have no merit. In fact, only 3 percent result in a meritorious
determination. We believe that is because many veterans just
don't understand the Federal hiring process.
In addition to our investigative responsibility, we conduct
an extensive compliance assistance program focused on educating
potential eligibles for the program and Federal agencies with
regard to their rights and responsibilities. My written
testimony provides answers to your specific questions regarding
the numbers of veterans in various categories.
Let me summarize by saying that DoL has a strong commitment
to hiring veterans. Veterans constitute 17 percent of the total
workforce and 75 percent of the VETS workforce. Veterans
comprise 18 percent of the DoL workforce at the GS-9 level or
above and 80 percent within VETS. Madam Chairwoman, this
concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McWilliam appears on p. 70.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hensley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIE HENSLEY
Mr. Hensley. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good afternoon,
Madam Chairwoman, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for your invitation to appear before the Subcommittee and to
offer testimony on veterans' preference and the Department of
Veterans Affairs success of recruiting and hiring veterans.
Also, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for entering my full
testimony into the record. In the remaining time allotted, I
would like to highlight the Department's commitment to hiring
veterans. We believe that affording veterans their statutory
preference in employment is not merely the obligation of a
grateful Nation, it is good government and good business. It
gives us an advantage in recruiting and retaining employees
from a pool of the Nation's most highly motivated, disciplined
and experienced preference veterans. In addition, establishing
internal policies that address veterans' preference, VA Human
Resources Oversight and Effectiveness Office evaluates
compliance with veterans' preference laws, regulations and
policies, doing onsite evaluations of human resources offices
throughout VA. VA has focused on veterans' hiring for many
years. We are able to track employment of veterans by
facilities VA-wide. We have launched various programs and
initiatives that have resulted in VA placing in the top tier of
agencies employing veterans. As of July 31, 2007, over 77,000
or 31 percent of VA's 250,000 employees are veterans. Over
60,000 of the 31 percent are veterans' preference eligibles.
And 19,000, approximately 8 percent, are disabled veterans.
VA ranks first among non-Defense agencies in hiring
veterans. VA regularly uses the special hiring authorities that
target veterans, and we have also hired veterans using other
hiring authorities as well. For example, in the first 7 months
of 2007, VA hired 5,094 veterans' preference eligibles and
another 729 nonpreference veterans. The Department has
established a strategic target of 33 percent veterans in the
employee population. One of the challenges that we face is the
rate at which veterans are leaving the Department. While
recognized by OPM early as having one of the better retention
rates in government, the cohort of veterans who joined the
Department of Veterans Affairs after the Vietnam War is now
eligible to retire.
In addition, younger veterans similar to other U.S. workers
their age are frequently more mobile and change jobs and
employers more often than many older employees. On average, VA
has lost about 810 veteran employees a month during the last 12
months. Countering these losses, we have on average hired about
787 veterans a month during the past year. This has allowed the
Department to maintain an overall employment rate of 31 percent
over the last year. Nonetheless, we are concerned that VA loses
too many veterans, especially veteran hires who are within
their first year of employment.
To identify the reasons why, we are developing a workgroup
to research and develop solutions. In 2001, VA established a
national Veterans' Employment Program within the Office of
Human Resources and Administration to develop a VA-wide
marketing and recruitment strategy for veterans and to provide
veterans with information not only about employment
opportunities in the Department but also about how to use their
veterans' preference status. The National Veterans' Employment
Program manager visits transition centers around the country,
participates in military job fairs and attends military
association and Veterans Service Organization conferences and
meetings. Recently the Secretary asked each local VA facility
director to appoint a veterans' employment coordinator to
conduct outreach at local VA facilities and also to monitor
their facilities' adherence to veterans' preference statutes.
In 2006, VA initiated a series of meetings with the surgeon
generals of the Army, the Air Force, the Navy to discuss how we
might attract separating military health care professionals to
health care employment opportunities in VA. We are currently
working the details for full implementation of this initiative
with the Air Force.
In 2005, VA formally introduced to the Federal sector the
Coming Home to Work program. Under this initiative, VA partners
with the Departments of Defense and Labor to reach service
members and veterans from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom. Coming Home to Work provides civilian jobs, skills
training, exposure to employment opportunities and work
experience to service members pending medical separation. This
program, now in place at eight major military treatment
facilities, gives valuable practical assistance to separating
service members as they prepare to enter the Federal and
civilian workforce; 442 service members have participated in
the program with the following results: 26 returned to active
military duty; 10 were direct hires in VA; 23 are in work
experience programs in VA; 201 are receiving early intervention
services; 182 have transferred from military treatment
facilities to local VA regional offices for vocational
rehabilitation and employment services.
In closing, Madam Chairwoman, every day at VA we see the
sacrifices that veterans have made for our Nation. It is our
responsibility and privilege to support their return to
employment. We are committed to continue our successful focus
on veterans' hiring in VA. Madam Chairwoman, thank you again
for the opportunity to testify today. I am prepared to respond
to any questions the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hensley appears on p. 73.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much, Mr. Hensley.
Ms. Hanson, if I could begin with you. Have you seen any
patterns in any agencies over the last 5 years regarding an
increase in the number of cancelations of certificates of
eligibles?
Ms. Hanson. We don't track the cancelation. We track the
usage of or nonusage of certificates.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Does any agency that you are aware of
track the cancellations?
Ms. Hanson. Not that I am aware of. Not the cancelations.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you think we should track the
cancellations?
Ms. Hanson. I don't think it would give you enough
information, just the number itself. You would have to look
very deeply into what the reasons were behind it. You would
have to understand--let me give you an example.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. No. I think I know what you are
saying. But given that that would be the case, certainly you
wouldn't be able to just--even in some of the other questioning
we had of the previous panel, you would have to go in and get
more information. Don't you think that would be worthwhile as
it relates to being able to determine whether or not some of
the concern expressed, particularly by the first panel, is
warranted, that there is a practice, since the decisions of a
few years ago would allow these cancelations?
Ms. Hanson. Well, one of the things we do when we do
compliance audits is we look at the application of veterans'
preference in competitive hiring. So we look at just those
issues. We don't track them per se, but we look at those issues
when we go in and do compliance audits with agencies.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Speaking of compliance audits, along
the lines of Mr. Boozman's questions of Ms. Bradshaw in the
previous panel, OPM is charged with conducting the periodic
systemic reviews of agency hiring practices, which would
include audits. When was the last time OPM visited the Air
Force Audit Agency or the Air Force?
Ms. Hanson. I don't know specifically. I believe it was in
2006. But let me look into that and get back to the--it was
recently.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. If you could. Then perhaps if it was
recently in 2006, perhaps the one prior to that----
Ms. Hanson. Okay.
[The information was supplied by OPM in response to the
post-hearing questions for the record, which appear on p. 89.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And any conclusions that were drawn
from those----
Ms. Hanson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Audits or periodic reviews.
Mr. McWilliam--well, let me ask this to all of you. Do you
agree that the laws for veterans' preference should be updated?
Do you think that they are--in some of what your agency does,
Ms. Hanson, do you think there is a complexity here for certain
hiring managers and certain agencies in which we can be of
assistance to simplify the process that would lead to more
compliance?
Ms. Hanson. We go out, and we do enough education to work
with folks, hiring managers to help them understand. I am not
sure that simplifying the rules as they stand would make a
difference if somebody is ignorant of the law. But we are going
out, and we are doing this education of hiring managers and
veterans, as a matter of fact, Veterans Service Organizations,
and those people who work with veterans to ensure that they
understand the laws as they stand right now.
Mr. McWilliam. Madam Chairwoman, our view of the veterans'
preference has to be from the cases that we investigate. We
have seen that it is really that the veterans themselves who do
not understand the law. That is why we have put such an
emphasis in the Transition Assistance Program with acquainting
people with veterans' preference.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. You mentioned that in your testimony
just now. I think you are aware of my concerns; first of all,
TAP is not mandatory.
Mr. McWilliam. That is correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I wonder, but maybe you can answer
that question. I was going to ask it of Ms. Bradshaw. How much
time is given to veterans' preference rights in the TAP
program?
Mr. McWilliam. It is a very small portion. It is during the
reference made when we talk about other sources that are
available to service members. It is included in the booklet.
There is a discussion, a short one-page discussion on veterans'
preference in the Federal hiring program. We view it within the
TAP like many areas, Madam Chairwoman, that we acquaint people
with it, and then we give them a reference to go to, to do
further information, to do further research in that area.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, I think it is an important area
for you and of course the working relationship that you have
with the VA as it relates to other recruitment and outreach
tracking systems, Mr. Hensley. Do you have a timeline for
implementing that system that is going to be used by the
veterans employment coordinators so that we can get a sense of
how effective their recruitment and outreach is? How much more
do we need to do to further explain the veterans' preference
rights and follow up in addition to perhaps some information
given to a service member in a TAP program?
Mr. Hensley. Yes, Madam Chair. We have recently established
an automated system that will allow us to track what these
veterans employment coordinators are doing in the field in
terms of outreach, in terms of explaining to veterans,
veterans' preference statutes and how they are used. So we do
believe we will have some data that might be useful to us as
well in determining how we might best ensure the veterans'
preference is being applied across the board.
In response to your earlier question about the law and
whether or not it should be simplified, we go to great extents
within the Department to ensure that veterans' preference is
applied and that it is used across the board. Certainly the
establishment of the veterans employment coordinators was one
way of making sure that at the local facilities, we did, in
fact, ensure or check to ensure that veterans' preference was
being used. We believe, too, that in many instances veterans
are having great difficulty in understanding how to use their
preference status in applying for jobs. And the National
Veterans Employment Program was designed with that intent and
purpose of helping educate not only the veterans but also the
service managers who are making the selection about their
responsibilities in using veterans' preference in the hiring of
veterans.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Just one final question, and then I
want to recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Hensley, I have some concerns based on the testimony we
have heard today and the responses to some of the questions and
we need to gather additional information. But I have some
concerns that certain agencies are not--well, they just have
far lower success rates than others in terms of the hiring of
veterans under implementation of veterans' preference laws.
Have any agencies, Federal agencies, such as the Department
of Health and Human Services, Department of Education,
Department of the Treasury, Department of Agriculture, have
they approached the VA for assistance in implementing veterans'
preference rates?
Mr. Hensley. When we, Madam Chair, implemented the Coming
Home to Work initiatives, we have several Federal agencies that
came to us to talk about how they might launch a similar
program. Transportation was one. I believe Commerce may have
been another. Beyond that, I am not sure that there were other
Federal agencies. But I would be more than happy to check and
get you an entire list and provide that to you for the record.
[The information was supplied by VA in response to the
post-hearing questions for the record, which appear on p. 91.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. That would be much appreciated. Thank
you. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. You stated in regard
to the VA about the fact that a lot of veterans were leaving
within their first year. And I know that you know it is kind of
an ongoing problem. Do you have a preliminarily gut feeling as
to what the thinking is? Or----
Mr. Hensley. Well, a great number of those who are leaving
during the first year, as you might imagine, are within their
probationary period. And there could be a variety of reasons.
One being that it is not a good job fit might be one of the
reasons. But we are very concerned about the attrition trends
during the first year of employment, and that is one of the
reasons that we are launching this workgroup in order to do
further research and more detailed analysis of exactly what is
happening to that population of veterans.
Mr. Boozman. So a job fit in terms of being
underemployment? Or----
Mr. Hensley. I am sorry. I didn't hear your question.
Mr. Boozman. The job fit in terms of perhaps being
underemployed?
Mr. Hensley. We think maybe along the lines of the job not
being exactly what the veteran may have thought it would
entail.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Ms. Hanson, we have had testimony today
about various entities, some, they appear to be doing a good
job and others not. Some up the top and some of the other--why
is there such a difference? What is your gut feeling as to why
there is such a difference in the agencies? Why is Ag lagging
behind?
Ms. Hanson. Well, I don't know that Ag is lagging behind.
Mr. Boozman. Percentage-wise. So is it lagging behind? Or
the others are just doing so much better?
Ms. Hanson. I think the Department of Defense agencies have
a mission that is very similar to what these military members
did while they were in the service. I think it is a very
natural fit for them to go to these Department of Defense
agencies. It is their agency of choice, and I think that is why
we see the numbers.
When we look at other agencies, it might be the mission. It
might be lack of education or fit with experience that they can
make the linkages. I think it is both from an agency
perspective, from the agencies wanting to do their best to
encourage folks to apply for their jobs and make their jobs
interesting, but also veterans understanding how their military
service translates into government jobs. And we work with
military members as they are transitioning and folks after they
transition from military service to make those linkages from
what they did in the military and how it would translate to a
Federal job. So we are trying to make those linkages. As we see
that, we see many more applying for Federal jobs they may not
have considered applying for before.
Mr. Boozman. We also heard testimony about canceling
certificates and playing those kind of games. And again, there
is human nature to kind of play the system if you think that is
to your advantage in a hiring practice. Is your gut feeling, is
that a significant problem? Or is it one that we run across?
Ms. Hanson. Well, that is considered a prohibitive
personnel practice, and we would take action when we see those
things.
Mr. Boozman. What action would we take? Would we follow up?
Ms. Hanson. Yes. We may withdraw their delegated examining
authority. We may have somebody else do their delegated
examining for them.
Mr. Boozman. Have you ever done that?
Ms. Hanson. Yes. We have in some agencies. We actually
asked a Federal agency who did not give a veteran preference to
offer the veteran the next job they were qualified for, he or
she were qualified for. We have asked agencies to educate their
workforce, make sure that managers--mandatory training of
managers to make sure they understand veterans' preference
laws. We take those kinds of----
Mr. Boozman. I think that is the other thing. We talk about
the veterans not understanding the law. And they have really
pretty good access to understanding it. And again, that is the
other side is making sure that the people on the other side
understand the laws. So I want to thank all of you. I think you
work really hard on trying to help veterans and things. But we
want to help you and push things along.
The other thing, Mr. McWilliam, I want to compliment you on
the Balboa. I think, again, there were reports that I hear that
that is very positive. And so I know that you all did an
excellent job in setting that up. So give yourselves a pat. I
feel very strongly also that TAP should be made mandatory. If
it were, it would save us a lot of time and money down the
line. But that is a different battle to fight. So thank you all
very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. I do want to
thank each of you for your testimony, your responses to our
questions today. Again, as the Ranking Member said, we want to
help you do even more in addition to what you have been doing
to ensure that our veterans are treated fairly and all the laws
that are passed are fully implemented, not just in agencies
where there is sort of a natural fit. I agree with Mr. Boozman
and Ms. Hanson. I think that is a good response to why DoD is
so high and DoD and others and DoL. I think that we want to get
at the heart of what might be happening with some of the other
agencies, especially when some of the other agencies that don't
have the kinds of presence in certain regions of the country as
much, and some of those employment opportunities that might be
better suited for--not necessarily better suited, but similarly
suited for our veterans.
Thank you for your service to the Nation, your continued
service to the Nation's veterans. We appreciate your insights
and your ideas on this very important topic. With that, the
hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
When called to duty, service members must make the sacrifice of
leaving behind their loved ones and way of life for an extended period
of time. As four of our most recent Subcommittee hearings have
highlighted, many of these service members have returned home to find
themselves having a difficult time securing employment. From the early
years of our Republic, veterans returning from war have been provided
assistance in their reintegration back into civilian life, to include
being given preference in Federal Government hiring, so they may
succeed after their military service.
Generally, to qualify for such preference, a veteran must have been
discharged or released from active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces under
honorable conditions, and be eligible under one of the preference
categories. These categories apply to certain veterans who served
during war; veterans with less than or greater than 30 percent service-
connected disability; veterans who have a service-connected disability
and is receiving benefits due to their disability, but do not qualify
for other preferences; and family members of veterans.
Unfortunately, as we will hear today, there are some concerns that
still exist today as they have existed in past years. Some of these
include veterans improperly denied appointments, and veterans targeted
during reductions-in-force.
I hope this hearing will allow the Subcommittee to determine: the
success rate of veteran's preference; if veterans' preference has
assisted our Nation's heroes in acquiring jobs in the Federal agencies;
and if these agencies have implemented veterans' preference properly.
I applaud the Federal agencies that have made strong efforts in
hiring veterans, especially disabled veterans. I would also like to
take the time to recognize the steadfast dedication of all our
panelists in their willingness to bring to light the serious issues
that are being faced by our veterans.
I know we, and the Administration officials on the third and fourth
panels, look forward to hearing today's testimonies so that we may all
work together to properly recognize the sacrifice of those who have
answered the call to duty. This is especially true at a time when our
country is experiencing an increased retirement rate among Federal
employees, and military operations that are creating a larger
population of veterans.
Prepared Statement of Honorable John Boozman,
Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good morning everyone. First, Madame Chairwoman, I hope you had a
restful recess and thanks for bringing this important issue before the
Subcommittee.
The Federal Government has a special obligation to make veterans
part of its workforce and I know that many Federal agencies make a real
effort to hire and promote veterans. For example, the military services
led by the Army with 43%, Air Force with over 41%, Navy with 38%, and
VA with over 23% led the Federal Government in hiring veterans in FY
2005.
Unfortunately, there are also agencies that make little or no
effort and I hope that today's hearing will provide us with insights as
to how Veterans' Preference laws are working. I would say that overall
numbers show the Federal Government is making an effort. For example,
according to the OPM report on veterans' employment in the Federal
workforce for 2005, veterans comprise 27% of Federal full time
permanent employees and veterans hiring was up in all areas.
If I am disappointed, it is that agencies do not make better use of
the special hiring authorities such as Veterans Recruitment Appointment
(VRA) to hire even more veterans.
I must say that reading OPM website's sections devoted to veterans'
preference is not an easy task--probably because of the multiple laws,
hiring authorities and programs in effect for veterans and non-
veterans.
Madame Chairwoman, since we have no direct authority over title 5
and the rest of the government, I wonder if we should consider using
our jurisdiction to simplify veterans' preference just at VA in the
same manner we did for small business in PL 109-461? VA has an overall
good record relative to hiring veterans but I think we could help them
do even better while not tying the hands of the human resources staff.
Madame Chairwoman, I'm eager to hear from our witnesses and yield
back.
Prepared Statement of Meg Bartley,
Senior Staff Attorney, National Veterans Legal Services Program
I am honored to have the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee
with this testimony.
During the past 8 years, the National Veterans Legal Services
Program (NVLSP) has reviewed and investigated complaints concerning
veterans' preference violations in the Federal hiring process. We have
filed amicus briefs, on behalf of The American Legion, in several
veterans' preference-related cases. These include Augustine v. Dept. of
Veterans Affairs, Abrahamsen v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Dean v.
Dept. of Agriculture, and Meeker v. MSPB (known as the Azdell case).
Our conclusion, based on discussions with individual veterans, review
of numerous complaints, and participation in litigation concerning
alleged veterans' preference violations, is that there are many
violations of the spirit and the letter of veterans' preference laws.
My testimony summarizes three problems that prevent preference
eligibles from receiving the preference that Congress intended and I
provide some ideas as to how to correct these problems. These are
clearly not the only circumstances that create problems for veterans.
Other veterans service organization representatives will testify
shortly, and they will discuss a variety of other problems. But the
three situations I chose to focus on best illustrate some systemic
problems with how veterans' preference is applied, and these situations
dramatically illustrate that often when a veteran visits usajobs.gov,
there is not an even-handed and consistent application of veterans'
preference laws.
