Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

NSPS - National Security Personnel System


NSPS is the Department of Defense's (DoD) flexible and responsive civilian management system that: (1) values performance and contribution, (2) encourages communication, (3) supports broader skill development, and (4) promotes excellence in the workplace

NSPS modernizes a 50-year-old civil service system, allowing DoD to better attract, recruit, retain, compensate, reward and manage employees. The system focuses on people, performance, and employment decisions that are cost-effective and best for business practice.


(source: Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service)

To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.
2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Greg  
#21 Posted : Monday, July 16, 2012 10:47:59 PM(UTC)
deployed decoy

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/12/2012(UTC)
Posts: 61

Just in case you missed it. This is the sworn statement OPM gave to Congress on the NSPS to GS thing back in June 2010.  I call the 1st paragraph on Pg 3 an outright lie. But that is just me.:

STATEMENT OF
CHARLES D. GRIMES III
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR EMPLOYEE SERVICES
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANGEMENT, THE FEDERAL
WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

on

THE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM REPEAL AND PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

June 9, 2010

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Voinovich, and Members of the Subcommittee:

On behalf of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing to examine the transitioning of employees from the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) back into the General Schedule classification and pay system, as well as performance management in the Federal Government.

As you know, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2010 repealed NSPS and required that employees covered by that system be moved back to their former personnel systems by January 1, 2012. For most employees, this means they will be returned to the General Schedule classification and pay system. This transition is proceeding on schedule; the Department of Defense (DOD) has said that it expects around 75 percent of NSPS employees will be back under the General Schedule by the end of the current fiscal year.

I will let DOD describe its own efforts to educate employees about the transition. I know they have created a website especially dedicated to this effort, which includes a Transition Guide and Frequently Asked Questions, among other tools. I believe these have helped employees understand what they should expect to happen as a result of the repeal of NSPS.

You asked me specifically to discuss pay retention and position classification after the transition. When employees are moved back into the General Schedule (GS) from NSPS, DOD will classify all positions in accordance with classification standards and guidance issued by OPM. The Department will apply the same criteria in classifying the positions of transitioning NSPS employees that agencies use when classifying any Federal job, whether it is being filled by an employee who is new to the Government or by someone who is transferring from another agency, or from a different pay system with pay bands or other features that differ from the GS system.

For example, each NSPS position in a band that encompasses GS-9, GS-11, GS-12, and GS-13 work must be evaluated against OPM standards and guidance to determine which grade is appropriate, based on the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements. Also, jobs within new occupational series which DOD, in coordination with OPM, established uniquely for NSPS, will be placed into their appropriate GS occupations as those positions are converted back to the General Schedule.

Let me elaborate very briefly on what OPM's position classification standards provide and how agencies apply them. The classification standards for GS positions provide information agencies use in determining the occupational series, title, and grade level for all positions performing white collar work in the Federal Government. Classification standards typically describe the kind of work covered by the standard and include background information, such as examples of the kinds of assignments that are common to the occupation. The standards also provide official job titles and criteria for determining appropriate grade levels.

While OPM's classification standards are designed to provide consistency in the way work is classified across the Government, they are not intended to eliminate the need for judgment. Rather, the standards aim to provide a structure that facilitates consistent classification across Federal agencies and occupations. Individual contributions within a job may affect its classification over time. It is possible, for example, that some transitioning employees will return to GS positions that will be classified at a higher grade level than the positions they held before becoming covered by NSPS because the positions now require more knowledge, more complex work, or less supervision, or because of similar changes that occurred over time as the employee grew within the position. These kinds of factors are routinely taken into account in classifying Federal jobs. However, we do not expect this to result in significant increases in grade levels for the majority of employees transitioning back from NSPS.

At the same time, we recognize that there are many employees who earned salaries under NSPS that substantially exceed what they would be receiving had they remained under the General Schedule and never been covered by NSPS. In some cases, this is attributable to the fact that some NSPS pay ranges are 5 percent higher than corresponding GS ranges. Also, NSPS created broad bands that encompassed multiple grades, which allowed some employees to reach pay levels beyond that for the GS grade level that would normally be assigned. The law that terminated NSPS provides that no employee will suffer any loss or decrease in pay when converted out of NSPS. That provision protects the rate of basic pay in effect immediately before an employee is converted out of NSPS. Chapter 53 of title 5 of the United States Code provides a mechanism for employees in such circumstances to avoid experiencing the decrease in their pay that would otherwise occur when they move back to the GS system, but it will not guarantee them that their pay will necessarily increase at the same rate it would have increased had they remained in NSPS.

