You are tentatively eligible for this series/grade but not referred
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
19:58/20:41 here again.
Question to OP- for this vacancy announcement, what groups are listed in the “who may apply” section? I believe you should still have access to this information in USAJobs as part of her application. |
Anonymous
There may have been a separate non-competitive, concurrent announcement open to “military spouses” only. I asked OP what the announcement specifically said upthread as well. |
Anonymous
|
Just to sum this up for those who care. This job was open to GS employees, Veterans, and Military Spouses. We were told by HR that she was entirely eligible for this position and qualified, and would have been referred had it not been for military spouses applying for the job. She also said that military spouses BLOCK all new appointments to the federal government, and apparently they are including her into the Veteran only status and have blocked her from being referred because of the military spouse applications. Two problems with this. 1. My wife actually should belong to the same category as the military spouses because spouses of 100 percent disabled veterans are included in the Executive Order making this a law. 2. Lets say for the sake of argument that my wife didn't check some block in the application that would indicate she belongs in this category, where is the rule that says her resume/application gets BLOCKED from even being referred if a military spouse applies? I have been unable to find this rule as of yet.
So as we see it, the military spouse preference only allows for military spouses of active duty soldiers who are on PCS orders to have their resumes included in the pile of those being considered by the hiring authority. It does not mean HR gets to block anyone else's resume or application. HR in this case should have no other function than to ensure the person applying fits into one of the three categories that are allowed to apply, and also has the required experience and job skills to qualify for consideration. If you meet those two categories then you get referred. End of story. What we are experiencing is that out of the three categories that were allowed to apply, only one was ever going to have a chance at the job unless that one category didn't apply. The HR representative has told us that we cannot even be referred because of that one category who also applied. This makes no sense to either of us. Granted, we aren't experts at this process, but we have learned a lot and read a lot and now I'm just hear trying to get advice from those who might know more and who can clarify whether or not our current understanding is correct. If its not correct then I just ask for actual regulations to explain why we are wrong. Please do not respond if you are mad that I am considered 100% disabled or if you are mad that veterans get preference points or what ever else. I just want to know what our options are at this point. |
Anonymous
Yes sorry if I missed the question before. I've hopefully just cleared it up with my last post prior to this one. Thanks in advance for your advice. |
Anonymous
| OP, you mention your frustration with “not checking the right box” (where that’s what happened in this case, I don’t know) but agencies get hundreds of applications for positions and they use those boxes, uploaded documents, and so on as a way to weed people out. If people can’t follow or understand directions, they have no obligation to consider the application further. |
Anonymous
Yes I get it. But in our defense this application process isn't exactly comprised of just checking a box. There are lots of other indicators that SHOULD indicate that a person is eligible. There seem to be multiple little boxes that contradict other boxes and it leaves the applicant often confused as to which block they should check. Why? Because multiple boxes fit your category, but you can only check one. Its not as easy as saying, well you didn't click the right box, because these fields aren't always straight forward, AND often multiple boxes will apply to your situation. Why not just have a Check all that apply box? How is an applicant suppose to know which box they should check because that box is the one that will supersede all other boxes? The answer is they don't. It doesn't say, THIS BOX has preference and if your situation applies to more than one box, check this one. Lastly, for the sake of argument, if you find out you didn't check the box that supersedes all other boxes, but you know you qualify to do so, what are your options to appeal and still be considered? I mean if the only reason for the boxes is to weed through applications then it shouldn't matter right? In this situation though I don't think it matters. What I want to really know is if military spouses applicants can block any other candidates from being referred. She did check the appropriate boxes but even if she didn't I want to know if they can block her resume from the hiring authority. That and if an applicant who doesn't check the right block, can they still appeal and be considered/referred after the initial decision was made, or do they hold that mistake over your head? |
Anonymous
| I don’t think my agency would go back and reconsider an incomplete or incorrect application but I would imagine that is at each agency’s discretion. However once they start doing it for one person they have to reconsider people all the time and then you’re back at square one. You said your wife works in HR, she doesn’t know anyone in the staffing office that she can call and ask questions if she’s confused? |
Anonymous
She knows a few people but you don't always know you are confused until its too late. Just from our experience in the past we have learned a lot about what NOT to do, and had finally started getting the process right. Her "test" application was for an identical position across the compound in another office. She knew that position was going to be even more competitive because of all the experience already working in that office and applying, but we would know if at least her resume and application was good enough to at least get referred, and it was. This time though, she wasn't even referred and for a completely new reason. So I guess what it boils down to is that we don't think she messed up her application at all. We feel her application should have been good enough to at least be referred, and at that point the hiring authority would make their decision based on their own set if rules and guidelines on hiring. The HR rep who responded to our first inquiry said as much. My wifes application according to HR made her qualified and eligible to be referred, but she wasn't because military spouses applied for the position and according to her military spouses block anyone else considered a new appointment. They classified my wife as simply a veteran and therefore ranked the military spouse preference over her. Again, two problems. 1. Nothing I have found in the regulation says military spouses block anyone else. 2. My wifes actual classification made her eligible to have the same preference as a military spouse. Either way, I don't see how they can simply NOT refer her. |