1. Cancellation of a Certificate of Eligibles in order to Avoid Hiring
a Preference Eligible
I first address the agency practice of canceling a certificate of
eligibles in order to avoid hiring a preference eligible. Let's take a
typical hiring situation: an agency posts a vacancy; applicants,
including preference eligibles, apply; a certificate of eligibles is
generated; and, the certificate is headed by a preference eligible. The
law currently provides, and this is a quote from the Merit Systems
Protection Board, if the agency subsequently decides to cancel the
announcement in order to avoid hiring the preference eligible that
heads the list, an appellant's veterans' preference rights are not
violated.
The cite for thatoutrageous statement is Scharein v. Dept of the
Army, 91 M.S.P.R. 329 (2002). Scharein essentially held that an agency
that wants to avoid hiring a preference eligible who heads a
certificate of eligibles may do so by canceling the certificate.
Allowing this situation to continue allows an agency to intentionally
foil veterans' preference laws.
Recommendation: Require an agency to request permission to cancel a
certificate when the certificate is headed by a preference eligible.
The agency could be required to file written reasons for the
cancelation with OPM and allow the preference eligible time to respond
(similar to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3318(b),the passover provision). OPM could
then determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the reasons
submitted by the agency, determine whether cancelation was appropriate
or whether its primary purpose was to avoid applying veterans'
preference. The agency would be required to comply with the findings of
OPM.
2. An Agency's Ability to Choose from Multiple Certificates or Programs
in Filling a Single Vacancy
Under current veterans' preference laws, emphasis is placed on a
preference eligible's rank on a single competitive examining
certificate. The preference eligible is at the''top'' of the
certificate. This process provided meaningful preference to veterans
years ago when an agency chose a candidate by reference to only a
single certificate or ``register'' of eligibles. However, at the
current time, agencies have the ability to choose a candidate from
among multiple certificates and programs. The existence of multiple
certificates and programs, any of which may be used to fill a single
vacancy, renders the rank assigned to the preference eligible on the
competitive examining certificate potentially meaningless. Let me put
it this way: what is the benefit to heading a list of candidates on a
certificate when the agency has the ability to choose from 4 or 5 other
certificates in deciding who to hire? Veterans are completely confused
to find that they were at the very top of a certificate but someone
from a completely different certificate was appointed to the job. We
believe that an agency cannot claim to have given preference to
veterans in such situations. Veterans preference is diluted or
nullified when multiple certificates are used.
Recommendation: Because Congress contemplates in Title 5 of the
United States Code that competitive examination is to be the primary
method of entry into the competitive service, we encourage the
Subcommittee to ensure that a certificate generated through the
competitive process is favored over other hiring methods and over other
certificates.
3. Agencies Tend to Ignore the Primacy of the Competitive Examination
Process, which includes application of Veterans' Preference, in
Federal Hiring
The issue just mentioned, multiple certificates, leads agencies to
a dangerous view of Federal hiring. Agencies may view the choice of the
method used to select a candidate for a competitive service position as
almost completely unrestricted--competitive examination as one hiring
method among several, with all being equal. However, the statutory
scheme set forth in 5 U.S.C. 187 Sec. 3302 and Sec. 3304(b), requires
that an individual be appointed in the competitive service only if he
or she has passed an examination or is of necessity excepted from
examination.
Deviations from using competitive examining as the primary entryway
into Federal service can lead to serious violations of veterans'
preference laws. This is evidenced by the fact that the Outstanding
Scholar Program operated undisturbed for many years and only recently
was recognized as violating veterans' preference and, essentially,
being inconsistent with the statutory emphasis on the competitive
examination hiring process.
Many veterans and service organizations worry that the growth and
increased use of student hiring programs, without adequate oversight of
their implementation, is becoming yet another method of evading
consistent and rigorous application of veterans' preference.
The websites of several large agencies contain lists of multiple
student-related hiring programs. NVLSP and other service organizations
are certainly not opposed to increasing employment opportunities for
students--many of whom are veterans and who qualify as preference
eligibles. However, we object to any program that attempts to
accomplish hires into the competitive service by denying veterans their
rights under veterans' preference laws.
Recommendation: Congress should ensure thatthe competitive
examining process, including veterans' preference laws, remains the
primary hiring method for the competitive service. Congress should also
ensure that any necessary student or other hiring program vigorously
applies veterans' preference laws (including rating and ranking and
application of points), and ensure that the passover provisions of 5
U.S.C. 3318(b) are required in each of these programs.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with this
testimony. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Roger Tadsen, Wetumpka, Alabama
(Disabled Veteran)
Thank you for allowing me to speak with you today concerning my
experiences and treatment under the Disabled Veterans Affirmative
Action Program (DVAAP) as outlined under 5 CFR 720 Subpart C.
My military career started at the age of 17 with the Air Force (AF)
in January 1972. While on active duty I had surgery in 1983, which left
me partially paralyzed in both legs. I received a medical discharge
from the Air Force in January 1987 with 15 years of active service. As
a result of the nerve damage, the Veterans Administration established
my service connected disability rating at 70%.
I was hired as a civilian through the AF Palace Acquire Program
into the Air Force Audit Agency (AFAA) in June 1991 after graduating
college. I started out as a GS07 series 0511 auditor. I felt my
previous military experiences would enhance my opportunities for
success. Under the Palace Acquire Program, I would receive a promotion
(GS07, GS09, GS11) each year as long as I met the program objectives
until reaching the field auditor target grade of GS12.
To begin with my first audit resulted in over $3 million in savings
for the Air Force. I thought I was doing well. Imagine my surprise in
my third year when the AFAA Region Chief, meeting me for the first time
told me, ``You should be satisfied where you are because of your
disability and that you can not handle being an Audit Manager.'' His
statement took me aback since he did not even know me. I filed an EEO
complaint. His reply, ``You misunderstood what I said.'' However, it
was clear to me what he said. I decided to just let it go and let my
work speak for itself.
By mid-1995, I became competitive for promotion to GS13. My annual
performance ratings during this time were Above Fully Successful
(excellent) or Far Above Fully Successful (superior).
Between 1995 and 2004, 9 years, I submitted my name more than 15
times for these competitive promotions. All the while the AFAA had
continuous openings and requests to fill GS13 positions in California,
Ohio, Texas, and the Pentagon. Meanwhile, my peers with less time in
grade and service were selected.
Prior to October 2002, I had never heard of the Disabled Veterans
Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) even though the law governing its
implementation was enacted in the mid-eighties. I discovered the DVAAP
while performing research on an audit project. Then on my own time, I
started to delve into this law. My first questions were to my first
line supervisor and Office Chief, ``How is the AFAA implementing this
affirmative action program?'' After all, other affirmative action
programs were publicized by the AFAA Director of Operations as working
well for women and minorities within the AFAA. Unfortunately, everyone
I contacted initially had never heard of this affirmative action
program. My supervisors were either deferred or were told to defer to
Veteran's Preferences for hiring. I understood the DVAAP is an
affirmative action program, but senior managers in the AFAA disagreed.
In December 2002, the AFAA Director of Operations forwarded me
information concerning disabled veterans within the AFAA. He stated,
``It is true that agencies are required to develop annual DVAAP plans.
However, the term ``agencies'' refers to the AF. Accordingly, AFAA does
not maintain any information in this area.'' He went on to say,
``Financial Management Career Program records indicated that disabled
veterans, rated 30% or more, represented 2.1 percent of the auditor
workforce in the AFAA.'' The representation of disabled veterans has
remained constant over the past 5 years and well below AF established
goals. No one in the AFAA has ever provided me any further guidance
even though I continue to ask.
Also during December 2002 I contacted the AFAA Assistant Auditor
General (AAG) Financial and Systems (FS) Audits, and his Deputy with
the same concerns. I was trying to identify how the AFAA collects and
monitors compliance with the DVAAP. The AAG responded but did not
address my questions concerning the DVAAP. It was apparent the AFAA did
not track how well this affirmative action program performed; although
they publicized how well they performed under other affirmative action
programs for women and minorities.
As a result, I inquired about the DVAAP to OPM in December 2002. I
told them the AFAA did not appear to monitor the hiring and promotion
of disabled veterans under the DVAAP. I requested further guidance from
them since they oversee the DVAAP and approve agency plans. They
replied in April 2003 asking if the issue was resolved. My response
back was quite lengthy and OPM never replied.
While attending the Professional Military Comptroller School in
January 2003, I wrote a research paper on the DVAAP. As part of my
research I interviewed over 75 members across DoD, including SES and
General Officers, and only one knew of the DVAAP.
During January 2003, I talked to the new AFAA Auditor General. He
was unaware of the requirements of DVAAP. He said he would review the
information I provided him and get back with me. He never responded.
I also contacted the disabled representative to the AFAA Workforce
Diversity Advisory Committee (WDAC). He was unaware of this affirmative
action program and subsequently never responded to my inquiry.
The AF Affirmative Employment for People with Disabilities plan
stipulates, ``the Air Force establishes agency-wide numerical
objectives/goals for the hiring, placement and advancement of people
with severe disabilities, to include disabled veterans.'' However, this
AF plan did not reference 5 CFR 720 Subpart C nor did it cite the
DVAAP. Nothing I found in any AF publication or AF affirmative action
plan cited the DVAAP.
By August 2003 I was trying to work within the AFAA to resolve this
issue. However, the AFAA Auditor General stated, ``You have made
frequent accusations that AFAA is not following rules regarding
disabled veterans. The AFAA Director of Operations is in the process of
clarifying these rules for you after discussion with AF officials, a
review of the appropriate guidance, and confirmation with the Office of
Personnel Management. We hope this will explain the program to you and
confirm for you, as we have explained on several occasions in the past,
that we are indeed complying with the program. In the future, I
encourage you to focus your energies on job performance, which is the
primary factor to promotion in the AFAA and apply for Audit Manager
vacancies. The responsible Assistant Auditor General, as the selecting
official, will follow all appropriate personnel rules, make the
proposed selection, coordinate with me and then process through the
appropriate personnel channels.''
I thanked him for his comments and stated that I used my own time
and resources to pursue the DVAAP over the past 9 months.
In August 2003, the AFAA Director of Resource Management advised
she had contacted AF/DPPH and OPM about my questions and stated, ``The
disabled veteran's preference (notification and appeal rights) applies
to initial appointments only. The references you cited (5 USC 3312 and
3318) as well as the entire subchapter I, Examination, Selection, and
Placement, address people who are being initially hired into the civil
service. I believe you assumed the word ``certificate'' as used in the
references meant promotion certificates. However, when new employees
are hired, they are also selected from a certificate. In fact, 5 USC
3318 describes in detail the process we use to select new personnel--we
receive a certificate with the names of the highest three eligibles,
and if a veteran ``blocks'' selection of a targeted individual, we must
select the veteran.''
She went on to say, ``The AFAA is not required to collect or report
DVAAP statistics separately to OPM each year. The Veteran's Employment
in the Federal Government lists the agencies required to submit data
under this program, and the AFAA's information is contained in the
submission from the Air Force. Therefore, while our data are included
in the Air Force report to OPM, we have no regulatory requirement to
collect or track these statistics at the AFAA level.''
On 14 August 2003, a GS13 audit manager and disabled veteran
stated, ``He and another GS13 audit managers brought the DVAAP to the
attention of the AAG AFAA/FS and his Deputy in July 2000. All they got
for their trouble was reduced evaluations and grief. He added, ``I made
all the GS14 certificates in FS 1996-2001 and was not selected. Since
then I've stopped wasting my time filling in surveys, and so forth., as
AFAA has no intention of promoting a well qualified [MBA, CPA, DoD ADP
Level II Acquisition Auditor], older [59], white, male, disabled
veteran. Also, I too have received lowered ratings in the past couple
of years, to the point I won't make any certificates.'' This mirrored
the same treatment I was receiving from FS management for inquiring
about the DVAAP.
In August 2003, I contacted the Headquarters Air Force/Policy
Office (HAF/XC) and they spoke to the Civilian Policy Office at the Air
Staff.
Per the Civilian Policy Office, ``The AF does not normally have a
``plan'' to hire or promote a specific number of any types of
individual. Each base decides based on a comparison to the local
population if it needs to have comparability in certain categories of
individuals. The Air Force does not have large DVAAP goals, because DoD
hires the most disabled veterans in the Federal Government. Members
cannot be given preference over other candidates just because they are
disable veteran. The only time that veteran's preference is used on the
civilian side is for an external appointment INTO the Federal
Government or during a reduction in force (RIF).''
After receiving this response in August 2003, I wrote to the AF
Director of Personnel Policy office outlining the discrepancy between
their response and what 5 CFR 720 Subpart C stated. I provided a copy
of the CFR with my letter.
5 CFR 720.301 clearly states requirements for agency disabled
veteran affirmative action programs (DVAAPs) designed to promote
Federal employment and advancement opportunities for qualified disabled
veterans. Further, 5 CFR 720.303(a) states that, each Department,
agency, and instrumentality in the executive branch, shall conduct a
continuing affirmative program for the recruitment, hiring, placement,
and advancement of disabled veterans.
The Chief Force Sustainment Division Directorate Of Personnel
Policy, provided me a copy of the FY03 AF DVAAP plan. I received it on
15 October 2003. This was the first time anyone had ever mentioned the
AF DVAAP plan, which established a representative goal for disabled
veterans of 8.7 percent.
This DVAAP plan and every annual plan since does not meet the
minimum requirements outlined in 5 CFR 720.304(e), which outlines the
plan content. It did not establish key measures for monitoring
compliance, review, and evaluating planned efforts and was not
coordinated with any other AF office. Also, there was no indication the
plan was submitted to OPM for approval as required by 5 CFR 720.304(c),
and it was apparent that this affirmative action plan was not
disseminated as required by 5 CFR 720.304(b) (2). Personnel responsible
for implementation of the plan at the local Base Civilian Personnel
Office and the HQ Pacific Air Command (PACAF) Civilian Personnel Office
had never seen it.
I provided a copy of the plan to AFAA management and asked how they
plan to implement and meet the established goal (8.7%) contained
therein. There was no response.
In December 2003, I filed an EEO complaint against the AFAA because
of their practice of discrimination against disabled veterans. In
January 2004, as the EEO process moved forward, I submitted a request
for a humanitarian reassignment.
The AFAA/FS Deputy Assistant Auditor General (AAG) contacted me in
February 2004 to offer me a promotion to GS13. He stated, ``This will
kill two birds with one stone.'' I assumed he was referring to my EEO
complaint and humanitarian reassignment. The position he offered was
one that AFAA/FS AAG had previously rejected my self-nomination a few
months earlier. As such, I withdrew my EEO complaint.
I continued to inquire how the AFAA was going to implement the AF
DVAAP plan. It had taken almost 9 years for my promotion to GS13 while
the average for the majority of others is 3 years or less. I continued
to track how the AFAA filled GS13 and GS14 positions as well as hiring.
AFAA management never responded to inquires related to DVAAP
implementation. In July 2004 I wrote to the AF General Council.
The Associate Director FSD, my 2nd level supervisor, informed me in
September 2004 that the AFAA/FS Deputy AAG sent him a pointed email
saying he did not want to hear any more about the DVAAP. My supervisor
explained, ``It is not a matter of truth. Rather, it is perception
indicating I am over stepping AFAA senior management's authority.''
By November 2004, my 1st level supervisor required I take annual
leave to visit the EEO office if I was going to discuss the DVAAP or
any related issue. She also started to single me out for discipline in
front of others in the office. I notified my 2nd level supervisor,
Associate Director of our division, in writing outlining her abuses. My
1st level supervisor and AFAA/FS Deputy AAG worked together to try and
rein in my efforts on the DVAAP. I notified in writing the AFAA/FS AAG
in April 2005 outlining this behavior. Nothing was done and the
harassment continued.
By April 2005, the VA Medical Center doctors thought I had heart
disease and possibly a heart attack because of the stress my 1st level
supervisor and AFAA/FS Deputy AAG were applying. No one in AFAA senior
management intervened to stop them.
Eventually, I transferred to a new 1st level supervisor. However,
the new supervisor's perceptions were already tainted.
I filed a formal complaint in November 2005 with the Office of
Special Counsel (OSC) to seek relief from the continued attacks. OSC
stated, ``My case was being referred for whistleblower retaliation.''
The case was settled in August 2006.
While the OSC was investigating, I contacted HQ USAF/A1XC, Civilian
Policy and Design Division, in February 2006. His office is responsible
for implementation of the AF DVAAP Plan. He said, ``I met with AFAA
Director of Operations, and Chief of Resource Management Division to
discuss the DVAAP.'' Still nothing changed within the AFAA.
In September 2005 and August 2006, the AFAA Workforce Diversity
Advisory Committee (WDAC) debated and decided that ``the agency'' cited
in 5 CFR 720.340(e) is the Air Force and AFAA falls under the Air
Force. The committee also debated and decided that veterans with a 30
percent or more disability rating receive additional consideration
during hiring and this percentage should not factor in for advancement/
promotions.
The AFAA Recruiting Manual is a guide used by select AFAA employees
with hiring authority. A review of the 21 plus page guide revealed that
it offered only 12 lines of text for hiring the disabled without citing
the DVAAP or any other Veterans' Preference guidelines. However, the
guide did provide specific steps for targeting colleges that contained
specific percentages of minorities and women that covered several
pages.
In August 2006 I contacted HQ USAF/A1XC, Civilian Policy and Design
Division, who referred my concerns to the AFAA Director of Operations.
In response to the question--``Who is responsible for monitoring and
measuring effectiveness merit system principles including the
DVAAP?''--the answer is ``agency management.'' AFAA senior management
IS responsible for effective DVAAP implementation and key measures to
monitor compliance, perform reviews, and evaluate planned AFAA DVAAP
efforts. According to A1XC personnel the AFAA Director of Operations,
and Chief of Resource Management Division were informed. He said A1XC
can only advise and told me to address concerns to the AFAA Director of
Operations, and Chief of Resource Management Division. The same office
that over the past 4 years had done nothing to implement this
affirmative action program.
SAF/MR (Manpower and Resources) in November 2006 stated AF/A1XC did
make some recommendations (not directives) to the AFAA Director of
Operations and Chief of Resource Management Division that includes the
following items: (a) mentoring of AFAA Employees, (b) review of AFAA
policies, procedures, and programs, (c) possible issue of a supplement
to SECAF diversity policy memo (d) become familiar with new directive
EEO Management Directive 715 (e) involving key management in developing
a pipeline for GS-13 and above positions for a more diverse workforce
and (f) integration of EEO into all capital human planning. Nothing
changed.
In December 2006, the AF Auditor General (AG) published a memo
outlining the need to recruit more qualified disabled veterans. He
cited an analysis showing the AFAA currently has 52 disabled veterans
(6.5 percent). Current AF goals are 8.7 percent. He also cited special
consideration should be given for disabled veterans rated at 30% or
more. Disabled veterans in this category represented 2.6, 5.7, and 3.1
percent of Federal, Air Force, and AFAA workforces, respectively.
The AG memo in June 2007 requested help to hire qualified disabled
veterans. I contacted the Supervisor of Employment Outreach, National
VA Headquarters who said he would be glad to help. He stated there were
1,687 disabled veteran candidates in the accounting program who would
qualify for the employment with the AFAA. I provided his contact
information to AFAA officials. No AFAA selecting officials had
contacted him as of 15 August 2007.
Since January 2000, I have completed 23 projects identifying $54
million in savings for the AF. I have experience in acquisition, field
operations, and information systems audits with the AFAA over the past
15 years with total Federal service exceeding 31 years. I also obtained
a Certified Fraud Examiner professional certification. Yet, each time I
get the same comments from the selecting officials.