Under the law, when NSPS employees are placed in positions for which the maximum rate of pay is lower than their NSPS salary, they will continue to receive their NSPS salary. However, when GS pay rates are adjusted each January, employees receiving retained pay will receive 50 percent of the increase in the maximum rate of basic pay for their grade until that rate of pay rises to meet or exceed their retained rate of pay. At that point, they will be placed in the highest step (step 10) of their grade and will begin receiving 100 percent of each annual general increase in GS pay rates. The entitlement to retained pay eases these employees' transition back to the General Schedule and ensures that they will not experience a precipitous drop in pay when they return to the General Schedule system.

It is important to note that employees in this situation are receiving higher pay – and will continue to do so – than they would have received if they had remained in the General Schedule pay system all along. If they had remained in the GS system, their pay never would have exceeded the regular maximum rate for step 10 of their GS grade. They benefited from being in NSPS, and that benefit continues through the retained rate they receive upon conversion back to the GS. Also, their future retirement benefit will be the same as or higher than it would have been if they had not been covered by NSPS, depending on whether the average salary used in the retirement computation was earned while they were in NSPS or receiving retained pay. Moreover, agency contributions under the Thrift Savings Plan are higher for these employees than they would have been had the employees never been in NSPS.

( Note: The above is an outright false statement as applied to overseas foreign special rate employees, in my case my total pay was reduced over $16,500 while in NSPS and then reduced another $6,000 converting back to GS, causing a loss in addition to money of nine years high grade and step held)

Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your invitation to this hearing, the NDAA also provided the Department of Defense with certain personnel flexibilities. In particular, you asked us to comment on the implementation of the authority for the Secretary, in coordination with the Director of OPM, to issue regulations waiving most of the requirements of title 5 of the United States Code that deal with performance management and to design a new performance appraisal system for the Department. The same section of the Act also provided a similar authority for the Department to redesign its hiring procedures, in coordination with OPM. Although DOD has not yet approached OPM about a proposal for how this authority might be exercised, we have worked closely with DOD, among other agencies, in developing our Governmentwide hiring reform initiative, which was recently launched by the President. We at OPM are very grateful for DOD's participation in helping identify and implement needed changes in the hiring process. We believe, when they are fully implemented, these changes will greatly enhance the hiring process from the perspective of both the job applicant and the hiring agency, and we are excited about how much we expect these changes to assist DOD and the Government as a whole in efficiently placing the right person in the right job at the right time.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, you also asked about our plans for changes to the Government's performance management system. Director Berry has been talking with various stakeholders and gathering their feedback on different approaches to Governmentwide performance management reform. However, we have not yet formulated any specific plans in this regard, so it would be premature for me to discuss any particular proposal at this time.

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss these matters with you. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

ut2ge  
#22 Posted : Wednesday, August 01, 2012 2:47:55 AM(UTC)

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 79

I finally got my pay fixed in May. My supervisor was able to get my grade corrected last year. A coworker submitted a congressional inquiry that went to AFPC in Jan. I went through AFPC and they reviewed my pay. I received the corrected step and retro pay going back to Sep 10. I'm now at the same step as if NSPS never existed (the same I would have been if I had never moved overseas).

After all the anguish the AF put me through with the transition, I will be leaving the govt once I return to the USA next year. With my resume, accomplishments, and drive, I know I can do way better than work with all the trash I've had to deal while with the AF overseas.