Anonymous
Also, based on how you said it, it doesn't sound like its a hard rule or regulation that governs this. Otherwise every organization would do it the same way. In my opinion you have a point in saying, if you do it once then everyone would want you to reconsider, but that seems to be thinking pretty 1 dimensional. Why not make the application process a little less confusing and you don't have all of this going on. They seem to be using the complicated process as a way to weed out people and hire who they want. Because just as you said, it seems to be up to the organization to decide if they want to make an exception, so essentially they have created a wildly confusing process to get hired which allows them to easily use a myriad of rules to disqualify people, OR simply decide they will make an exception. Sure, some will hit all the right buttons and they will have no choice but to refer you, but is that really a fair process? |
Anonymous
NP. How would you be able to tell that just from looking at a resume? Exactly how they score things is somewhat subjective. You might feel your wife's experience is more on point, but HR may disagree. Or your wife might have a longer period of experience, but the chosen applicant would have slightly more relevant experience that they valued more than the length. Or there could be any number of combinations or permutations along these lines. Plus, let's not pretend that any of us would be objective when reviewing the resume of a loved one against that of some stranger. |
Anonymous
Sorry for the multiple responses too, I just keep rereading what you said and think I need to clarify. Her application was in no way incorrect or incomplete. She would have been referred if they would have included her into the military spouse category. They just aren't including her into the category when she does in fact belong in that category. Its a little different to say someone filled out the application the wrong way or left it incomplete. In that case I totally agree. Furthermore, I just need to know if one category trumps another category as far as the referral process. Whether or not she clicked the right block for her category is irrelevant if we just know that. |
Anonymous
Two things. One, you aren't supposed to be able to apply preferential treatment to people you know, although yes I know it happens ALL the time. Two, the question has nothing to do with my wifes resume. They have already stated she would have been referred had it not been for another applicant being a military spouse. Actually one more thing, isn't relevant experience or longer experience the job of the hiring authority to decide? That does seem a bit confusing to me. Since no one gets to see these other resumes they decide do not have the "relevant" or length of experience necessary, whose is to say they aren't just holding back more experienced resumes in favor of their own friends and families resumes? The answer is doing exactly what I am doing. Filing a FOIA request. To those who originally asked me what was the point of that, well this is the answer. HR has way too much leeway to toss resumes to the side without anyone ever knowing why. The HA should be the one decided if your experience is relevant or not. Why? Because every position is different. An HR rep could have no idea what is needed to perform a job in a secure facility. The only thing they know is what the announcement says. So if you have a resume that meets all of those experience requirements on the announcement, then how can they just toss your resume aside? They HAVE to go by whats on the announcement and what the hiring authority says they want regarding experience. The only way to know for sure if HR is not playing favorites, is to file a FOIA request. |
Anonymous
But you won't be able to tell that from getting the resume of the person who was hired. Say Jane Smith got the job. Her resume would not likely say "Jane Smith -- friend of someone in HR or with hiring authority." Unless you happened to know that Jane Smith was friend's with someone in the office (exceedingly unlikely) you wouldn't have learned anything. And even if she knew someone, that doesn't inherently mean that she was given a preference, never mind an improper one. The only way that you might learn something is if the person hired was truly and completely unqualified. Then, you might be able to objectively say that something was off. But if the person hired generally had the qualifications and experiences needed for the job, your belief that your wife had better experiences wouldn't really matter. You seem to think that it is common in the federal government for utterly unqualified people to get hired because of favoritism, but that simply isn't true. Connections can certainly make a difference and can put one qualified person ahead of another (most jobs have a huge number of qualified people apply who could do the job), but that's not something you could tell from a resume and it isn't even something that is necessarily improper, depending on exactly what occurred. |
Anonymous
I know that you don’t believe in this case that her application was incorrect and that’s fine. In my office, if HR made an error in processing the application then they would and have corrected that error by adding someone to a cert or referring them. Also you keep using the term “hiring authority” but a hiring authority is the law or reg that allows someone to be appointed to a position. The selecting official is the person who decides which applicant they want to choose. Just a point of clarification. HR looks at the applications before the selecting official to determine if they’re complete, apply OPM’s qualifications, rank applicants in accordance with Delegated Examining or merit promotion policies, adjudicate preference, and so on. The selecting official cannot be expected to do all of that on their own. |
Anonymous
|
OP, if the posting were to be relisted and she were to be referred but not get the job, what would you guys do with that information? Would the next step be filing an FOIA to try to find out why she wasn't the one hired, or asking for the justification?
If the management involved wants her for the job, but she is not referred, can they not inquire as to why the 100% disability spouse was not deemed equivalent for the referral process? |