To continue my career progression in depth and breadth of
experience since January 2006, I have applied 11 times for GS13 and
GS14 positions and professional military education schools without
being selected.
Meanwhile, selecting officials provided a standard response to my
inquiry for non-selection, ``They analyze the candidates and consider
ratings, depth/breadth of experience, training, mobility,
certifications, professional military education, and advanced
degrees.'' Yet, most 2007 selections for GS13 and GS14 position
generally went to people with less than 4 years experience with the
AFAA.
It all comes back to either AFAA senior leadership (a) truly
believes my disabled veteran status hinders my abilities or (b) is
tired of me fighting for my rights under 5 CFR 720 Subpart C. I believe
this is reflective in the fact that my supervisors would not allow me
to have permissive TDY to testify forcing me to use annual leave to be
here today.
Prepared Statement of Mary Jean Burke,
First Executive Vice President, National Veterans Affairs Council,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which
represents more than 600,000 Federal employees who serve the American
people across the nation and around the world, including significant
numbers of preference eligibles in the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) and Department of Defense (DoD), appreciates the opportunity to
testify today regarding veterans' preference rules.
An effective veterans' preference policy should promote both the
hiring and retention of eligible veterans. Veterans' preference rules
need to be regularly updated to remain effective when new personnel
rules are put in place. Outsourcing and other policies that have a
major impact on the Federal workforce must be assessed for their impact
on veterans' employment. Current mechanisms for oversight and
enforcement of veterans' preference rules must be significantly
enhanced.
HIRING
AFGE has received reports of selecting officials maintaining
separate applicant lists to evade veterans' preference requirements.
There does not appear to be sufficient oversight of this or other
harmful practices. Therefore, as discussed below, AFGE urges Congress
to require more training for selecting officials and greater oversight
of current hiring practices to ensure more consistent application of
veterans' preference rules.
Title 38 employees, most of whom work in VA medical facilities and
in some DoD medical facilities, are not currently covered by statutory
veterans' preference requirements. Preference eligibles in these
positions should be afforded the same protections as their Title 5
counterparts.
Direct-Hire Authority (DHA), implemented in 2003 by Federal
regulation (5 CFR part 337, subpart B), has also made it easier for
selecting officials to bypass veterans in the hiring process. DHA rules
clearly state that veterans' preference does not apply when selecting
individuals under DHA. Despite the elaborate process set forth in the
DHA rules to establish a ``severe shortage of candidates'' or a
``critical hiring need'' in order to fill selected positions through
direct hire, it is quite easy for an agency to qualify for DHA and pass
over all preference eligibles. In addition, OPM can decide
independently if certain positions meet the criteria for DHA.
AFGE urges Congress to reject pending proposals to increase the use
of DHA for targeted groups, such as proposals for direct hiring of
annuitants, Presidential Interns and Americorps alumnae. Veterans'
employment will be severely impacted by allowing selecting officials to
completely exclude preference eligibles from the applicant pool.
RETENTION
Reductions-in-Force
AFGE commends Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin for her leadership in
protecting preference eligibles in involuntary geographic reassignments
through H.R. 728, the Veterans Reassignment Protection Act. We urge the
Subcommittee to clarify through additional language that preference
eliglbles under all Federal personnel systems, i.e. Title 5, Title 38,
DoD National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) personnel rules are equally protected in the
event of involuntary geographic reassignment.
New Personnel Rules
More generally, new DoD and DHS personnel rules threaten the
consistency of veterans' preference governmentwide when reductions-in-
force (RIF) occur. Lack of consistency, in turn, makes it nearly
impossible to counsel veterans as to their RIF rights. DoD claims that
NSPS preserves veterans' preference by assigning it the exact same
priority as in OPM regulations. This overlooks a key difference between
NSPS and OPM RIF rules: OPM rules provide maximum opportunities for
retention of those affected by the layoff, including other placement
opportunities, while NSPS takes away these opportunities. The overall
result of NSPS RIF rules will be the retention of junior employees over
senior employees and the retention of non-veterans over veterans.
For example, under the current OPM RIF procedures, an employee who
is released from his competitive level in a RIF is permitted to
``bump'' to a position that is held by an employee in a lower tenure
group or in a lower subgroup within the same tenure group. Similarly, a
Career employee may bump a Career-Conditional employee. A veteran with
a service connected disability of 30% or more may bump a veteran
without such a condition, or a non-veteran, and has the right to
``retreat'' to a position that is the same or essentially the same job
that he or she previously held. Thus, a veteran with 15 years of
service could displace a veteran with 10 years. A non-veteran with 10
years of service could displace a non-veteran with only 5 years.
These opportunities are eliminated under NSPS Workforce Shaping
regulations, allowing, DoD to exploit its broad discretion to select a
very narrow area for a RIF. For example, DoD could eliminate a group of
three jobs held by veterans with 15-20 years of service and continue
other jobs at the same location held by non-veterans with fewer years
of service. Under NSPS, the preference eligibles would have no recourse
to bump into these jobs.
This limitation on retention opportunities is exacerbated by the
discretion DoD gives itself in the final NSPS regulations to determine
the scope of competition in a RIF, known as the competitive area and
narrow the competition to exclude preference eligibles from the pool.
For example, if DoD cut the number of positions at a depot devoted
to major repair of the engines for F-16 aircraft, under OPM rules, all
employees who report to that Depot Commander would be in the same
competitive area, allowing them to compete for retention with those
holding other similar jobs at the depot, e.g. those who work on the F-
16 may also be qualified to work on the F-14 or the C-5.
In contrast, under NSPS, DoD will be able to depart from this
procedure, allowing itself to determine competitive areas along
divisions it calls ``product lines'' or ``lines of business'' or
``funding lines.'' Repair of the F-16 engines could be defined as a
``product line,'' so that would be the entire competitive area. Only
those employees who worked on the F-16 engine would compete in the RIF.
As a result, the aircraft mechanic who is a disabled veteran would not
be able to bump and displace the non-veteran who works on the C-5. In
fact, that aircraft mechanic would not even be able to compete with
someone who worked on another component of that same aircraft, such as
avionics.
In short, the NSPS regulations will narrow the scope of competition
and reduce the number of retention opportunities for senior employees
and veterans. Management will be able to terminate qualified veterans
with high-level performance and retain junior, non-veterans. The
discretion NSPS affords DoD managers to evade veterans' preference is
central to the NSPS system. This is just one of the many important
reasons why Congress should repeal the broad personnel authorities that
gave rise to NSPS. AFGE strongly supports the House version of the FY
2008 National Defense Authorization Act which would restore to DoD
civilians the veterans' preference rules that they enjoyed prior to the
creation of the new rules under NSPS.
Veterans' Preference Rules Should Apply to Promotions and Transfers
Currently, preference eligilbles are only recognized in the hiring
and RIF processes. Veterans' preference rules do not apply to internal
agency actions such as promotion, transfer, reassignment, and
reinstatement. These protections should be extended to internal agency
actions. This change would be of particular benefit to Federal
employees in the Reserves or National Guard who are deployed, then
return to their former positions and seek a transfer or promotion,
especially in cases where they acquire a service-connected disability
and therefore earn greater preference eligibility during their
deployment. These men and women who served our country should not have
to transfer to another Federal agency in order to benefit from their
veterans' status.
IMPACT OF OUTSOURCING ON VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT
This Administration's relentless agenda to outsource government
functions has had a devastating impact on veterans, particularly those
in low wage positions and those who entered Federal Government after
rehabilitation for service-connected disabilities.
Ironically, the harm to veterans is especially evident at the
Department of Veterans' Affairs itself, where by its own admission,
veterans comprise 80% of the low wage workforce. Many of the disabled
veterans who participate in VA vocational rehabilitation programs are
later hired to work in VA medical facilities. In addition, certain
positions in VA medical facilities and other agencies, such as
custodians and guards, are restricted to preference eligilbles under 5
CFR Sec. 330.401 et al.
In instances where Federal employers conduct OMB A-76 privatization
reviews or other cost comparison studies prior to converting Federal
functions to contract work, Congress should require agencies to factor
in the impact of these conversions on veterans' employment as an
additional cost.
In other instances, agencies directly convert Federal work held by
preference eligibles to contractors by illegally bypassing competition
requirements in Federal law (Section 842 of the FY06 Transportation-
Treasury-HUD Appropriations Bill) and the OMB A-76 Circular. AFGE has
received numerous reports from VA sites across the country of direct
conversions of a wide range of Federal functions including hospital
laundry workers and housekeepers and cemetery groundskeepers. AFGE
hopes these reports serve as an additional catalyst for Congress to
impose restrictions on outsourcing of Federal work and increase
oversight of taxpayer dollars used for cost comparison studies, direct
conversions and other outsourcing activities.
The highly publicized crisis at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
(WRAMC) produced similar reports of the adverse effects of
privatization on both preference eligibles and veterans receiving care.
At WRAMC, preference eligible employees held the majority of base
operations support positions that were subjected to a prolonged A-76
competition, causing great job uncertainty, which in turn led to a wave
of resignations and loss of jobs.
While contractors regularly assure agencies that they will make
every effort to consider former Federal employees for contractor jobs,
they are under no obligation to hire them, much less consider veterans'
status in the hiring process, with one exception: 5 CFR Sec. 330.404
places ``additional responsibilities'' on agencies and OPM when the
aforementioned positions that are restricted to preference eligibles
are contracted out through the OMB A-76 process. AFGE urges Congress to
ascertain whether OPM and agencies engaged in contracting out these low
wage preference eligible positions have in fact met their
responsibilities.
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Meaningful oversight of veterans' preference policies and the
ability to track compliance are hampered by inadequate data collection.
Currently, agencies are generally responsible for enforcement, not OPM
(5 USC 3320.
AFGE urges Congress to adopt a tracking system modeled after the
EEOC Management Directive 715 that provides policy guidance and
standards for establishing and maintaining effective affirmative
programs and reporting. This tracking system should include information
about the number of preference eligibles who applied for each vacant
position, and whether the applicant applied for and was turned down for
other positions previously, in order to determine how many veterans
were turned away from each vacant position.
COMPETENCE OF SELECTING OFFICIALS
Mandatory compliance training and certification is needed to ensure
that selecting officials apply veterans' preference rules in a
consistent, effective manner. This will ensure that employees are
provided updated information on veterans' preference rules, and that in
hiring and RIF actions, they properly consider veteran status. In
addition, AFGE has received reports that indicate that some preference
eligilbles are not being properly rated for their military experience,
e.g. medics applying for Licensed Practical Nurse positions.
PHYSICAL TRAINING FOR MILITARY GUARDS
AFGE is also concerned about the adverse impact of new physical
testing requirements for DoD Police and Guards, many of whom were hired
under special hiring authorities designed to increase veterans hiring
in DoD. Many GS-083 (Police) and GS-085 (Guards) have been
grandfathered or had waivers for any physical testing requirements as
many were hired under special hiring authorities designed to give
veterans jobs in DoD. Now, the Army, and ultimately DoD, are seeking to
force these requirements on existing employees, many of whom are
disabled veterans hired under Veterans Readjustment Act.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that Members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of C.J. ``Cliff'' Guffey, Vice President,
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Committee. I am Cliff Guffey,
Executive Vice President of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-
CIO--the APWU. On behalf of the APWU, thank you for providing me this
opportunity to testify on behalf of our more than 300,000 members.
Postal workers and the United States Postal Service have a long and
proud tradition of veterans' employment. The APWU and its members
strongly support veterans' preference.
I am proud to say that I am a 10 point preference eligible veteran.
I served with the Second Battalion of the 3d Marines in Vietnam in 1968
and 1969. APWU President William Burrus and Legislative Director Myke
Reid are also preference eligible veterans. Bill served with the 101st
Airborne Division, and Myke served with the 502d Air Force Band.
It is no coincidence that the three of us are veterans. More than
187,000 veterans were employed by the Postal Service in fiscal 2005. On
behalf of these veterans, and on behalf of all postal workers, I thank
the Committee for holding this hearing to address the needs of our
returning veterans. We know the Committee will want to consider how
best to ensure that postal employment will continue to be accessible to
veterans.
Postmaster General Potter recently reported that nearly 25 percent
of postal employees are veterans. In the recent past, among postal
workers of my generation, the numbers and percentages of veterans in
the Postal Service have been even higher.
The fact that large numbers of veterans are employed by the Postal
Service tends to obscure the fact that the Postal Service effort on
behalf of our veterans is not as strong and beneficial as it could be.
The Postal Service's Annual Reports to Congress from 1999 through
2005 show that the Postal Service has experienced a continuous decline
in the number and proportion of its workers who are veterans. In FY
1999, the Service employed 251,788 veterans, accounting for 31.6% of
its workforce. In FY 2005, the Service employed only 187,144 veterans,
decreasing its veteran populous to 26.6%. Also noteworthy is the fact
that the USPS' disabled veteran workforce decreased to only 9% and
veterans with a 30% or greater disability rating decreased to only
2.4%.
This trend is particularly significant in light of the large
numbers of veterans, particularly disabled veterans, who are returning
from fighting in the Middle East. The U.S. has nearly 1.4 million
active military personnel, 369,000 of whom are deployed outside the
United States and its territories. Currently 169,200 U.S. troops are
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the start of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, more than a million U.S.
Service members have been deployed to the Middle East. According to the
Department of Defense's Casualty Report, between March 20, 2003 and
August 29, 2007, 4,159 troops--including at least 13 people who were
members or closely related to members of the APWU--have died in the
line of duty; 27,782 service men and women have been wounded in action;
and 13,353 of the wounded have been classified as not able to return to
duty.
The Veteran's Administration has reported that our returning
veterans are suffering levels of unemployment and homelessness that I
am sure the Committee will agree are not acceptable. According to the
Veterans' Administration, the reality is that unemployment usually
affects younger, less experienced workers the most, and that includes
young veterans who are attempting to enter the civilian workforce after
their discharge from military service. The VA estimates nearly 200,000
veterans are homeless on any given night and nearly 400,000 to one
million veterans experience homelessness over the course of a year.
Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in
a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has served
in our military service. While great efforts have been made to provide
housing, these have not been nearly enough. More importantly, our
veterans need good jobs paying a living wage and with adequate fringe
benefits. Studies show that gainful employment at a living wage with
the opportunity for advancement is the foundation for maintaining
economic stability and reducing the risk of homelessness.
There is no doubt that the Veterans' Preference Act has provided
important assistance to veterans. The point preferences given to
veterans and disabled veterans, and the restrictions that reserve
certain jobs for qualified veterans if any have applied for them, are
important and effective means of ensuring that veterans are provided
employment opportunities in the Federal Government, including the
Postal Service. But these opportunities are not as effective as they
should be, for several reasons.
Perhaps the largest problem is that veterans are not aware of their
veterans' preference rights. It is our understanding, gained from
speaking with many discharged troops, that neither the military nor the
Veteran's Administration, nor the Postal Service is doing enough to
inform veterans of their veterans' preference rights. In our
experience, veterans are unaware that 10 point eligible veterans have a
right to apply at any time for any position for which a non-temporary
appointment has been made from a list of eligibles within the past 3
years. Veterans also need to be informed that they can file for an open
competitive examination after the closing date if they could not file
in time because of their military service.
Of course, even knowing their rights under the law will not really
assist veterans unless the Postal Service makes an effective effort to
inform them of employment opportunities. Veterans who are informed of
their rights and also informed of available postal positions are more
likely to gain USPS employment because they will have access to the
entrance exam upon discharge, rather than waiting for what can be years
before the examination is again offered to the public.
Currently the best employment information vets are offered is at
sporadic job fairs that do not regularly include a representative from
the USPS. We recommend that all Federal agencies be given timely notice
of these fairs, and that all agencies within the geographical area of
the fairs be required to send knowledgeable representatives.
Additionally, we urge the Committee to take steps to ensure that the
Veterans' Administration and the military provide exit counseling that
includes useful information regarding Federal sector employment,
recruitment and available positions.
The Committee also needs to be aware of two other significant
impediments to veterans' preference in the Postal Service. One is that
the Postal Service has systematically eliminated or contracted out the
six jobs that, under section 3310 of Title 5, the Veterans' Preference
Act restricts to applying veterans. The APWU has monitored this
development as part of our effort to enforce the APWU's collective
bargaining agreement with the Postal Service. For years, the Postal
Service has sought to contract out more and more of these restricted
jobs over the objections of the APWU. We think that this effort by the
Postal Service is contrary to the spirit of the Veterans' Preference
Act and not in the best interests of the Postal Service. Most often,
the savings the Postal Service purports to be seeking through
contracting out prove to be illusory. Veterans are losing their postal
employment rights because the Postal Service is not preserving these
restricted jobs for them in accordance with Federal policy. The Postal
Service should be required to bargain with the APWU before it can
contract out any restricted job, and that if the parties cannot reach
agreement on the decision to contract out, the dispute resolution
procedures of the Postal Reorganization Act should be applied.
Another problem is that, in a time of continuing automation and
stable or declining First Class Mail volume, the Postal Service is not
likely to be hiring a large number of new workers. It may be that the
most effective way to provide employment opportunities for veterans
would be to identify additional positions that could be restricted for
the employment of veterans.
If veterans are to be provided meaningful postal employment
opportunities as they have in the past, effective steps need to be
taken to inform veterans of their rights. The military should be
required to provide effective exit counseling to discharging veterans
informing them of their preference rights. The Veterans' Administration
needs to provide effective job counseling services that include
information about veteran's preference rights and employment
opportunities. And the Postal Service must systematically provide
information about employment opportunities to the military, to the
Veterans' Administration, and to veterans themselves.
In closing, I want to thank the Committee for providing the APWU
this opportunity to speak out for returning veterans. We hope that our
testimony will assist the Committee in determining what needs to be
done to benefit our newest generation of veterans. APWU and its members
look forward to welcoming additional veterans who will be joining our
ranks. We will be proud to have them as new union brothers and sisters.
We very much appreciate your assistance in achieving this goal.
I will be happy to respond to any questions the Committee my have.
Prepared Statement of Brian E. Lawrence,
Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the Disabled American
Veterans (DAV), I appreciate the opportunity to present our views on
veterans' preference.
For four and a half years members of the Armed Forces have
sacrificed more for our freedom and security than the vast majority of
our citizens will ever be able to imagine. Aside from death, severe
injury, and the atrocities of war, service members face multiple, long
separations from their homes, families, and the lifestyles they would
prefer to live. While such a proportionately small segment of our
population willingly faces some of the greatest challenges life can
present, the rest of us enjoy a level of liberty and prosperity known
in few places throughout the world. We must never forget that such
blessings would not exist without the bravery and self-sacrifice of
those who are willing to serve.
We as a nation have a moral obligation to ensure that those who
have served, and especially those who are injured while serving, are
provided benefits that will allow them to rejoin society and lead as
normal lives as possible. Along with health care and compensation for
service connected disabilities, we must ensure that disabled veterans
and other veterans have opportunities to obtain gainful employment.
Doing so is not only a moral obligation, it is wise economic policy
from a national perspective.
By virtue of their service, military veterans have already
established that they are disciplined, task-oriented workers who are
drug-free. Veterans hold great potential to fortify any job market, but
more than any other segment of the workforce, our Federal Government
should be first in line to offer positions to those who have already
served the Federal Government in its most demanding roles. While this
would appear to be a common sense practice that requires no
encouragement, it is far from being a routine occurrence. It seems
implausible that Congress would be forced to require by law that
veterans be given a preference in Federal employment. Yet, it is so,
and Congress must continually provide oversight to ensure veterans'
preference laws are upheld.
