Review of Veterans' Preference and the 'Rule of 3'
Gao ID: GAO-03-966R August 22, 2003
The General Accounting Office has completed a review of selected agencies' compliance with veterans' preference and the "Rule of 3" in federal hiring. This review was requested by Congressman Lane Evans, Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, and Senator Tom Daschle. As agreed with the requesters, because of continuing oversight of agencies' delegated examining units (DEU) and ongoing review of veterans' preference, we are providing the results of our review for possible follow-up. The requesters specifically asked us to review the results of job announcements for fiscal year 2001 for five selected agency personnel offices in the Washington Metropolitan Area: the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) headquarters, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). As agreed with the requesters, we reviewed: (1) advertised full-time positions (both permanent and temporary) at the GS-7,9,11,13, and 15 levels as identified by the selected agency, (2) the use of multiple certificates in filling these positions, (3) the resulting certificates of eligibilities, including how often veterans headed these certificates and were selected, and (4) the reported reasons why veterans were not selected if they headed these certificates.
Multiple certificates were used extensively. Most of the 258 announcements reviewed resulted in agencies issuing multiple certificates, including multiple DEU certificates and certificates for merit promotion. Multiple DEU certificates were typically issued for multiple vacancies at different grades or locations. In a few cases, multiple DEU certificates were issued for the same position at the same grade. In general, agencies use of multiple certificates was consistent with the OPM guidance. Selections were made more often from certificates without veterans listed. Specifically, of the 214 announcements for which DEU certificates were issued, selections occurred more often when the certificates included no veterans than when veterans were on the certificates. Out of 134 announcements reviewed with no veterans on the certificates of eligibles, 90 (67 percent) nonveterans were selected. Out of 77 announcements reviewed with veterans on the certificates of eligibilities, 21 (27 percent) veterans were selected. Agency files suggested a variety of reasons why veterans were not selected from certificates, including: (1) a nonveteran with a higher score on the DEU certificate was selected; (2) a nonveteran was selected from another source, for example, merit promotion, noncompetitive appointment; (3) the vacancy/certificate was canceled; and (4) the veteran withdrew his/her name. Of the 258 announcement cases reviewed, there were 41 for which we could not determine the disposition of hiring action. At one agency, for 18 out of 78 case files we reviewed the status of the vacancy announcements could not be determined. Further, there were 11 addtional cases where no case file could be located. Additionally, in at least one location, all the application files fitting our criteria may not have been provided for our review. We would suggest that as OPM's evaluation efforts go forward, the number of cases reported in agency case files be compared with the relevant listings in USAJOBS. A few cases may warrant further review by OPM. In cases in which selections were made from a certificate listing a veteran on top, the veteran was usually selected. However, in a few cases the top-ranked veteran on top, the veteran was usually selected. For example, at one agency the top-ranked veteran was not selected because officials said they were unable to contact him. However, the telephone number that the agency noted as being disconnected was not the veteran's listed home number on the application. In addtion, a note in the file said that the agency tried to contact the veteran with a letter sent via Federal Express. The letter was not in the file. In another case, a nonveteran was chosen over a veteran with the same score. There was no explanation in the file for this action.
GAO-03-966R, Review of Veterans' Preference and the 'Rule of 3'
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-966R
entitled 'Review of Veterans' Preference and the "Rule of 3"' which was
released on August 22, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
August 22, 2003:
The Honorable Kay Coles James:
Director:
Office of Personnel Management:
Subject: Review of Veterans' Preference and the "Rule of 3":
Dear Ms. James:
This is to inform you that the General Accounting Office has completed
a review of selected agencies' compliance with veterans' preference and
the "Rule of 3" in federal hiring. This review was requested by
Congressman Lane Evans, Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee
on Veterans Affairs, and Senator Tom Daschle. As agreed with the
requesters, because of your continuing oversight of agencies' delegated
examining units (DEU) and ongoing review of veterans' preference, we
are providing you with the results of our review for possible follow-
up.
The requesters specifically asked us to review the results of job
announcements for fiscal year 2001 for five selected agency personnel
offices in the Washington Metropolitan Area: the National Aeronautics
Space Administration (NASA) headquarters, NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG). As agreed with the requesters, we reviewed: (1) advertised full-
time positions (both permanent and temporary) at the GS-7, 9, 11, 13,
and 15 levels as identified by the selected agency, (2) the use of
multiple certificates in filling these positions, (3) the resulting
certificates of eligibilities, including how often veterans headed
these certificates and were selected, and (4) the reported reasons
why veterans were not selected if they headed these certificates.