Madame Chair, the DAV is grateful that you, Ranking Member Boozeman
and the Members of the Subcommittee have directed your focus toward
this issue. On nearly a daily basis, my office receives inquiries from
disabled veterans who believe their preference rights have been
overlooked or ignored. From their perspective, veterans' preference is
little more than lofty rhetoric, and there is no enforceable mechanism
in place to verify that consideration was given to their status.
Bureaucratic techniques used by hiring officials to avoid granting
veterans their preference are common knowledge to anyone who has
struggled to obtain a Federal position. Job seekers wishing to use
veterans' preference points quickly become familiar with terms, such as
`use of multiple certificates' and `outstanding scholar program', which
are two methods used to dodge veterans' preference. Additionally, when
veterans feel their preference rights were ignored, there is no clear
authority to which they may appeal. Having no enforcement or redress
capability, veterans have lost confidence in the value of their
employment preference. It is a bitter notion that those whose Federal
service placed them in peril must standby as others cut into line ahead
of them for Federal employment.
The DAV would like to reiterate how important veterans' preference
is to returning service members and veterans. We believe that efforts
to promote and enforce veterans' preference laws are inadequate. The
DAV urges the Subcommittee to support legislation that will restore the
value of veterans' preference laws. Additionally, we urge the
Subcommittee to support adequate funding for the Department of Labor
(DoL) Veterans Employment and Training (VETS) which is responsible for
investigating when veterans believe their preference was denied.
Veterans' preference should be a simple, unavoidable advantage for
Federal employment, and there should be a clear procedure for veterans
to appeal when consideration has not been afforded to their military
service. Should a fellow job candidate be selected over a veteran based
on greater credentials, it is proper. However, the hiring official must
be able to state in specific and certain terms precisely why the
veteran was less qualified than the job recipient.
In August, during the DAV National Convention in New Orleans,
Louisiana, our membership voted to again adopt a long standing
resolution calling for a substantive preference for veterans seeking
Federal employment. Several DAV members serve under DoL as Disabled
Veteran Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists, and Local Veterans
Employment Representatives (LVER). These employment specialists know
firsthand that preference laws offer little leverage to veterans
seeking a Federal position.
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, the DAV appreciates
the opportunity to present our views on this issue. We look forward to
our continued work with the Subcommittee to serve our nation's disabled
veterans and their families.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Neil A. G. McPhie, Chairman,
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
I am delighted to accept the invitation from Chairwoman Herseth
Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee for
the opportunity to share the views of the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) regarding the application of veterans' preference in
Federal employment policies and practices. The Subcommittee has asked
me to address the following questions:
1. How many cases involving veterans' preference were brought
before MSPB and what were the rulings in those cases?
2. How many were of merit?
3. What are the most common complaints you received from veterans'
regarding hiring through veterans' preference?
4. What is your opinion on agencies' adherence to veterans'
preference?
I will first provide a brief overview of MSPB's structure and
operations followed by responses to the Subcommittee's inquiries.
BACKGROUND
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent quasi-
judicial agency established to protect Federal merit systems and the
rights of individuals within those systems. The MSPB carries out its
statutory missions by adjudicating certain employee appeals and
conducting studies of the Federal civil service and other merit systems
in the Executive Branch to determine whether they are free from
prohibited personnel practices.
I am honored to serve as the 7th Chairman of the Merit Systems
Protection Board. The Merit Systems Protection Board has three members,
appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, who serve
staggered 7-year terms. Individual appeals are initially filed in one
of MSPB's 6 regional or 2 field offices, where an administrative judge
considers evidence from the parties and renders an initial decision.
Either party can seek review of that decision before the full Board.
The MSPB receives about 7,000 appeals in its regional and field offices
each year, and in about 20% of those cases, one of the parties files a
petition for review before the 3-member Board.
Veterans' preference in Federal employment has existed in some form
since the Civil War era. The Veterans' Preference Act of 1944
consolidated the various veterans' preference rules found in prior
statutes, regulations, and executive orders. This Act remains the
primary source of veterans' preference rights to this day. Veterans'
preference rules apply in two major areas: reductions in force (RIFs)
and hiring.
THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD'S VETERANS' PREFERENCE CASELOAD
Since its creation in 1978, MSPB has had the authority to resolve
veterans' preference issues in the RIF context as part of its general
jurisdiction over RIF appeals. The last time that the Board was called
on to decide significant questions involving the application of
veterans' preference in RIFs was in the early nineties, when hundreds
of veterans filed MSPB appeals challenging how they were treated in a
nationwide reorganization of the Postal Service. Based on the cases I
have seen since joining MSPB in 2003, there does not appear to be much
confusion over how veterans' preference operates in RIFs, and in fact
MSPB has not received large numbers of RIF appeals in recent years.
Veterans' preference in hiring is another matter. Until 1998, MSPB
did not have authority to decide claims for violation of veterans'
preference rules in hiring. That year, Congress enacted the Veterans
Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA), which granted MSPB authority to
decide appeals brought by preference eligibles and certain other
veterans who allege a violation of their employment rights. The
Veterans' Preference Act and the Pendleton Act together require that
when a preference eligible has applied for a position in the
competitive service, the agency may make an appointment only after
conducting a competitive examination with application of veterans'
preference, unless the agency chooses to fill the position under a non-
competitive appointing authority created by statute or regulation.
Since 1998 MSPB has received approximately 1,600 VEOA appeals in its
regional and field offices, the vast majority of which contained
allegations that the appellant's nonselection constituted a violation
of veterans' preference rules. The most common claims that MSPB sees in
VEOA appeals are that the hiring agency:
Failed to conduct a competitive examination with rating,
ranking, and veterans' preference points;
Failed to correctly apply veterans' preference rules in a
competitive examination;
Failed to provide veterans' preference in a promotion
action;
Denied a veteran the right to compete for a vacancy; and/
or
Improperly canceled a vacancy announcement.
Some of these claims are resolved under what are now well-
established legal principles. For example, veterans' preference rules
do not apply to promotion from among a pool of internal candidates, nor
do veterans' preference rules prohibit cancelation of a vacancy
announcement after applications are received. Cancelation of a vacancy
announcement when a veteran appears at the top of a certificate of
eligibles is sometimes cited as evidence of discrimination against
veterans, and MSPB has authority to decide such a claim under the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The result
in such a case depends on the strength of the evidence and the
particular facts of the case.
Likewise, whether an agency violated rules governing veterans'
preference in a competitive examination is decided on a case-by-case
basis. For example, in 2005, MSPB determined that some appointments
under the Outstanding Scholar Program violated the rights of
preference-eligible veterans.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized governmentwide use of
``category rating'' as an alternative to traditional competitive
examinations with rating and ranking and addition of veterans'
preference points. Category rating is a flexibility that agencies may,
but are not required, to use. So far, the Board has not seen a large
number of VEOA appeals challenging how veterans' preference is applied
in the category rating context.
The Merit Systems Protection Board's Office of Policy and
Evaluation conducts studies of the Federal civil service, and has
gathered some noteworthy information concerning the employment of
veterans by the Federal Government. We have recently conducted two
studies that provide some information related to veteran's perceptions
of the hiring process. The first was a study focusing on entry-level
hiring, while the second looked at upper-level hiring.
We found that in FY 2005, 18% of the new hires in full-time,
permanent professional and administrative positions at the GS-5, -7, -9
levels were veterans. The rate of hiring of veterans for all entry-
level positions, which includes technical and blue-collar occupations,
was 21.5%. In higher level positions (grades 12 through 15), 42% of all
new hires in FY 2005 were veterans, a 12% increase from the level of
veteran hiring in FY 2001. About 55% of veterans hired for upper-level
positions in FY 2005 were appointed under authority of the VEOA, which
requires agencies to allow veterans to compete for vacancies that would
otherwise have been closed to non-status outside candidates.
The use of VEOA as a hiring authority has increased steadily since
its enactment. In FY 2000, 520 veterans were hired under VEOA to fill
these upper level positions; by FY 2005, the number had grown to 3,132.
During FY 2005, DoD and its components made 86 percent of all VEOA
selections; while the Department of Homeland Security, the Department
of Energy, the Veterans Administration and the General Services
Administration accounted for another 10 percent.
During the course of responding to the 2005 survey questions a few
of the respondents articulated the following concerns with the Federal
hiring process:
Military experience was not given enough credit when
agencies set starting pay;
Agencies did not award appropriate credit for military
experience when determining a veteran's accrual rate of annual leave;
Military organizations did not adequately equip military
personnel transitioning to civilian life with the skills needed to
prepare resumes;
The process was too long; and
The process was too complex.
MERIT OF VETERANS' PREFERENCE APPEALS
You asked for the number of veterans' preference appeals ``that are
of merit.'' Because there has been no compelling need in the past to
maintain adequate statistics regarding veterans' preference cases, MSPB
has not maintained statistics on the number of decisions that are
rendered in favor of the appellant in veterans' preference appeals.
Similarly, MSPB has not maintained statistics on the specific
percentage of VEOA appeals that are resolved through settlement
agreements. However, we can say that more than half of all appeals that
are within the MSPB's jurisdiction and filed on time are settled, with
no MSPB decision on the merits. If Congress would like for MSPB to
maintain this data in the future, we would be happy to work with
Subcommittee Members and staff to provide such information.
ADHERENCE TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE REQUIREMENTS BY OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES
Finally, you asked for my opinion regarding the adherence of other
Federal agencies to veterans' preference requirements. The MSPB has not
conducted any studies that systematically address the issue of
agencies' adherence to veterans' preference. For this reason, we have
no basis to form an opinion on how well other agencies are complying
with veterans' preference requirements. Instead, adherence to veterans'
preference is best determined on a case-by-case basis, and assessing
overall agency adherence to veterans' preference requires an in-depth
understanding of each agency's particular hiring practices and
decisions.
In conclusion, the MSPB is proud of its record of providing fair
and efficient resolution of individual disputes within its
jurisdiction, including those filed alleging violations of veterans'
rights. Additionally, the MSPB will continue to provide valuable
objective analyses of the Federal civil service through the studies it
conducts. We would be happy to be of further assistance or provide
additional information to the Subcommittee as its Members and staff
carry out this important work.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Patricia S. Bradshaw,
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy),
U.S. Department of Defense
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
invitation to be here today. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss
the Department of Defense (DoD) views on veteran' preference, as it
applies to employment, and our success with the program. The DoD values
the expertise and commitment of our service members and we place
special emphasis on supporting our wounded service members. We
currently have over 227,000 veterans with preference working for the
Department or about one-third of the DoD civilian workforce. As the
largest Federal employer of veterans, we are committed to providing
employment opportunities as civil service employees for the men and
women who have served honorably on behalf of our Nation.
COMMITMENT TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE
We recognize that the transition from military service to civilian
service can be challenging. To ease this transition, the Military
Components (in coordination with the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) and the Department of Labor (DoL)) provide assistance and support
to separating veterans including pre-separation counseling, benefits,
job coaching, resume writing, and information on employment
opportunities, including those in the Department of Defense as well as
the rest of Federal Government.
There are two special appointment authorities available to all
Federal agencies that are primarily used by the Department to appoint
eligible veterans without competition. These are:
The Veterans' Recruitment Appointment (VRA) is an authority that can
be used when:
The grade level of the position does not exceed GS-11 (or
equivalent in other pay systems); and
The veteran is ``qualified,'' i.e., able to perform the
essential duties of the position.
Agencies must establish a training or education program
for any VRA appointee who has less than 15 years of education. The
program should meet the needs of both the agency and the employee.
After 2 years of successful employment, the employee must
be converted to a permanent career/career-conditional appointment; and
When used for temporary or term appointment, the VRA
authority does not lead to conversion to a permanent position; and
30 percent or more Disabled Veteran Hiring Authority. This authority
can be used when:
The veteran must have a compensable service-connected
disability of 30 percent or more.
The disability must be documented by a notice of
retirement or discharge due to service-connected disability from active
military service dated at anytime, or by a notice of compensable
disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The veteran must meet all qualification requirements for
the position.
The veteran can be appointed to any grade level or
equivalent in a variety of occupations.
Currently, we have 33,681 veterans with a compensable service-
connected disability of 30% or more working for the Department. Again,
approximately one-third or over 227,000 employees of the Department's
civilian employees are veterans with preference. Of that total, 34
percent are in GS-09 or above positions in a variety of occupations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans in Department of Defense Number of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 Percent or More Disabled Veterans 33,681
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Veterans (5 point and 10 point) 194,049
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Veterans with preference in DoD 227,730
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TARGETED RECRUITMENT
The Department is actively engaged in a targeted recruitment
program titled ``Hiring Heroes''. The goal of the ``Hiring Heroes''
career fairs is to inform and educate our wounded service members on
the various employment opportunities available to them after they
complete their military service, as well as introduce them to potential
employers and non-profit organizations that can offer assistance to
them during their transition. The fairs provide a unique environment
where our service members can meet face-to-face with employment
recruiters, learn first hand about jobs and career choices, and
establish connections with potential employers. Typically 50 to 70
organizations, including state and local governments, non-profit
organizations, and other Federal organizations participate in the
career fairs and offer their services to our members. I am proud to say
that the fairs are conducted in concert with our DoL and VA partners.
Generally lasting 2 days, the fairs provide our service members
with technical workshops covering a variety of topics such as resume
writing, job interview skills, and learning about other benefits to
which they are entitled. To date, nine of the eleven career fairs have
been held at or near Medical Treatment Facilities. Many of the service
members who attend these fairs are still in the recovery period and
actively engaged in rehabilitation. Although they are not ready to
begin work, the fairs provide an opportunity for them to visit with
potential employers and make valuable connections which will help the
veterans when they are ready to rejoin the workforce. Although the
focus of the fairs is primarily the severely wounded and injured
service members, we also welcome their spouses and other family members
who may be acting as the injured service members' main care givers.
The most recent Hiring Heroes career fair was held at the Marine
Corps Air Station in San Diego, California. This location was ideal
because Miramar is a central location in southern California and could
target service members at Balboa, the hospital at Camp Pendleton,
Twenty-nine Palms, and any other service members in the area. While
each job fair has been a success, I would submit that, measured by
several factors, this has been the most noteworthy to date. We had over
350 attendees and 70 employers. Of significance was the number of
Medical Holdover patients from Balboa and the hospital at Camp
Pendleton in attendance. So, while we expanded the audience, we were
able to concentrate on ensuring that the targeted audience received
particular attention.
The most impressive element of this event was the coordination of
efforts with the staff at Balboa and Camp Pendleton in their transition
centers. The transition centers are staffed by DoD, Navy and VA
personnel. DoL-funded state government personnel also provide
transition employment assistance services. This collaboration of
efforts can serve as a model for how to successfully coordinate service
member transition preparation. It was particularly rewarding to observe
service members at the career fair with their resumes and renewed
confidence.
We will continue our Hiring Heroes job fairs with the next ones
planned for mid-September to reach out to our service members located
at Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, Washington and Brooke Army
Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
WEB-BASED RESOURCES
In addition to the job fairs, we have developed an interactive
website titled ``Disabled Veterans: Opportunities to Use Your
Abilities.'' The interactive website can be found at www.dodvets.com.
The website provides individuals with information about DoD and Federal
career possibilities and helps them navigate through the hiring
procedures more easily. Also available is a video that showcases
several injured service members who have transitioned from military
service and now have rewarding careers as civilians with the DoD.
The website contains a section with clear and detailed answers to
commonly asked questions regarding veteran' preference and the
transition to civilian employment. The website also contains links to
additional information on internships, scholarships, fellowships,
grants, loans and financial aid, transition centers, and education and
training.
Furthermore, there is a section that provides information for our
managers--those individuals who are making the hiring decisions. Our
managers are on the front lines and are able to help break barriers to
employment by thinking creatively and resourcefully. Within DoD, we
have a wide range of occupations that can offer disabled veterans
diverse, challenging and rewarding careers. The DoD work-life
initiatives such as telework and alternative work schedules offer
options that can enable disabled veterans to contribute their talents.
This website provides links for managers to obtain general information
and resources about tools to hire talented, disabled veterans. Last,
any unanswered questions can be sent to us via email or by phone and we
will respond within 48 hours.
CONCLUSION
In summary, today's veteran brings a wealth of knowledge,
skills, and abilities to the job. The Department is well positioned
with hiring flexibilities that can be used to place veterans easily and
quickly into the DoD workforce. The statistical numbers show that the
Department is committed to the employment of veterans. However, we are
not resting on our laurels. We continue to reach out to veterans and
wounded warriors through aggressive marketing campaigns such as the
Hiring Heroes program and by providing access to employment related
information via the Internet.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the veteran'
preference program. I look forward to your questions.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Boyd K. Rutherford,
Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Madam Chair Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to come before you to
discuss veterans' preference and the success the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is having in recruiting and retaining
veterans in its workforce.
USDA is a leader in America's food and agricultural systems,
helping the farm and food sectors operate in a highly competitive
marketplace to respond to changing consumer demands for high quality,
nutritious, and convenient food and agricultural products. USDA also
carries out a wide variety of services and activities related to the
management, research, and conservation of the Nation's agricultural
resources. In carrying out its mission and achieving its goals, USDA's
human capital--its employees--is its greatest asset.
As the Department's Chief Human Capital Officer, I have a duty to
assure USDA has the workforce capable of carrying out the Department's
mission. With a growing retirement eligible workforce, USDA is
compelled to design and implement a multi-faceted approach to
succession planning and recruitment that will ensure the continued
existence of the mission-critical talent pools. The challenge of an
aging workforce is exacerbated by an increase in competition for
skilled employees and an increasingly technical environment. The demand
for people with expertise in information technology, public health, and
science-based technologies requires more attention toward effective
recruitment, training, retention, and knowledge transfer strategies. At
USDA, we use these strategies to fill the more than 340 different job
series that include everyone from firefighters to research scientists,
agricultural economists to food inspectors, veterinarians to
procurement and human resources professionals. Almost any career a
veteran could imagine is possible at USDA.
Veteran Preferences
As you are well aware, veterans' preference laws were initially
enacted by Congress as early as the Civil War to prevent veterans
seeking Federal employment from being penalized for their time in
military service. Veterans' preference recognizes the economic loss
suffered by our citizens who have served their country in uniform,
restores veterans to a favorable competitive position for government
employment, and acknowledges the larger obligation owed to our veterans
and particularly those who were injured in their service to our
country.
Preference has been reserved for those who were either disabled or
who served in combat areas. Veterans' preference in its present form
comes from the Veterans' Preference Act 1944, as amended, and is now
codified in various provisions of title 5, United States Code.
Preference applies to hiring for virtually all Federal jobs, whether in
the competitive or excepted service. In addition to receiving
preference in competitive appointments, veterans may be considered for
special noncompetitive appointments for which only they are eligible.
Appointment Authorities
There are three ways veterans can be appointed to jobs in the
competitive civil service: by competitive appointment through a list of
eligibles developed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or
agency equivalent, by noncompetitive appointment under special
authorities that provide for conversion to a permanent appointment, or
by Merit Promotion selection under the Veterans Employment
Opportunities Act (VEOA).
A competitive appointment is one in which the veteran competes with
other candidates on an OPM list of eligibles (or agency equivalent
under delegated examining authority). This is the normal entry route
into the civil service for most employees. Veterans' preference applies
in this situation, and those veterans who qualify as preference
eligibles have an additional 5 or 10 points added to their passing
examination score under traditional rating and ranking or are listed
ahead of non-preference eligibles within a category under category
rating and ranking.
A noncompetitive appointment under special authority is one such as
the Veterans Recruitment Appointment (VRA) authority (formerly known as
the Veterans Readjustment Appointment authority) and the special
authority for 30 percent or more disabled veterans. Eligibility under
these special authorities provides veterans a significant advantage in
that an agency may simply appoint the eligible veteran to any position
for which he or she is qualified (limited to the GS-11 grade level, or
equivalent, and below for VRAs.). There is no red tape or special
appointment procedures. However, use of these special authorities is
discretionary with the agency. Veterans' preference applies when making
appointments under these special authorities if there are two or more
candidates and one or more is preference eligible. These authorities
provide for noncompetitive conversion to the competitive service after
a suitable period of satisfactory service.
A Merit Promotion selection under the VEOA is one in which the
veteran competes with current Federal employees under an agency's merit
(or internal) promotion procedures. The VEOA allows preference
eligibles or veterans to apply under an agency merit promotion
announcement open to candidates outside the agency. However, agencies
do not apply veterans' preference when considering individuals under
merit promotion procedures or under the VEOA. Selection under this
special authority, as with other authorities, is discretionary with the
agency. A VEOA eligible who competes under merit promotion procedures
and is selected will be given a career or career conditional
appointment.
Recruitment Activities
To attract a diverse, highly skilled workforce, USDA markets itself
as the ``Employer of Choice'' in the Federal Government. All USDA job
opportunities, including announcements identifying noncompetitive
appointing authorities and merit promotion authorities for veterans,
are posted on the OPM's USAJobs.gov website. All vacancy announcements
post the name and telephone number for applicants to contact if they
want to obtain reasonable accommodation for any part of the application
process. Vacancy announcements are sent weekly to State Employment
Services, various Veterans' organizations, and rehabilitation agencies
to help alert veterans to career opportunities with USDA.
As a large, decentralized agency, USDA has implemented a myriad of
recruitment efforts through its individual agencies. The Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS), for example, often advertises vacancies
in the Vet Forum and Veteran's Life magazines. In 2006, FSIS entered
into a partnership with Virginia's Department of Rehabilitative
Services (DRS) and provided training to DRS employees and other
affiliated organizations on special hiring authorities for persons with
disabilities, as well as guidance on resume writing and interviewing.
The Rural Development State office in Maine developed a relationship
with the local Department of Defense military installations, forwarding
vacancy announcements directly to them. They also e-mail all vacancy
announcements to the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars to
ensure that local veterans are aware of job opportunities through
state-wide newsletters and bulletins.
On behalf of the entire Department, I have become personally
involved in the ``Coming Home to Work'' initiative sponsored by the
Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program (VR&E). This Initiative places a special emphasis on
assisting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
service members.
Through the ``Coming Home to Work'' initiative, civilian work
experience is made available to VR&E eligible service members, pending
their medical separation from active duty at major military treatment
facilities. Participants work with a Vocational Rehabilitation
Counselor to obtain unpaid work experience in a Federal, State or local
government facility. The goal of this program is for VR&E eligible
service members facing medical separation to gain or sharpen civilian
job skills at a point in their recovery when they are deemed ``work-
ready'' by a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor. The types of work may
include administrative, clerical, professional, technical, or wage
grade positions. Work assignments are dependent on the aptitudes,
interests, and abilities of the participant.
This program assists veterans in establishing an employment history
and expands their ability to hone the skills developed under their
vocational rehabilitation plans. It provides exposure to Federal
employment opportunities and the special Federal hiring authorities for
which veterans qualify.
While USDA has already randomly used this program in our
Departmental Human Resources Division, we are in the process of
expanding the Department's involvement with the program. USDA is
developing administrative, human resources, and procurement position
descriptions to meet the specific talents and needs of those
participating in the ``Coming Home to Work'' initiative. Through these
positions, we hope to provide not only interim work opportunities to
our Nation's veterans, but a stepping stone to a permanent position in
the Federal workforce.
USDA Human Resources offices continue to use various electronic
national resume databases to establish contact with a variety of
veterans programs and organizations as well as to participate in
veteran targeted job and career fairs. However, in many instances, we
find that our own veteran employees are our best recruiters. Through
their associations with veteran organizations, our current veteran
employees serve as conduit to the veteran community to promote
employment opportunities throughout USDA.
I am pleased to report that of the 108,840 USDA employees, 11,517
or 10.6 percent are veterans, of which 6,776 occupy positions at the
GS-9 salary level or above. In 2006, USDA hired 21,023 new, full-time
employees of which 1,332 were disabled veterans. More than 10 percent
of the disabled veterans employed by the Department are 30 percent or
more compensable.
Statistics and recruitment efforts, however, only tell a portion of
the story. In 2003, Steven Dickerson was just completing his masters
program in social work at the University of Nevada at Reno when he came
to the attention of the Forest Service who was interviewing candidates
under the government's Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP). The WRP,
cosponsored by the Department of Labor and the Department of Defense,
is a program that identifies college students with disabilities to work
as interns for Federal Government agencies in summer and permanent
jobs. As a result of WRP, DoL recently announced the availability of a
national database of students with disabilities who have expressed
interest in working for the government.
Mr. Dickerson, a Vietnam veteran, was injured during the war in an
aircraft incident resulting in him being both blind and using a wheel
chair for mobility. In spite of these injuries, he returned to school
and earned his undergraduate degree in Paralegal Studies--summa cum
laude--and went on to graduate school to complete his Masters degree,
as well.
Gerry McGaughran, the Person's With Disabilities College
Recruitment Liaison for the Forest Service, recognized Mr. Dickerson's
potential value to the agency and referred him for consideration for
vacancies within the agency. Later that same year, Mr. Dickerson was
competitively selected by the Forest Service's Intermountain Regional
Office as the Region's Employee Assistance Program Coordinator in
Ogden, Utah.
As a member of the Forest Service civil rights staff, Mr.
Dickerson's duties include administering the Region's alternative
dispute resolution and employee assistance programs where he mediates
workplace disputes and trains other agency mediators. He has also
enhanced the region's employee assistance program, which is now
available 24 hours a day--7 days a week. He also counsels other
veterans and people with disabilities having workplace issues. In order
to perform his job, Mr. Dickerson uses a number of technical
accommodations including a docking pen that interfaces with a computer
to download messages and voicing software that converts text to speech.
Steven Dickerson is a valuable member of the USDA family, not just
because he's a veteran, but because of who he is, what he has
accomplished, and what he continues to contribute to the mission of our
agency.
At USDA, veterans' preference is not only the law; it is an honor
and a commitment we make to our National heroes who have sacrificed so
much to keep our Nation free and safe.
Prepared Statement of Anita R. Hanson, Outreach Group Manager,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss veterans' preference and the role of the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (OPM). I serve as Outreach Group Manager at OPM
where I have primary responsibility on behalf of Director Linda
Springer for outreach to returning service members and to all our
Nation's veterans on the Federal employment hiring preferences they
have earned. As a disabled Navy veteran, I care deeply about this topic
and am proud to serve my country helping my fellow veterans.
OPM's Role
Director Springer and all of us at OPM take very seriously our
obligation to ensure that veterans have full access to Federal civilian
jobs following their separation from military service. Our obligation
is grounded in veterans' preference laws that have been a cornerstone
of America's civil service since its inception.
Veterans' preference is also at the very core of OPM's mission,
which is to ensure the Federal Government has an effective civilian
workforce. I would like to take a few moments to focus on our efforts
across Government to promote and preserve veterans' preference and our
work to educate veterans about Federal job opportunities as we help to
prepare these American heroes for their transition from military
service.
Oversignt and Accountability
As part of our oversight of human capital management
responsibilities at OPM, we use an audit-based approach to ensure that
competitive hiring practices used by Federal agencies comply with
veterans' preference laws and merit system principles. Since 1996, when
OPM began broadly delegating examining authority to Federal agencies,
we have conducted almost 1200 audits of agency delegated examining
units (DEUs). Our audits cover all aspects of competitive examining,
including the application of veterans' preference. We also annually
conduct Human Resource Operations Audits that examine a number of
agency human resources (HR) programs, including competitive examining
and the use of veteran hiring authorities and practices.
As part of every OPM audit, we rigorously examine recruitment
actions, how applications are handled and processed, and how selection
decisions are made. We carefully examine whether veterans' preference
was properly applied, and we review certificates of eligible candidates
to see if there are patterns in how those certificates are used--or not
used--that would indicate whether or not veterans are receiving
legitimate consideration.
For the past 2 years, OPM has been helping agencies establish sound
internal accountability systems to ensure HR programs operate within
merit system principles and comply with veterans' preference laws and
regulations. When agencies conduct their own audits, which are key
components of these accountability systems, OPM actively participates
to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, including the
application of all aspects of veterans' preference.
When we find violations of law or regulation, we take steps to
ensure corrective action is taken. We can direct an agency to give a
veteran priority consideration for the next job vacancy for which he or
she is qualified if we believe that veteran was denied preference
previously. If we find evidence that veterans' preference was knowingly
denied, which is a prohibited personnel practice, we would then refer
the matter to the Office of Special Counsel or the agency's Inspector
General. We may also withdraw an agency's delegated examining authority
if we find systemic problems.
In our experience, the vast majority of Federal agencies follow
veterans' preference requirements to the letter of the law. We
typically do not see systemic violations of veterans' preference across
an entire agency. When we do find problems, they tend to be isolated to
a specific installation or organization and are typically caused by
inadequate direction or lack of adequate accountability systems.
Hiring and Retention
OPM works diligently to make sure all Federal agencies understand
the value and importance of hiring those who have answered the call to
duty. As you may know, we have predicted that more than 60 percent of
the Federal workforce will be eligible to retire over the next decade.
As such, we have an enormous recruitment challenge where we simply
cannot afford to overlook a talent pool as rich and varied as veterans.
The dedication and professionalism of the men and women who serve in
the armed forces are without equal. As members of the best trained
volunteer military in the world, veterans have demonstrated an aptitude
for excellence, hands-on experience, and teamwork.
Our most recent annual report to Congress in November, 2006
indicates that one of every four Federal workers is a veteran--456,000
out of 1.8 million. 93,000 of those veterans are disabled, nearly
50,000 of whom are ``seriously'' disabled, meaning they have disability
ratings of 30 percent or more. It is clear from this report that the
Federal Government continues to lead the nation as an employer of
choice for veterans and especially disabled veterans--and we expect
this will continue to be the case when our next annual report is
presented to the Congress this coming November. We are particularly
proud of our record at OPM where nearly 30 percent of our new hires
have been veterans, making us a leader among independent Federal
agencies.
Your letter of invitation also asked OPM to discuss veteran
retention rates. Our review of available data from 93 Federal agencies
indicates an average veteran retention rate of 88.4 percent between
Fiscal Year 2005 and Fiscal Year 2006. Some of the highest retention
rates are found at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of
the Army, and Department of Homeland Security. Only 9 of the 93
agencies we reviewed had retention rates less than sixty percent. We
believe these numbers confirm that, on average, Federal agencies are
succeeding in retaining veterans as part of the Federal workforce.
Outreach Efforts
OPM also works directly with veterans to educate them on employment
opportunities with the Federal Government. Our educational and
recruitment initiatives provide veterans and agency hiring managers
with timely and useful information on veterans' preference and Federal
employment opportunities.
Most recently, OPM hosted a first-of-its-kind live webcast offering
comprehensive information on veterans' preference rights and
eligibilities. A tape of the webcast is now available to veterans and
their families 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on OPM's website--
www.opm.gov/veterans.
OPM staff frequently visit veterans' medical facilities and
military installations where we speak with transitioning military
members about opportunities to continue serving their country as part
of the Federal civilian workforce. We provide training on how to
effectively use our USAJOBS website where job vacancy announcements and
applications can be found. We also provide training on resume writing,
interviewing techniques, and general information on veterans'
preference and other special appointing authorities for veterans. We
provide similar employment help to veterans at job fairs across the
country.
Over the past 2 years, OPM has established veterans' outreach
offices at Walter Reed Army Medical Center here in Washington, DC and
Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. A third outreach
office will soon open at Ft. Carson, Colorado. As you know, work at
these hospitals is aimed at helping wounded veterans recover physically
and psychologically as they transition back to civilian life. We
provide these wounded veterans with Federal job information and
counseling; we offer classes that teach resume-writing and offer tips
on how to translate military accomplishments into a set of documented
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that can be used when applying
for Federal jobs.
As another part of our outreach efforts, OPM meets quarterly with
the major Veterans' Service Organizations (VSOs) to address important
veterans' issues and to provide an opportunity for VSOs to share their
concerns. We work closely with VSO leadership to ensure that veterans'
preference rights are honored and protected throughout government, and
we value the constructive working relationships we have developed.
Governmentwide Activities
Issuing regulations and guidance is another way OPM fulfills its
obligation to ensure veterans' preference is adhered to throughout the
Federal Government. For example, we published regulations in January
2006 making it a prohibited personnel practice to violate veterans'
preference when using alternative rating and selection procedures
commonly known as category rating.
We continue to update our veterans' employment guidance, contained
in our VETGUIDE and Delegated Examining Operations Handbook. Our
website contains extensive guidance describing the rights and benefits
of reservists called to active duty. We have also published a set of
Frequently Asked Questions on military leave in recognition of the
significant number of Federal employees currently serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
OPM has improved our web-based veterans' products in an effort to
provide better customer service to veterans who are seeking Federal
jobs. For example, we have enhanced our USAJOBS website to make it more
veteran-friendly by providing prominent home page links to veterans'
employment information and web resources at agencies and elsewhere.
We have partnered with our colleagues in other Federal agencies to
safeguard veterans' preference entitlements. We are proud of our
teamwork with the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) to help resolve veterans' preference and
veterans' reemployment rights issues. And last year we revised and
streamlined our most used Federal form--Standard Form 15, Application
for 10 Point Veteran's Preference--by aligning it with current policy
of the Department of Veterans Affairs and making it more user-friendly
for both veterans and agencies.
Most recently, OPM was proud to play an active role in the
deliberations of the Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror
Heroes established by President Bush on March 6, 2007. We believe the
interagency recommendations produced by this task force will be very
helpful to veterans as they transition back to civilian life.
Conclusion
Madam Chairwoman, OPM is proud of its efforts to preserve and
protect veterans' preference and we are committed to making sure
Federal employment opportunities are made available to our veterans. I
would be happy to answer any questions you or other Subcommittee
Members may have regarding my statement.
Prepared Statement of John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Veterans' Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk
about the role of the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) in assuring Veterans' Preference is applied in
the Federal Government hiring process. We appreciate the interest of
the Committee on this very important benefit for veterans, especially
veterans returning from the Global War on Terror who are interested in
working for the Federal Government.
First let me say that we enjoy a very close working relationship
with officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Our staffs
are in regular contact with each other on both investigative and
educational/outreach efforts. We work collaboratively with OPM to
implement, enforce and improve Veterans' Preference in Federal hiring.
We are both champions of Veterans' Preference, and we regularly
communicate that to all Federal agencies and departments. We believe
the Federal Government has an excellent record in hiring qualified
veterans, and both agencies are committed to ensuring veterans receive
all rights and benefits to which they are entitled under Federal
employment laws.
Agency Responsibilities
OPM is responsible for providing information to veterans and
agencies on Veterans' Preference and the procedures for implementing
the preference. OPM promulgates the regulations for Veterans'
Preference and special hiring authorities for veterans, in addition to
conducting periodic, systemic reviews of agency hiring practices.
VETS is responsible for investigating and attempting to resolve
Veterans' Preference complaints against Federal agencies filed under
the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA). The VEOA provides
that a veteran or other preference eligible who believes that his or
her rights under any law or regulation related to Veterans' Preference
have been violated, may file a written complaint with VETS. We carry
out our responsibility under the VEOA through the use of trained
investigators in each of our state offices.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is responsible for
adjudicating Veterans' Preference complaints filed by a veteran or
preference eligible person, if VETS has investigated and is unable to
resolve the issue. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is responsible
for investigating alleged prohibited personnel practices (PPPs)
relating to failure to comply with Veterans' Preference requirements.
VETS' Investigative Procedures
VETS investigates all official written Veterans' Preference
complaints and if the case is found to have merit, we will make every
effort to work with the agency to resolve it. If resolution cannot be
achieved within 60 days, the claimant may elect to appeal to the MSPB.
If VETS determines that a complaint has no merit, or, if the agency
refuses to comply with VETS' determination that a veteran has presented
a meritorious claim, the veteran has the right to appeal the original
Federal agency's action to the MSPB within 15 days after the claimant
is notified of the unfavorable resolution of his case. If the MSPB has
not issued a judicially reviewable decision within 120 days, the
claimant may file a claim in the appropriate U. S. District Court and
the MSPB will cease all activity on the claim. If the MSPB or the U.S.
District Court finds in favor of the claimant, the MSPB or the Court
may order the agency to comply with the applicable provisions of law
and award compensation for any loss of wages or benefits.
To further support these efforts, VETS entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with OSC in December 2000 requiring that any
meritorious Veterans' Preference cases be automatically referred to OSC
for review as potential PPPs.
Recent Veterans' Preference Investigative Data
The table below shows Veterans' Preference investigative actions by
VETS for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2005 and 2006, and through July for FY
2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2007 (thru
FY 2005 FY 2006 July)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carried in from previous years 45 67 29
Cases opened 527 479 338
Cases closed 506 517 335
Average Days Open 24 31 30
Merit 15 18 9
No merit 380 309 220
Merit determination not made (Admin 111 130 106
.Closure/Withdrawn/Not Eligible)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the table above, it might appear that we are seeing a steady
decrease in the number of Veterans' Preference cases. However, in FY
2005, 156 cases were filed by one individual, which skews the data for
that year. Based on numbers from FY 2006 and thus far in FY 2007, it
appears there will be a decrease in caseload of approximately 16% in
the current fiscal year. We believe this decline may be due in part to
the efforts of Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists,
Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVERs), and Veterans Service
Organizations (VSOs) in explaining Veterans' Preference to job-seeking
veterans. Additionally, the Department's Employment Laws Assistance for
Workers and Small Businesses (elaws) program (described below) and
VETS' focus on informing service members of Veterans' Preference during
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) employment workshops also have been
instrumental in the decrease.
The table also shows that most of the recent Veterans' Preference
complaints filed with the Department have been determined to have no
merit. There are three primary reasons for this:
1. There is significant confusion among veterans regarding the
difference between open competitive and merit promotion job
announcements. Since Veterans' Preference does not apply in merit
promotion situations, many cases are closed with no merit findings
because Veterans' Preference did not apply.
2. Many agencies do not respond to individual inquiries from
veterans regarding the status of their applications. As a result, we
receive numerous complaints that were filed before the veteran was
notified of the results of the hiring process. In these cases, VETS
opens a case file and then discovers that the position either still is
pending, has been canceled, or that another veteran has been selected
for the position and the agency had not yet notified other applicants
of their hiring decision.
3. We also receive many complaints from preference eligible
veterans because an agency makes a determination that the veteran is
not qualified for the position. Since Veterans' Preference is only
applied after an individual is determined to be qualified for the
position, we cannot conduct an investigation on qualification issues.
However, we will advise the claimant that he or she may request a
second level review of their qualification issue with the agency, or to
contact their OPM Service Center for additional assistance.