Our observations may be useful to the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) in following up on specific cases, as well as more generally in
developing and implementing governmentwide personnel oversight and
evaluation efforts. Moreover, based on our understanding of OPM's
guidance to the agencies, OPM would consider the type of issues
included in our observations when deciding whether more detailed
assessments of agency actions by OPM oversight teams would be
warranted. We have the following specific observations about the cases
examined.
* Multiple certificates were used extensively. Most of the 258
announcements reviewed resulted in agencies issuing multiple
certificates, including multiple DEU certificates and certificates for
merit promotion. Multiple DEU certificates were typically issued for
multiple vacancies at different grades or locations. In a few cases,
multiple DEU certificates were issued for the same position at the same
grade. In general, agencies use of multiple certificates was consistent
with OPM guidance. See table 1 in the enclosure for total cases
reviewed.
* Selections were made more often from certificates without veterans
listed. Specifically, of the 214 announcements for which DEU
certificates were issued, selections occurred more often when the
certificates included no veterans than when veterans were on the
certificates. (See table 2 in the enclosure for results of cases with
certificates issued.):
* Out of 134 announcements reviewed with no veterans on the
certificates of eligibles, 90 (67 percent) nonveterans were selected.
* Out of 77 announcements reviewed with veterans on the certificates of
eligibilities, 21 (27 percent) veterans were selected.
* Agency files suggested a variety of reasons why veterans were not
selected from certificates. These include those listed below. (See
table 2 in the enclosure for more information on the reported reasons
why veterans were not selected.):
* A nonveteran with a higher score on the DEU certificate was selected.
* A nonveteran was selected from another source, for example, merit
promotion, noncompetitive appointment.
* The vacancy/certificate was canceled.
* The veteran withdrew his/her name.
* Many case files were incomplete. Of the 258 announcement cases
reviewed, there were 41 for which we could not determine the
disposition of the hiring action. At one agency, for 18 out of 78 case
files we reviewed the status of the vacancy announcements could not be
determined. Further, there were 11 additional cases where no case file
could be located. (See table 3 in the enclosure for more details.)
Additionally, in at least one location, all the application files
fitting our criteria may not have been provided for our review. We
would suggest that as OPM's evaluation efforts go forward, the number
of cases reported in agency case files be compared with the relevant
listings in USAJOBS.
* A few cases may warrant further review by OPM. In cases in which
selections were made from a certificate listing a veteran on top, the
veteran was usually selected. However, in a few cases the top-ranked
veteran was not selected. For example, at one agency the top-ranked
veteran was not selected because officials said they were unable to
contact him. However, the telephone number that the agency noted as
being disconnected was not the veteran's listed home number on the
application. In addition, a note in the file said that the agency tried
to contact the veteran with a letter sent via Federal Express. The
letter was not in the file. In another case, a nonveteran was chosen
over a veteran with the same score. There was no explanation in the
file for this action.
We performed our work on this report from August 2002 through May 2003
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. In addition,
we sent this report to the following agencies for comment: the NASA,
HUD, BBG, and DLA. The agencies generally agreed with our report but
provided some technical comments and suggestions that we incorporated
where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Senator Tom Daschle, the heads of the agencies visited during this
review, and other interested parties. This report will also be
available on GAO's home page at http://www.gao.gov.
I would appreciate your staff keeping me informed of any action they
plan to take in response to this information. The major contributors to
this review were Edward Stephenson, Assistant Director; Charlesetta
Bailey, Senior Analyst; and Figen Gungor, Analyst. If you have any
questions, please call me at (202) 512-6806.
Sincerely yours,
J. Christopher Mihm:
Director, Strategic Issues:
Enclosure:
Enclosure:
Additional Information on Case Files:
Table 1: Total Cases Reviewed:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA headquarters, NASA Goddard, HUD, BBG, and DLA vacancy
announcement files for fiscal year: 2001.
[End of table]
Table 2: Comparison of Certificates with Veterans and Nonveterans:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA headquarters, NASA Goddard, HUD, BBG, and DLA vacancy
announcement files for fiscal year 2001 and agency officials.
[A] For three vacancy announcements, candidates' status was not noted
in files.
[B] Nonveterans selected included selections from other sources: NASA
HQ,7; BBG, 6; and DLA, 1.
[End of table]
Table 3: Total Cases with insufficient information:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA headquarters, NASA Goddard, HUD, BBG, and DLA vacancy
announcement files for fiscal year 2001.
[End of table]
(450141):