Outreach and Education Efforts
In addition to our investigative responsibility, VETS conducts an
extensive compliance assistance program. This outreach is focused on
educating potential Veterans' Preference eligibles and Federal agencies
with regard to Veterans' Preference rights and responsibilities.
In 1997, the Department launched its Employment Laws Assistance for
Workers and Small Businesses (elaws) program. This program consists of
interactive e-tools or ``Advisors'' that provide easy-to-understand
information about many of the Federal employment laws administered by
DoL. The Advisor simulates the interaction a person might have with an
employment law expert. It asks questions and provides answers based on
the responses given.
As part of the elaws program, VETS has developed a Veterans'
Preference elaws Advisor (http://www.dol.gov/elaws/vetspref.htm). The
Veterans' Preference Advisor was the first online elaws Advisor
developed by DoL. This Advisor is consistently among the top five most
popular elaws Advisors, just behind Advisors for the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, even though
Veterans' Preference applies to a much smaller population of eligible
persons. In FY 2006, the Advisor had an average of over 10,000 visitors
a month; and through June in FY 2007, an average of over 11,500
visitors a month. The Advisor has been consistently updated to reflect
regulatory changes, as well as advances in technology.
Complaints may now be filed electronically
It is now possible for users to access and file Veterans'
Preference complaints through the Veterans' Preference Advisor. After
responding to the questions in the Advisor, and gaining a better
understanding of his or her Veterans' Preference rights, the veteran or
preference eligible is given the opportunity to file a complaint
electronically. The electronic filing goes directly to a VETS
investigator for processing.
State of the art technology allows us to serve our customers with
up-to-date information through the Advisor, 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, and to begin the complaint process in a most expeditious manner.
The Advisor enables us to be at the forefront in providing outreach and
information on Veterans' Preference, and to more quickly address and
prevent violations of the law.
Disabled Veterans Hiring Initiative (DVHI)
VETS also conducts outreach activities through our Disabled
Veterans Hiring Initiative (DVHI). DVHI was developed several years ago
to educate Federal agency human resources personnel and agency hiring
officials on how to better use the available special non-competitive
hiring authorities to hire certain veterans and disabled veterans.
The DVHI initiative first focused on Federal agencies in the
metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. We conducted presentations to the
Federal Executive Boards in regions where there is significant Federal
hiring. In addition, we have continued our special emphasis in the
national capital region by hosting Federal job fairs specifically for
veterans.
In response to your questions regarding data about the number of
veterans and/or disabled veterans applying for positions at DoL, we
provide the following information:
In FY 2006, 14,161 veterans applied for employment at DoL
(4,970 of them were disabled veterans). Of these veterans,
1,311 applied for positions with VETS, of which 630 were
disabled. In FY 2007, 15,273 veterans applied for employment at
DoL, of which 5, 219 were disabled. Of these veterans, 1,285
applied for positions at VETS, of which 571 were disabled.
As of August, 26, 2007, veterans constitute 17% of DoL's
total workforce, and 5.4% are disabled. Veterans comprise 75%
of VETS' workforce, of which 53.6% are disabled.
Further, of the DoL workforce in GS-9 or above positions, 18%
are veterans and 4.7% are disabled veterans. In VETS, 80.4% of
veterans are in a GS-9 or above positions, and 47.3% are
disabled veterans.
In FY 2006, through Special Hiring Authorities and under the
VEOA, the Department hired 35 veterans including 3 veterans in
VETS. Under the Veterans Recruitment Authority (VRA) the
Department hired 16 veterans, including 8 veterans in VETS.
And, under the ``30% or more disabled'' veteran hiring
authority, the Department hired 2 such veterans in VETS.
Through August 27, 2007, the Department hired 28 veterans
through the VEOA, 15 veterans under the VRA, 1 veteran in VETS,
and 2 veterans under the ``30% or more disabled veteran''
hiring authority in VETS.
Partnership with OPM
VETS collaborates continuously with OPM to help improve
representation of veterans in the Federal workforce. Our respective
staff members are in frequent communication regarding specific
investigative issues and general trends in Veterans' Preference.
Moreover, VETS makes regular use of the excellent material that has
been developed by OPM.
For example, the OPM ``Veteran Invitational Program'' provides
information that promotes hiring of veterans and explains how veterans
can apply for Federal employment. VETS has provided this information to
all field staff that provide information to veteran employment
specialists in America's workforce system, as well as directly to
veterans and disabled veterans. VETS also distributed the OPM-produced
DVD, ``What Veterans Need to Know About Veterans' Preference,'' to
field offices for their use in making presentations to veterans.
Finally, through the TAP Employment Workshops, VETS ensures that
transitioning service members are provided essential information about
Veterans' Preference as well as general information about the Federal
hiring process and resources available. In addition, VETS developed a
REALifelines (Recovery and Employment Assistance Lifelines) elaws
Advisor. This Advisor was designed for wounded and injured service
members and veterans transitioning to the civilian workforce and
provides specific information on Federal employment, including
Veterans' Preference and special hiring authorities, as well as one-on-
one employment assistance in each of our states.
Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my statement and I would be happy
to respond to any questions.
Prepared Statement of Willie Hensley,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources Management,
Office of Resources and Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon.
Thank you for your invitation to appear before you this afternoon to
offer testimony on veterans' preference and the Department of Veterans
Affairs' (VA) success in recruiting, and hiring veterans.
At VA, we see veterans every day who have sacrificed to defend and
support this country. The Department fully supports the laws that place
veterans, and particularly disabled veterans, in a favorable
competitive position for government employment. We believe that
affording veterans their statutory preference in employment is not
merely the obligation of a grateful nation; it is good government and
good business. It gives us an advantage in recruiting and retaining
employees from a pool of the nation's most highly motivated,
disciplined and experienced candidates. In addition to establishing
internal policies that address veterans' preference, VA's Human
Resources Oversight and Effectiveness program reviews specifically
evaluate compliance with veterans' preference laws, regulations, and
policies during on-site evaluations of Human Resources Offices
throughout all parts of VA.
VA has focused on veteran hiring for many years. In the last 15
years, our efforts have included tracking the employment of veterans
and veterans with disabilities by facility and working with lists of
separating military members to contact and recruit veterans to
employment in the Department. These programs have developed into much
broader efforts and more focused programs and have resulted in VA
placing in the top tier of agencies employing veterans. As of July 31,
2007, over 77,000, or 31%, of VA's 250,000 employees are veterans. Over
60,000 of the 31% are veterans' preference eligibles, and 19,000 (7.6%
of all VA employees) are disabled veterans. VA ranks first among non-
Defense agencies in the hiring of veterans. This data, and all the data
points that I will note today, are as of July 31, 2007. For cumulative
data, the period is January 1, 2007 through July 31, 2007. We have used
this period because in December 2006, VA implemented system changes
that enable us to improve the accuracy and thoroughness of our veteran
employment data. We are now able to identify and report on hiring of
veterans who are not preference eligibles.
VA regularly uses the special hiring authorities that target
veterans: Veterans Recruitment Appointment, Veterans Employment
Opportunities Act appointment, and 30% compensably disabled veteran
appointment. Veterans are hired using other hiring authorities as well.
In the first 7 months of 2007, VA has hired 5,094 veterans' preference
eligibles and another 729 non-preference veterans.
The Department has established a strategic target of 33% veterans
in the employee population. One of the challenges that we face is the
rate at which veterans are leaving the Department. The cohort of
veterans who joined the Department after the Vietnam War is now
eligible to retire. The number of Vietnam Era veterans, which was the
largest veteran category in VA only 2 years ago, will continue to
decline as our workforce ages. In addition, younger veterans, similar
to other U.S. workers their age, are frequently more mobile and change
jobs and employers more often than many older employees. On average, VA
has lost about 810 veteran employees a month during the past 12 months.
Countering these losses we have, on average, hired about 787 veterans a
month during the past year. This has allowed the Department to maintain
an overall employment rate of 31% for the last year. The success of our
outreach and recruiting efforts has enabled us to maintain the high
percentage of veterans in our workforce. Nonetheless, we are concerned
that VA loses too many new veteran hires within their first year of
employment. To identify the reasons why, we are developing a work group
to research and develop solutions.
VA's success in attracting and hiring veterans is due to a variety
of programs that have become more sophisticated over the past 6 years.
In 2001, VA established the National Veterans Employment Program (NVEP)
within the Office of Human Resources & Administration with the mission
of developing a VA-wide marketing and recruitment strategy to enhance
the quality of employment information available to service members and
veterans. A major goal of the program is to provide greater access to
VA career information to veterans and separating active duty service
members. NVEP is the Department's leading advocate for the employment
of veterans and promotes efforts to assist veterans in understanding
and using veterans' preference and other special hiring authorities to
obtain employment in VA and the Federal sector. NVEP staff visit
military transition centers, participate in military job fairs, and
attend military association and veteran service organization
conferences and meetings, as well as, other events that target veterans
and transitioning military members, such as, the New York Times Salute
Our Heroes Job Fair and Career Expo. NVEP staff also work with VA Human
Resources staff throughout the Department to provide guidance and
assistance in their local efforts to recruit, educate, and hire
veterans.
To assist local VA facilities in attracting and recruiting
veterans, NVEP helped establish the Veteran Employment Coordinator
(VEC) concept in HR offices VA-wide. NVEP is currently developing a
recruitment and outreach tracking system, designed to provide VECs with
some of the tools necessary for an effective outreach program. The
tracking system provides a means to document and track outcomes of VA
participation at career fairs or other events targeting veterans. This
information can then be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of
those outreach activities. Other NVEP initiatives/collaborations are:
VA Career Opportunities for Transitioning Healthcare
Professionals--NVEP works through the Offices of the Surgeon Generals
of the Air Force, Navy, and Army, to attract separating military
healthcare professionals to VA career opportunities by providing
greater access to information on VA healthcare occupations. NVEP also
looks at methods to establish training programs that enhance the
training and experience of service members and prepare them to fill
critical positions in VA's healthcare system.
VA/Army National Guard Speaker Series--NVEP provides consulting
services to VA's Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Army
National Guard (ANG) on an initiative to attract physicians to careers
in both VA and the National Guard. Through the joint partnership,
physicians are eligible for dual compensation benefits for professional
education, development and training.
Community Prosperity Partnership (CPP)--Led by VA's Office of
Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity, CPP is a
mutually supportive coalition of Federal, state, and local government
agencies, veteran service organizations, academic institutions, and
non-profit community service organizations that work together to
address the needs of veterans and their dependents through employment,
education, youth initiatives and business development. NVEP coordinates
career fairs targeting veterans in support of CPP activities.
Other VA Employment Outreach Efforts
Coming Home to Work Program--VA's Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA) has partnered with the Departments of Defense and Labor (DoD and
DoL) to reach out to service members and veterans from Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Coming Home to Work
provides civilian job skills training, exposure to employment
opportunities, and work experience to service members pending medical
separation from the military. This program, now in place at eight
primary military treatment facilities, gives valuable, practical
assistance to these separating service members as they prepare to
rejoin the civilian workforce. As of June 2007, 442 service members
have participated in the program with the following results:
26 returned to active duty
10 were direct hires
23 are in active work-experience programs
201 are receiving early intervention services
182 transferred from military treatment facilities to
local Regional Office for continued vocational rehabilitation and
employment services
Every day at VA, we see the sacrifice that our veterans have made
for our Nation. It is our responsibility and privilege to support their
return to employment. We are committed to continue our successful focus
on veteran hiring in VA.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify
today. I am prepared to respond to any questions Members may have.
Appendix--Veteran Employment in the Department of Veterans Affairs
This data was extracted from the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) personnel-payroll system as of July 31, 2007.
For cumulative data, the reporting period is January 1, 2007
through July 31, 2007. System changes implemented in December 2006,
provide improved accuracy and thoroughness of VA's veteran employment
data. The data now includes veterans who are not preference eligibles.
How many veterans and/or disabled veterans applied for jobs at VA?
While VA currently does not have a Department-wide automated system
that captures data on applicants for all VA positions, we can provide a
count of applications VA processed in CY 2007 under its delegated
authority to announce Title 5 competitive positions to the general
public. The 177,555 applications received under these delegated
examining announcements resulted in 3,706 selections, of whom 1,056 or
28.5% of the selectees are preference eligibles.
Over the next 2 years VA is aggressively expanding its use of the
automated USA Staffing system, which will enable us to more fully
capture data on veterans' preference and other applicants.
How many vets were hired through each of the various hiring authorities
at VA?
In the first 7 months of 2007, VA hired 23,912 employees, of whom
5,823 or 24.4% are veterans. 1,769 of these veterans have earned 10-
point disability preference for Federal jobs, including 1,098 who have
30% or higher service-connected disabilities, and another 515 who have
disability ratings below 30% but high enough to warrant VA
compensation. VA also appointed 87 others entitled to 10-point
veterans' preference based on derived preference as the wife or mother
of a permanently, totally disabled veteran, or widow or widower of a
service member who died in a war or campaign-badge military action.
The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) authority for
appointing honorably discharged veterans with 3 years military service
and veterans and others entitled to veterans' preference accounts for
2,115, or 8.8%, of the total hires in CY 2007 to date.
Another 769 veterans, or 3.2% of the total hires, were hired under
the excepted Veterans Recruitment Appointment (VRA) authority.
VA also appointed 37 disabled veterans under the non-competitive
hiring authority for disabled veterans with 30% or higher service-
connected disabilities.
What percentage of your employees are veterans and or disabled vets?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-preference veterans 16,336 = 6.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-point veterans' preference (vp) eligible 41,937 = 16.8%
veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-point vp disabled veterans 1,790 = 0.7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-point vp compensably disabled veterans 6,196 = 2.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-point vp 30%-up compensably disabled 11,050 = 4.4%
veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total for combined 5 veteran categories 77,309 = 31 %
above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(VA Total Population 250,058)
What percentage of your employees in GS 9 and above are veterans?
VA has 95,547 employees at GS-9 and above, including 19,578
veterans or 20.5%. We note that many higher-level positions in VA
require advanced degrees and professional certifications or
registrations. Since VA does not have a comprehensive applicant count,
the number of veterans who have applied for such professional positions
is unknown. We can state that VA employs 67,070 physicians, dentists,
chiropractors, nurse anesthetists, registered nurses, physician
assistants and expanded function dental auxiliaries, and 10,458 or
15.6% of them are veterans.
Prepared Statement of Ronald F. Chamrin,
Assistant Director, Economic Commission, American Legion
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for addressing the
important issue and value of veterans' preference in hiring.
Veterans' Preference is and must always be regarded as an earned
privilege afforded to those veterans who have answered the call of duty
and served their country in one of our Nations Armed Forces. It should
not be categorized as an affirmative action program for veterans in
order to become competitive and gain employment within the Federal
Government.
The American Legion urges this Congress to take action and correct
the current faults in the administering of veterans' preference in
hiring. The veteran must be the ultimate benefactor of veterans'
preference and regulatory laws as compared to the current systems
limited post violation punishment of non-compliant actions by Federal
agencies.
Viewpoints on Veterans' Preference
The American Legion supports the strongest veterans' preference
laws possible at all levels of government and opposes any attempt to
weaken such laws.
The American Legion opposes the outsourcing of all Federal Jobs
held by veterans and disabled veterans without the protection of
Reduction in Force policies and veterans' preference.
The American Legion strongly urges the strengthening of veterans'
preference in Federal, state, and local government and opposes any
efforts to reduce or circumvent veterans' preference.
The American Legion seeks to ensure that veterans receive
employment preference from employers who receive grants and contracts
from the Federal Government and employment preference from employers
that receive funding on all Federally assisted projects.
The American Legion urges Congress to amend Public Law 101-509 to
include age waivers or other means to allow those who have served
honorably in the military as law enforcement officers to continue their
professional careers in Federal law enforcement positions after
retirement.
STRENGTHENING THE ENFORCEMENT OF VETERANS' PREFERENCE
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Department of Labor
Veterans and Employment Training Service (DoL-VETS), and the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) all have roles in veterans' preference
but there is no clear enforcement of the regulatory authority within
any of these agencies. There are no effective consequences for non-
compliance or proactive regulation of veterans' preference and veterans
hiring to ensure that veterans do indeed benefit from this earned
benefit.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT (OPM)
OPM testified to Congress that their role is Oversight and
Accountability that entails audits and their corrective actions are
limited. Because they delegated examining authority to Federal
agencies, one of their main tools is an audit.
``As part of our oversight of human capital management
responsibilities at OPM, we use an audit-based approach to
ensure that competitive hiring practices used by Federal
agencies comply with veterans' preference laws and merit system
principles. Our audits cover all aspects of competitive
examining, including the application of veterans' preference.
We also annually conduct Human Resource Operations Audits that
examine a number of agency human resources (HR) programs,
including competitive examining and the use of veteran hiring
authorities and practices.''
OPM further states that their corrective actions are:
1. Direct an agency to give a veteran priority consideration for
the next job vacancy for which he or she is qualified if OPM believes
that veteran was denied preference previously.
2. If evidence is found that veterans' preference was knowingly
denied, which is a prohibited personnel practice, the matter is
referred to the Office of Special Counsel or the agency's Inspector
General.
3. Withdrawal of an agency's delegated examining authority if
systemic problems are found.
The American Legion notes that OPM does not state the extent and
over reaching implications of their corrective actions. Referral to the
Inspector General of the respective agency must be followed up with an
assessment of the outcome of the IG's findings and the action taken to
address the claim of denial. Unfortunately, there appears to be no
mechanism in place apart from the appropriate Congressional Authorizing
Committee and their influential legislative power to provide oversight.
Furthermore, if an agency must then refer to OPM for examinations
it is unclear what insurances are afforded to veterans to regain their
competitive advantage within that agency for hiring if OPM must take on
the examining role. Any anti-veteran reprisal or culture must quickly
be stopped.
DOL-VETS
DOL-VETS states that they are an investigatory body of veterans'
preference laws and may refer cases to the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) or the Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel
(OSC). DOL-VETS has absolutely no enforcement, punishment, or
regulatory authority over any agency regarding infractions or
complaints of unjust application of veterans' preference. DoL-VETS can
question and advise a Federal hiring division but the Federal agency is
not mandated to follow this advice.
VETS testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs on March 2006 on their veterans' preference actions
the following:
``VETS is responsible for investigating and attempting to
resolve Veterans' Preference complaints against Federal
agencies filed under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act
(VEOA). The VEOA provides that a veteran or other preference
eligible who believes that his or her rights under any law or
regulation related to Veterans' Preference have been violated,
may file a written complaint with VETS. We carry out our
responsibility under the VEOA through the use of trained
investigators in each of our state offices.
DOL-VETS investigatory authority is just that, an investigation,
however hollow inquiries without the support of enforcing corrective
actions when a fault is found is non-productive and does not help
veterans to the full extent possible.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
The MSPB states:
``The relationship of the Special Counsel to the Board is
like that of a prosecutor to a judge; the Special Counsel
prosecutes cases before the Board. If, after an investigation,
the Special Counsel determines that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that a violation has occurred or may occur
it may seek corrective actions.''
However, the OSC refutes the responsibility of enforcing orders in
Title V section 2302 in relation to veterans' preference. (See below)
While the MSPB serves as an independent, bipartisan guardian of the
Federal Employees merit system they do not track or have research
analysis of any veterans' preference cases and violations. The MSPB has
further stated that they do not work with Federal agencies of which The
American Legion finds unacceptable.
The MSPB has stated in testimony the following:
``The MSPB has not conducted any studies that systematically
address the issue of agencies' adherence to veterans'
preference. For this reason, we have no basis to form an
opinion on how well other agencies are complying with veterans'
preference requirements. Instead, adherence to veterans'
preference is best determined on a case-by-case basis, and
assessing overall agency adherence to veterans' preference
requires an in-depth understanding of each agency's particular
hiring practices and decisions.''
MSPB's failure to conduct studies of veterans' preference is
counterproductive to enforcing the law. The American Legion urges MSPB
to study and track compliance with veterans' preference laws in hiring
within the respective Federal agencies. Tracking by MSPB will not only
serve to ensure that veterans' preference is indeed being implemented,
but will also improve oversight of specific cases of denial of this
benefit.
The Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel (OSC) relation to
veterans' preference
If an agency fails to remedy a prohibited personnel practice upon
request by the OSC, corrective action may also be obtained through
litigation before the MSPB. Such litigation begins with the filing of a
petition by the OSC, alleging that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that a prohibited personnel practice has occurred, exists, or
is about to occur. Corrective actions that can be ordered by the MSPB
include job restoration, reversal of suspensions and other adverse
actions, reimbursement of attorney's fees, back pay, medical and other
costs and damages.
The OSC testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs on March 2006 that:
``OSC provides relief under Title 5 of the U.S. Code to
veterans under our authority granted in the Civil Service
Reform Act, also known as a prohibited personnel practices.
section 2302 (b) (11) forbids managers from taking, or failing
to take, a personnel action if it would violate a veteran's
preference law. However, for OSC purposes, the most significant
change to title 5 is set forth in section 2302(e)(2), which
states that the MSPB does not have authority to order
corrective action for (b)(11) violations and, in turn, divests
OSC of authority to seek corrective action for such violations.
Hence, OSC's role with respect to allegations of violations of
Sec. 2302(b)(11) is limited to seeking disciplinary action in
appropriate cases.''
``Title 5, United States Code, section 2302 (e) states that `no
authority to order corrective action shall be available in connection
with a prohibited personnel practice described in subsection (b)(11)'
[providing that violating veterans' preference requirements is a
prohibited personnel practice].''
OSC continues to state:
``A person alleging a prohibited personnel practice under
Sec. 2302(b)(11) may seek redress by filing a written complaint
with the Secretary of Labor within 60 days of the alleged
violation. Further, the veterans' preference laws require the
Secretary of Labor to investigate the complaint and, upon
determining that a violation occurred, to attempt to resolve
the complaint by making reasonable efforts to ensure that the
agency complies with the statute or regulation relating to
veteran's preference. The task of investigating the complaint
is delegated to Department of Labor's Veterans' Training and
Employment Service (VETS). If VETS is unable to resolve a
complaint within 60 days, it is to provide notification of an
unsuccessful effort to resolve the complaint to the
complainant. Upon receipt of a notification of an unsuccessful
effort to resolve the complaint to the complainant, the
complainant may elect to appeal the alleged violation to the
MSPB.''
As stated earlier, the MSPB has not conducted any studies and has
even stated that they do not work with Federal agencies. There is
clearly a vacuum; there is no clear authority and proactive corrective
measures or even actions taken.
The American Legion is deeply concerned with the protection of the
veteran and the prevention of illegal and egregious hiring practices.
Currently, veterans are filing claims after the non-compliance
employment event occurred and therefore may become financially
disadvantaged.
The American Legion asserts our position that protection of
veterans' employment rights should be concurrent and continuous
oversight must be emplaced to protect veterans from unfair hiring
practices, not just reactionary investigations and lawsuits. We further
state that the veteran must be protected at the onset of the hiring
process, especially because a corrective action to remedy the veteran's
plight is not guaranteed.
Use of Multiple Certificates for a Single Position Weakens ``Pass
over'' Rules
Title 5, United States Code, section 3318(b) protects veterans'
preference by requiring a special review process where an appointing
authority proposes to pass over a preference eligible on a certificate
in order to select ``an individual who is not a preference eligible. ``
In addition, certain disabled veterans' are provided notice and the
opportunity to respond to the proposed pass over. (See 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 3318(b)(2).)
When this pass over law was passed, agencies prepared only a single
certificate for each open position. However, over time agencies began
to prepare separate certificates for each different hiring flexibility
option that might be used to fill the position. Agencies began to fill
a single position by choosing from among multiple certificates. The use
of multiple certificates at the current time means that an appointing
authority may pass over a preference eligible, at the top of one
certificate, simply by choosing from another certificate drawn from a
hiring authority that does not require application of veterans'
preference. This weakens veterans' preference and renders impotent the
important section 3318 protections against pass overs.
The National Security Personnel System (NSPS) should incorporate
important pass over protections into its system. Additionally, the NSPS
should not allow the creation of multiple certificates or lists for a
single position.
Lack of Hierarchy in Appointment Methods
A number of hiring flexibility options are available under the
current Federal hiring system. If hiring authorities that do not apply
veterans' preference continue to exist, The American Legion believes
that appointment methods requiring application of veterans' preference
should explicitly be favored over other methods and top the hierarchy
of appointment methods. The NSPS should only be able to resort to a
lower hiring flexibility in limited cases when there is an absolute
necessity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TAP recruitment
The Federal Government should heavily recruit transitioning service
members because they are qualified and they have at least a 5-point
veterans' preference if honorably discharged. Hiring agencies can
easily use the Veteran Recruitment Authority (VRA) to hire veterans.
OPM regulations state that this can be applied to:
Veterans who served on active duty in the Armed Forces
during a war declared by Congress, or in a campaign or expedition for
which a campaign badge has been authorized;
Veterans who, while serving on active duty in the Armed
Forces, participated in a military operation for which the Armed Forces
Service Medal was awarded; and
Veterans separated from active duty within 3 years
Hundreds of thousands of recently discharged veterans have been
awarded medals for their service to defend our country that make them
eligible to receive a VRA appointment. These veterans have skills such
as an accelerated learning curve, leadership, teamwork, diversity and
inclusion in action, efficient performance under pressure, respect for
procedures, technology and globalization, integrity, conscious of
health and safety standards, and the ability totriumph over adversity
Executive Order 13289 established the Global War on Terrorism
Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal that
is awarded for anti-terrorism operations around the world. (Federal
RegisterVol. 68, No. 50 Friday, March 14, 2003) The Department of
Defense can provide more detailed information about the requirements of
such awards and the number of veterans receiving these awards.
Veterans Employment Opportunities Act VEOA 1998
The American Legion recommends omitting the ``knowingly'' portion
of the VEOA. The wording of knowingly allows for an agency to
unintentionally, or in some cases, neglectfully, not apply veterans'
preference. We believe that the word ``knowingly'' be stricken so that
the law will have the mandatory effect of enforcing veterans'
preference laws. I.e. The law is now in place and even if an agency
inadvertently was prejudice against a veteran they failed to adhere to
the law.
``The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act 1998 law gives veterans
access to Federal job opportunities that might otherwise be closed to
them. The law requires that:
``The law also establishes a redress system for preference
eligibles and makes it a prohibited personnel practice for an
agency to knowingly take or fail to take a personnel action if
that action or failure to act would violate a statutory or
regulatory veterans' preference requirement.'' (DoL-VETS)
Clearly, omitting the verbiage ``knowingly'' would place lawful
prohibition to offenders even for negligence and inattentiveness of
veterans' preference.
Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) should be renamed
to the ``Warrior Recruitment Act''
OPM states that most departments and agencies in the Federal
Government are required to have an affirmative action program for the
recruitment, employment, and advancement of disabled veterans. The law
requires agencies to develop annual Disabled Veterans Affirmative
Action Program (DVAAP) Plans. Each year, agencies must submit DVAAP
accomplishment reports to OPM. The accomplishment reports must describe
agency efforts to promote the maximum employment and job advancement
opportunities for disabled veterans as well as certain veterans of the
Vietnam era and of the post-Vietnam era who are qualified for such
employment and advancement. As part of their submission package, each
agency must include a signed statement certifying that the agency has
an up-to-date DVAAP plan.
By amending the DVAAP to ``Warrior Recruitment Act'', the lexicon
will be harmonious with the current labeling of troops of todays
military. Removal of the term disabled will assist in eliminating
unwanted, negative stereotypes and replace it with a confident,
capable, proven, dedicated, and disciplined individual.
Furthermore, veterans are not an affirmative action group, do not
view them selves as one, and have not requested affirmative action.
They are our Nations heroes who have unfortunately been injured while
performing duties of our country and should be given every opportunity
to contribute and thrive in our society.
Accountability for actions--P.I.P. report (project improvement plans)
A report from each Federal agency to Congress, specifically, the
authorizing Committees of each Federal department, would mandate that
each Federal agency have a plan to implement best hiring practices,
methodology, and accountability for veterans hiring. If the targets of
hiring veterans are met then the mechanics of how these goals were met
needs to be shared. If veteran hiring targets are not met, then a plan
must be immediately enacted to fix the situation to ensure that they
are met. Positive reports will be visible and positive productions for
the Federal agencies that meet these goals.
Mandatory training of Veteran Preference laws with competency based
tests
The Human Resources (HR) personnel and hiring decisionmakers of all
Federal agencies should be required to go through performance
evaluations on veteran hiring to ensure that each HR and decisionmaker
is competent in applying veterans' preference. The current system,
administered by OPM, consists of a tutorial class where simply checking
a block to verify that an individual knows veterans' preference laws is
acceptable. The recurring occurrence of knowing veterans' preference
laws, in contrast to applying veterans' preference laws, will be
alleviated.
A report and the implementation on the 30% hiring authority of all
federal agencies
Each agency should be able to report their scoring mechanism
through internal oversight. The scoring mechanism should be uniform
throughout the agency and for each position of employment. Because a
report is required, this should uncover any inconsistencies within the
agencies and force them to ``self reflect'' and correct inequities in
the hiring practices.
Notification letter of a selection of another applicant or a denial of
appointment to a veteran must include why they were not
selected for the position
A veteran deserves to receive notification that their application
was received, reviewed, the score that they were awarded, and if denied
the reasons why they were denied for the position. By enacting
procedural requirements, agencies will also be forced to either revise
their job descriptions to synchronize with the denial letter and
therefore ensure that if the veteran is denied, it is because they are
not qualified or, educate and encourage veterans to improve their
skills to meet the requirements for certain positions and therefore
strengthening the applicant pool.
This letter can be very similar to the Veterans Claims Assistance
Act of 2000 (VCAA) notice in VA compensation and pension claims. These
duties would include the duty to notify a applicant of any information
necessary to complete an application; the duty to notify the applicant
of any information that is necessary to substantiate the application;
the duty to notify the applicant of which information the applicant
must provide and which portion the agency will attempt to obtain, and
the duty to notify the applicant of their score and the relationship to
the other candidates.
U.S. Postal Service is contracting jobs out and no longer applying
veterans' preference (A-76)
The longstanding policy of the Federal Government has been to rely
on the private sector for needed commercial services. To ensure that
the American people receive maximum value for their tax dollars,
commercial activities should be subject to the forces of competition.
This circular from the Office of Management and Budget has
inadvertently allowed for the Postal Service to contract many of their
jobs of which do not apply veterans' preference. The contractors are
gouging the labor market by lowering the salaries and standards and
therefore are awarded bids by being a low bidder. Because of this, they
are hiring whomever they want at a low rate however; there have been
trends of these same contractors are negotiating larger payments in
sequential years. Another problem arises because the government has
paid to train postal employees and then pays again to a contractor to
train more employees thereby doubling the number of qualified
specialists. Finally, once the contractor is established they hire the
prior postal employees at lower salaries than they previously made. The
American Legion reiterates the opposition to outsourcing of all Federal
Jobs held by veterans and disabled veterans without the protection of
Reduction in Force policies and veterans' preference.
The American Legion seeks to ensure that veterans receive
employment preference from employers who receive grants and contracts
from the Federal Government and employment preference from employers
that receive funding on all Federally assisted projects.
The 10-Point Derived Preference (XP) must have a better outreach,
visibility, and use by Federal agencies
OPM regulations allow for ``Ten points to be added to the passing
examination score or rating of spouses, widows, widowers, or mothers of
veterans meeting certain requirements. This type of preference is
usually referred to as ``derived preference'' because it is based on
service of a veteran who is not able to use the preference.''
``Both a mother and a spouse (including widow or widower) may be
entitled to preference on the basis of the same veteran's service if
they both meet the requirements. However, neither may receive
preference if the veteran is living and is qualified for Federal
employment.''
The American Legion is concerned for the family members of
veterans; the 10 point derived preference should be briefed to family
members at Military Treatment Facilities, TAP sites, family support
groups, and within each agencies HR division. Recipients of this
preference should be actively sought to gain employment with the
Federal Government.
Enforcement mechanism to hold human resource managers accountable
for not applying veterans' preference in appointments to the NSPS
should be added to NSPS regulations
There is a definite need for the creation of disciplinary action
under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1215 or a similar statute, should a violation of a
veterans'' preference prohibited personnel practice occur in the NSPS.
Such disciplinary action is available for violations of other
prohibited personnel practices.
The NSPS regulations should also establish an Office of Veterans'
Preference Compliance in order to ensure an ongoing, vigilant review of
NSPS hiring and RIFs with regard to veterans' preference. The Office of
Veterans' Preference Compliance within NSPS should have the power to
investigate and prosecute violations of veterans' preference so that
there is prompt, appropriate corrective action, such as hiring or other
actions, to make a veteran ``whole'' again.
CONCLUSION
There have been estimates that approximately 60% of the workforce
will retire by 2020 and these people must be replaced by competent,
educated, and capable individuals in order to assure the United States
competitive edge in the world. The veterans of this nation make up a
well-qualified disciplined pool of applicants. Veterans' Preference
laws must be strengthened and enforced to ensure that veterans seeking
employment are given their due consideration in hiring.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this
statement for the record.
National Association of Postal Supervisors
Alexandria, VA, 22314
September 4, 2007
Hon. Chairman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Herseth Sandlin and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the National Association of Postal Supervisors, I am
pleased to submit this statement in connection with the Subcommittee's
hearing on veterans' preference.
The National Association of Postal Supervisors represents the
interests of postal supervisors, managers and postmasters employed by
the United States Postal Service. Throughout its 99-year history as a
management association, the Association has sought to improve the
operations of the Postal Service and the compensation and working
conditions of postal management employees. Many of our nearly 35,000
members are involved in the management and supervision of mail
processing and delivery operations. We also represent the interests of
men and women engaged in every functional unit in the Postal Service,
including customer service, marketing, human resources, training,
corporate relations, law enforcement, and health and safety.
Significantly large numbers of veterans are employed by the United
States Postal Service. As of December 31, 2006, approximately 180,000
military veterans were employed by the Postal Service, accounting for
over one-quarter of its workforce. Of these, nearly 17,000 veterans'
preference eligibles were employed by the Postal Service in management
and supervisory positions.
The National Association of Postal Supervisors is filing this
statement to bring to the Subcommittee's attention our strong
opposition and concern over the Postal Service's establishment of
personnel rules that violate the spirit of veterans' preference
protections of postal managers and supervisors. We commend and thank
you once again, Chairman Herseth Sandlin, for your initiative in
responding to the Postal Service's arbitrary actions by introducing the
``Veterans Reassignment Protection Act,'' H.R. 728, to ensure that
veterans' preference rights are recognized and applied by the Postal
Service and all executive branch organizations in the course of
reorganizations or transfers of function.
The violative Postal Service rules arise against the backdrop of
initial downsizing efforts undertaken by the Postal Service, involving
the closure and consolidation of mail processing and distribution
plants and other facilities. The number and breadth of these postal
downsizing actions is expected to grow considerably over the next
several years as the Postal Service proceeds more aggressively to cut
costs. The Postal Service has euphemistically labeled its violative
rules ``repositioning rules'' to putatively authorize its involuntary
reassignment of managers and supervisors to new locations, potentially
far from their homes--without regard to their protected status as
veterans' preference-covered employees. These rules blatantly undermine
the spirit of veterans' preference laws because they abridge the rights
of veterans' preference eligibles under reduction-in-force actions and
the preferred status that veterans enjoy in connection with bumping and
appeal rights under a reduction-in-force. ``Repositioning'' by the
Postal Service embodies so many of the same characteristics as a
reduction in force that, regardless of its name, it virtually
constitutes a reduction in force, requiring the Postal Service to
uphold the statutory application of veterans' preference rights to
postal managers and supervisors.
The Postal Service has initially limited the application of its
repositioning rules to management employees, not to union-covered
employees, due to limitations on USPS latitude to institute reductions-
in-force against employees covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Nonetheless, nearly 17,000 preference eligible managers and supervisors
within the Postal Service are covered by the rules, a significant
number. Moreover, substantially greater numbers of preference eligible
employees are employed throughout the executive branch, and could
become subject to similar arbitrary actions by their departments and
agencies were those entities to pursue the same policies as have been
adopted by the Postal Service. If Federal agencies like the Postal
Service are permitted to engage in RIF-avoidance as carried out under
the repositioning rules, they will significantly disregard and
critically undermine the respect to which veterans' status historically
has been accorded.
Congress should step in and forestall such actions and put an end
to such personnel abuses through passage of The ``Veterans Reassignment
Protection Act,'' H.R. 728, to amend the veterans' preference statutes
to ensure that veterans' preference rights are applied in the course of
reorganizations or transfers of function.
Thank you for your hearing on veterans' preference and your
continued leadership in support of these concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Ted Keating
National President
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
September 17, 2007
Hon. Neil A. G. McPhie,
Chairman,
U.S. Merit System Protection Board,
1800 Diagonal Rd., Suite 205,
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Mr. McPhie:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Veterans' Preference on
September 6, 2007, I would appreciate it if you could answer the
enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on October 17,
2007. In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions, please
call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
______
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Office of the Chairman
Alexandria, VA.
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
336 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin:It was an honor to testify before
your Subcommittee on September 6, 2007 regarding veterans' preference
issues. As a follow-up to those proceedings, you requested that I
respond to several post-hearing questions. The responses to those
questions are enclosed. You will note a significant difference between
the number of USERRA claims that were filed in 2006 and 2007. I believe
that this variance stems from a temporary spike in the number of cases
that were filed which involved the type of military leave issues that
were addressed in the Federal Circuit's decision in Butterbaugh v.
Justice, 336 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) wherein the Court held that
agencies are not entitled to charge military leave for days when
employees would not otherwise have been required to work. It is likely,
that by 2007, agencies ceased the practice and the number of claims
decreased accordingly. While the numbers decreased sharply in 2007, I
believe that the Board will experience a gradual increase in the number
of USERRA claims due to the high number of veterans who will be
returning to the civilian workforce following service in the Iraq and
Afghan wars.
I hope that the information I provided during the hearing and in
the enclosed documents will be helpful to you and the other members of
the Subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Neil A. G. McPhie
______
Hearing before the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Veterans' Preference in Federal Employment
Held on September 6, 2007
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions
Question #1. Could you provide any reasons that you believe can be
documented or backed up with some evidence as to why the U.S.
Department of Defense is responsible to 86 percent of all of the hires
under Veterans Employment Opportunities Act selections, as you stated
in your written testimony? Why are the other agencies so low?
Response: I do not have any evidence to explain the high rate of
employment of veterans by the Department of Defense or the
comparatively low rate of employment of veterans in other agencies. My
hearing testimony was intended to report the findings included in one
of the studies conducted by the Merit Systems Protection Board which
just looked at the numbers of veterans employed. The study did not
examine the reasons underlying those staffing levels. The report of
this study has not yet been released. As soon as we have set a date for
the release of the report, Rosalyn Wilcots, MSPB's legislative counsel,
will advise your subcommittee staff. Of course, we will send a copy of
the report to the subcommittee when it is published. There are no other
studies addressing veterans' issues planned at this time.
Question #2. How many appeals did you receive in 2006 and this year
for USERRA? How many were resolved in favor of the veteran?
Response: The Merit Systems Protection Board received 953 USERRA
appeals in calendar year 2006. Out of those appeals, relief was granted
in 15 cases and an additional 396 cases were resolved by execution of
settlement agreements. Through September 2007, the Merit Systems
Protection Board received 352 USERRA appeals. Out of those appeals,
relief was granted in 2 cases and settlements were achieved in an
additional 137 cases.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Subcommittee will find a significant difference between the
number of USERRA claims that were filed in 2006 and 2007. This variance
likely stems from a temporary spike in the number of cases that were
filed which involved the type of military leave issues that were
addressed in the Federal Circuit's decision in Butterbaugh v. Justice,
336 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) wherein the Court held that agencies are
not entitled to charge military leave for days when employees would not
otherwise have been required to work. It is likely, that by 2007,
agencies ceased the practice and the number of claims decreased
accordingly. While the numbers decreased sharply in 2007, I believe
that the Board will experience a gradual increase over time in the
number of USERRA claims due to the high number of veterans who will be
returning to the civilian workforce following service in the Iraq and
Afghan wars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #3. How many VEOA appeals did you have last year and how
many were resolved in favor of veterans?
Response: The Merit Systems Protection Board received 92 VEOA
appeals in 2006. Out of those appeals, relief was granted in 5 cases
and an additional 12 cases were resolved by execution of settlement
agreements. In 2007, the Merit Systems Protection Board received 90
VEOA appeals. Out of those appeals, relief was granted in 1 case and
settlements were achieved in an additional 4 cases.
Question #4. The Subcommittee Members would like the United States
Merit Systems Protection Board to provide data on veterans and what
agencies receive the most VEOA complaints.
Response: Please see the chart.
Number of VEOA Complaints Against Each Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Complaints Calendar
Agency Calendar Year 2006 Year 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 15 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 15 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF THE ARMY 11 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF THE AIR FORCE 9 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF LABOR 4 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF THE NAVY 3 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF HHS 2 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR 4 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 3 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF DEFENSE 3 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA 2 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF STATE 2 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP 1 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD 1 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF COMMERCE 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF ENERGY 1 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA 1 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEACE CORPS 1 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPT. OF THE TREASURY 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPM 0 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WORLD BANK \2\ 0 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA 0 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 0 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In a recent opinion and order, the Merit Systems Protection Board
found that the World Bank is not an agency within the U.S. Government;
rather, it is an international organization. Sedgwick v. The World
Bank, 106 M.S.P.R. 662 (October 4, 2007), on appeal, Fed. Cir. No.
2008-3044.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
September 17, 2007
Hon. Patricia S. Bradshaw
Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy
U.S. Department of Defense
1300 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Dear Ms. Bradshaw:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Veterans' Preference on
September 6, 2007, I would appreciate it if you could answer the
enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on October 17,
2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions, please
call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
______
Hearing Date: August 06, 2007
Committee: HVA
Member: Congressman Herseth
Witness: Ms. Bradshaw
Air Force Audit Agency Hiring Process
Question #1: Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin requests the U.S.
Department of Defense to look at Air Force Audit Agency hiring process
with veterans.
Answer: The Air Force Audit Agency (AFAA) uses three primary
methods for hiring new personnel. Regardless of the method, selections
must comply with Veterans' Preference laws which do not allow selection
of a non-preference candidate ranked lower than a candidate with a 5-
point or 10-point veteran's preference. The AFAA (like nearly all Air
Force activities in the National Capital Region) is serviced by the Air
Force District of Washington civilian personnel office. An external
servicing arrangement such as this provides additional oversight to
ensure hiring and personnel laws are properly followed.
The primary hiring methods are listed below:
a. The Student Career Education Program (SCEP) is similar to a Co-
Op program. The AFAA hires student auditors to work part-time while
attending school. The students primarily come from local universities
where the AFAA activity is located. Upon graduation and with management
agreement, the SCEP employees are offered full-time positions with the
AFAA.
b. The Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) is designed to help
agencies recruit and attract exceptional individuals into a variety of
occupations. Created under Executive Order 13162, the program is
intended for entry-level positions (General Schedule 5-9). In general,
individuals are appointed to a 2-year internship. Upon successful
completion, interns may be eligible for permanent placement with an
agency. The AFAA uses this program for college recruiting. AFAA
recruiter training emphasizes the hiring of disabled veterans.
c. The third primary hiring method is through job announcements
which are posted on the Office of Personnel Management USAJOBS website.
Positions are announced either through the Air Force District of
Washington Delegated Examining Unit or the Air Force Personnel Center.
After the announcement is closed, one of these two personnel offices
provides the AFAA with a certificate from which a selection is to be
made. These two non-AFAA offices ensure compliance with Veteran's
Preference laws.
AFAA management is taking proactive steps to implement the Disabled
Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) in their organization.
The Air Force Fiscal Year 2007 DVAAP Plan established a program
representation goal of 8.7 percent for disabled veterans. Like most
other Air Force organizations, the AFAA adopted the Air Force plan. To
increase awareness and emphasis, the Air Force Auditor General issued a
memorandum to all AFAA personnel indicating the need to do more in
recruiting disabled veterans. From October 2006 to June 2007, the
Auditor General held six meetings to enhance DVAAP within AFAA. The
AFAA invited Headquarters United States Air Force personnel to the
meetings to assist in these enhancement efforts. In the last 2 years,
AFAA hired three individuals who were 30 percent or more disabled
veterans, with the most recent hired in June 2007. Further, the AFAA
has recently taken additional initiatives such as:
a. Two job announcements for Dover (Delaware) and McGuire (New
Jersey) Air Force Bases are posted on USAJOBS and close on October 19,
2007. These job announcements are open to Veterans Employment
Opportunity Act 1988 (VEOA) and 30 percent Disabled Veteran eligible.
The AFAA is notifying their Veterans Affairs (VA) contacts to get the
word out. The AFAA also accessed the United States Army Wounded Warrior
website and posted the announcements on this site as well.
b. The AFAA has also received approval to conduct Federal Career
Intern Program events at VA centers. The AFAA is determining how to
best perform these FCIP events to reach disabled veteran accounting
students.
A review of the AFAA DVAAP indicates that at the end of FY 2006 the
AFAA workforce had a disabled veteran representation of 5.6 percent. As
of August 31, 2007, the AFAA disabled veteran representation increased
to 6.3 percent. While still below the Air Force goal, the AFAA has made
progress over the last 11 months and continues to be committed to
outreach and hiring of our Disabled Veterans.
Veteran E-mail Questions
Question#2: In your written testimony you mentioned that veterans
can send questions via e-mail and there would be a respond [sic] within
48 hours. What type of questions are most often asked?
Answer: The Civilian Personnel Management Service receives
questions from veterans and their spouses via an applicant assistance
e-mail address, [email protected] and toll free telephone calls to its
888-DoD4USA (1-888-363-4872) telephone number.
Typical questions asked by veterans are:
What government employment opportunities are available
following exit or anticipated exit from the military?
As a recently separated veteran, what can I do?
How soon can I start applying for government positions?
What can I do for the government using my military
skills? How does veteran's preference help when applying for government
jobs?
What assistance can you provide to a disabled veteran
looking for employment with the Department of Defense?
1. How would I find a list of available jobs on a post near where
I live, and how would I apply for those jobs?
1. Where do I find the necessary forms to apply for a job?
Veterans also ask various questions about disability ratings,
programs, veteran's preference, GI Bill, and so forth.
Hiring Heroes
Question #3: How many veterans have been hired by DoD due to the
hiring Heroes career fair?
Answer: It is hard to pinpoint an exact number of offers because it
can take up to a year or more after the career fair for a service
member to complete their surgeries, physical therapy, separate from the
service and begin in a new job. We have been experimenting with various
approaches for determining career fair results; however, accurately
tracking the number of placements remains a challenge.
Currently, we track career fair results through both a survey of
recruiters during the event and follow up with attendees. Below is a
listing of offers made during recent career fairs as identified through
our same day recruiter's survey: Fort Dix, 53; Fort Sam Houston, 81;
Walter Reed, 39; and San Diego, 50.
Since injured service members may not be ready for employment
immediately following a career fair, we have recently begun using
follow up e-mail to track hires that may occur months after the event.
Information from this approach shows that as of June 2007, 19 service
members or their spouses were offered employment opportunities within
DoD and private sector organizations following Hiring Heroes Career
Fairs. Of those, eleven veterans and one spouse accepted jobs, three
veterans are awaiting job offers following interviews, and six veterans
declined employment offers.
Agencies/organizations that have hired our injured service members
include the Department of Army, Department of Navy, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Defense Contract Management Agency, Defense
Logistics Agency, Northrop Grumman, United Services Automobile
Association, CACI, Incorporated, Arrowpoint Company, Bank of America,
Western States Fire Protection Company, Wackenhut, Incorporated,
Cummings Diesel Company, and Brake Check.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
September 17, 2007
Hon. Boyd K. Rutherford
Assistant Secretary for Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
Dear Mr. Rutherford:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Veterans' Preference on
September 6, 2007, I would appreciate it if you could answer the
enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on October 17,
2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions, please
call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
______
Questions for the Record from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
USDA Witness: Boyd K. Rutherford
Assistant Secretary for Departmental Administration
Hearing on Veterans' Preference
September 6, 2007
1. How successful has the USDA been in recruiting veterans by
sharing vacancy announcements with the American Legion and the Veterans
of Foreign Wars? How long has this cooperation been underway?
USDA posts all vacancy announcements on the USAJobs link, which is
prominently displayed on the Office of Personnel Management website and
widely known throughout the country amongst job seekers, including
veterans. Most USDA agencies do not routinely send copies of their
vacancy announcements to the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign
Wars organizations; however, some local offices have engaged in this
process. Applicant data indicates that there are an ample number of
veterans applying for jobs with USDA agencies. For example, between
July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007, USDA delegated examining units
reported that there were qualified veterans on 1,324 (57%) candidate
certificates for the 2,306 positions advertised by these units during
that period.
2. How many veterans are in the Senior Executive Service?
As of September 11, 2007, there were 141 veterans in USDA Senior
Executive Service positions, out of a total of 402 USDA senior
executives.
3. How many veterans' preference hires did the Department of
Agriculture make in the past three years?
Between January 2005 and 2007, USDA selected 2, 318 veterans to
fill positions at USDA
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
September 17, 2007
Anita R. Hanson
Outreach Group Manager
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
1900 E. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20415
Dear Ms. Hanson:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Veterans' Preference on
September 6, 2007, I would appreciate it if you could answer the
enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on October 17,
2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions, please
call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
______
Questions from House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on Veterans' Preference
September 6, 2007
1. OPM is charged with conducting the periodic systemic reviews of
agency hiring oversight practices, which include audits. Please provide
us with the results from your 2006 and 2005 visits with the Air Force
Audit Agency and the Air Force?
OPM did conduct an audit of the Air Force in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005,
but did not conduct an audit of the Air Force Audit Agency in FY 2005
or 2006. On September 10, 2007, OPM received an email from Mr. Tadsen
requesting a copy of the audit report referenced at the hearing. OPM
contacted Mr. Tadsen on October 1, 2007 and upon learning the report
did not contain information specific to the Air Force Audit Agency, he
withdrew his request. Additionally, OPM referred Mr. Tadsen to Mr.
James Carlock, Affirmative Employment and Special Employment Program
Manager for the Department of the Air Force and the individual who
certified the FY 2006 Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program
(DVAAP) plan to obtain information on the questions related to the
DVAAP requirements under the law and whether the Air Force Audit Agency
plan met those requirements.
OPM's FY 2005 review of Air Force found most human resources
systems operating in accordance with merit system principles and the
standards set fourth in civil service laws, rules, and regulations.
OPM's FY 2005 audit report of Air Force contained the following
required actions to bring practices into compliance with OPM
regulations.
REQUIRED ACTIONS:
Talent
In making veterans recruitment appointments, provide for
consideration of all available eligibles, beyond the individual name
requested, and that this consideration is consistent with provisions of
5 CFR 302, including level of veterans' preference. Establish and
implement procedures to ensure provisions of 5 CFR 302 are followed. (5
CFR 302)
Results-Oriented Performance Culture
In the redesign of the position descriptions and the performance
management program under the National Security Personnel System (NSPS),
ensure that the performance plans are strategically aligned, based on
work assignments and responsibilities, and results-oriented. (5 CFR
430.206 (b)(3))
Implementation of NSPS not withstanding, ensure that the
performance plans are based on work assignments and responsibilities;
i.e., thatthe number of critical duties in the core personnel documents
(position description, performance plan, evaluations, and so forth.)
matches the number of critical elements on Air Force Form 860A for all
employees. (5 CFR 430.206(b)(3))
Ensure that performance plans are communicated to employees at the
beginning of each appraisal period. (5 CFR 430.206 (b) (2) and AFI 36-
1001)
Ensure that progress performance appraisals are completed. (5 CFR
430.207 (b))
Ensure all employees receive their performance appraisals within a
reasonable length of time after the end of the appraisal period, such
as 30 days. (5 CFR 430.208 (a) and AFI 36-1001)
Evaluate the performance appraisal systems and performance
programs. (5 CFR 430.209(d)
Evaluate the effectiveness of the United States Air Force awards
programs. (5 CFR 451.106(d))
Ensure that SF-fifties processed for time-off awards are properly
documented with the required standard remarks. (5 CFR 451.106 (e) and
OPM's The Guide to Processing Personnel Actions)
Leadership/Knowledge Management
Evaluate training to determine how well it meets short- and long-
term program needs by occupations, organization, or other appropriate
group. (5 CFR 410.601)
Accountability
Establish and maintain a system of accountability for merit system
principles that sets standards for applying merit system principles,
measures effectiveness in meeting these standards, and corrects any
deficiencies in meeting these standards. (5 CFR 10.2)
NOTE: OPM is charged with the statutory responsibility for
establishing and maintaining an oversight program of the Federal
personnel system. One way OPM has met this responsibility is to conduct
periodic audits. (USC 1104 (b)(2): The Office shall establish and
maintain an oversight program to ensure that activities under any
authority delegated under subsection (a) of this section are in
accordance with the merit system principles and the standards
established under paragraph (1) of this subsection.)
2. How often does each Federal agency get a periodic review from
OPM?
OPM has been on a 4-year cycle for conducting oversight reviews of
Federal (executive branch) agencies. (However, with OPM's initiative to
Strengthen Agency Accountability systems, which was started in FY 2006
and implemented in FY 2007, OPM has accompanied agencies that have an
OPM-approved accountability system [including the Department of
Defense] on internal audits agencies lead on a regular basis, in
accordance with the agency schedule. Since all President's Management
Council (PMC) agencies have an OPM-approved accountability system,
there are currently no large agencies on OPM's review schedule for the
coming Fiscal Years.)
3. What does a periodic systemic review entail?
A periodic systemic review entails a human resources operations
audit and a delegated examining audit which focus on adherence to merit
system principles and civil service laws, rules, and regulations,
helping agencies improve their human capital management and supporting
the human capital management transformation initiative.
In conducting these reviews, we gather information in advance of
the on-site audit, conduct onsite fact-finding to include interviews
with managers, supervisors, employees and human resources officials,
reviews of policies procedures, program assessments, audits of a sample
of personnel actions and supporting documentation, and other fact-
finding activities intended to assess and determine whether an agency/
installation is in compliance with merit system principles and
supporting Federal personnel laws, rules, regulations, and Executive
Orders.
At the conclusion of our audits, we issue written reports of our
findings which are used by agencies to correct or improve their
operations. When we have required actions, we follow up to ensure the
agency carries out these required actions.
4. How often do agencies cancel a vacancy announcement after
receiving applications for the position?
OPM does not collect information on how often agencies cancel
vacancy announcements after receiving applications for a position.
5. How many audits did OPM conduct last year of agency delegated
examining units (DEU)?
In FY 2006, OPM conducted, or participated on agency-led audits of
agency DEUs, in 141 DEU audits. These 141 audits consisted of 109 OPM-
led audits of agency DEUs, and OPM participation on 32 DEU audits led
by agencies reviewing their own DEUs.
6. When was OPM's last audit of the Air Force and was OPM satisfied
with the results?
OPM's last audit of the Air Force was in the fourth quarter of FY
2005. OPM's overall report of the Air Force included 11 required
actions (see response to Question 1 above). In addition, OPM found many
individual cases that needed corrective action from our audit at the
Air Force Personnel Center, which processes most of the personnel
actions in Air Force. The Air Force Personnel Center has complied with
most of the case corrections, and only a few remain to be completed.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
September 17, 2007
Willie Hensley
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Human Resources Management
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Mr. Hensley:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Veterans' Preference on
September 6, 2007, I would appreciate it if you could answer the
enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on October 17,
2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions, please
call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
______
Questions for the Record
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
September 6, 2007
Veterans' Preference
Question 1: Have any Federal agencies, such as the Department of
Health and Human Service, Department of Education, Department of
Treasury, Department of Agriculture, approached the VA for formal
assistance in implementing veterans' preference?
Response: Since establishing the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) National Veterans Employment Program (NVEP) in 2001, VA has hosted
several briefings for Federal agencies seeking information on best
practices to hire veterans. Most recently, the Federal Aviation
Administration sought VA's assistance in helping to develop their
veteran employment program, using VA's program as their model. VA
continues to provide assistance to any agency expressing an interest in
increasing their veteran workforce or establishing programs similar to
NVEP. Agencies briefed or assisted with veterans outreach efforts
include:
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
Department of Treasury
Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Secret Service)
Defense Logistics Agency
Social Security Administration
U.S. Army (Training and Doctrine Command)
Federal agencies who have contacted VA indicating an interest in
partnering under VA's ``Coming Home to Work Program'' are:
Department of Defense
Operation Warfighter*
Department of State
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Commerce
Department of Energy
*DoD's Operation Warfighter program was developed using VA's
``Coming Home to Work Program'' as the model and now expands volunteer
work assignments for wounded service members to any Federal agency with
the desire to participate in their program.
Question 2: In regards to the ``Coming Home to Work Program,'' what
eight facilities are using this program?
Response: The national deployment of the ``Coming Home to Work
Program'' occurred during 2006. The program is currently being managed
through VA's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation under the Veterans
Benefits Administration. VA's Regional Office in Washington, DC,
assumed responsibility of providing services to injured service members
from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical
Center in Bethesda, Maryland, These services were formerly provided by
VA Headquarters, Six other VA Regional Offices began providing services
to major military treatment facilities as follows:
VA Regional Office, San Diego, CA, serves Balboa Naval
Medical Center
VA Regional Office, Houston, TX, serves Brooke Army
Medical Center
VA Regional Office, Atlanta, GA, serves Eisenhower Army
Medical Center
VA Regional Office, Denver, CO, serves Fort Carson Army
Medical Center
VA Regional Office, Waco, TX, serves Fort Hood and
William Beaumont Army Medical Centers
VA Regional Office, Seattle, WA, serves Madigan Army
Medical Center