Greg  
#23 Posted : Wednesday, August 01, 2012 4:00:07 AM(UTC)
deployed decoy

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/12/2012(UTC)
Posts: 61

I would really like the details. send me a private email if U want.  I assume AFPC is Air Force Pay Center. I am Army. I am waiting on Senator Akaka (HI) to email or snail mail me the 'official' OPM and Army replies. But DoD did answer the Senator and told us, this is an ARMY problem. Problem with that is as the Senators aid told me last night (31 Aug 02) OPM named the SECDEF as the got to authority. And my agency told me last week Army is 100% for fixing this, but DoD has directed not a sole in any agency get paid... Until 'they figure it out' Apparently Air Force has. I need the details.  I plan on a federal (DoD) wide class action in 4 weeks when I land on US soil. That class action will show malice and intent to defraud on the part of DoD, go after liquidated (double) damages and interest. And if I have in say in the out of court agreement they will want. The SECDEF, SEC of Army and brand new Army SEC of personell all are fired on the spot, for the good of the country (as in they could have saved MILLIONS, if they had wanted to)...
GregR62  
#24 Posted : Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:27:43 AM(UTC)

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/16/2008(UTC)
Posts: 11

Rookie,
 
Let me know status ....   I am a 2210 for the ARMY too in Saudi Arabia, not going CONUS for atleast another year + .
Greg  
#25 Posted : Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:24:18 AM(UTC)
deployed decoy

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/12/2012(UTC)
Posts: 61

I am working with DoD IG. Air Force has paid some people, some money. In one case it was 50% what they would have otherwise earned with no interest. In 2 other cases is was full back pay - depends on the CPAC I guess. I asked the IG to determin if AF violated any lway, directive or DoD policy. I assume AF is smart enough to read the CFR and followed some law. That then by default places Army and DoD in violation of the same laws... I also am working with DoD james.davey@cpms.osd.mil the branch chief that as this mess under the 'acting' SES chief of branch Ms Sheila Dent who reports to http://prhome.defense.gov/ Hon. Erin C. Conaton
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. I am finished playing nice on this... I was told by david.w.frodsham.civ@mail.mil (GS15 at NETCOM G1) that his office had the formaer CG of NETCOM sign a formal Memo asking DA to pay us all. Dave said he spoke to the DA official and that his interpertion is that DA gets it and is on board with paying us all. I suggest you spam all these fools and make waves... The ONLY way this is ever going to get corrected... I am also asking DoDIG hotline@dodig.mil to order liquidated (double) damages if DoD is found as wilful in this resolve...
GP
Greg  
#26 Posted : Friday, January 11, 2013 12:30:04 AM(UTC)
deployed decoy

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/12/2012(UTC)
Posts: 61

well i retired 31 Dec 12. I now have have an age based EEOC coimplaint naming the SECFDEF and SEC of Army. U look AF, maybe we make this a DoD wide class action in federal tort court??? I intend to file both a DoD age based EEOC complaint and a MSPB complaint. the judge at MSPB tossed my case - the ONLY NSPS to GS case that made it that far. based on the definetion of 'basic pay'. Judge Celemnt told me and the agency the day she tossed my case, that the minute i retire and OPM uses the incorrect Hi-3 to file a new case and she hoped she would get assigned it... Even the judge was in my corner in 2010... If U want to ask someone who will be in court on this ask james.davey@cpms.osd.mil he works for the DoD Under Secretary of Personnel, I blame him, but if he breaks down under pressure, the toper dogs may be named. course by the time the OPM Director and SECDEF have been deposed, Im betting Mr Davey and his boss are both on a water board in the basement of the Pentagon, prepping them as organ donars, since they are certifibily brain dean...
Greg  
#27 Posted : Friday, January 11, 2013 12:34:41 AM(UTC)
deployed decoy

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/12/2012(UTC)
Posts: 61

If U can prove the selecting official made the short list BEFORE CPAC got Ur name referreed. CPAC (CPOC rather) owes U a non-comp placement the next time that position and grade come open in the comuting area (50 miles). Now this is susposed to work...the boss comes in with an RPA, CPAC hands then UR name ONLY. they can not even put it on the street until UR disqullifed. How it works in real life is the day before the selecting official gets 100s of names to chose from, they get yours... their is a reason the right to keep and bear arms does not extent to attack submarines...
Greg  
#28 Posted : Friday, January 11, 2013 12:40:13 AM(UTC)
deployed decoy

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/12/2012(UTC)
Posts: 61

give me Dave Fords number- on this site - for all the world to know. I want to call him. if U chat w/ enginer850 agin let him know mh status... I worked with the OPM Ombudsman all last fall... OPM told me to take a hike. since OPM is god-like over all the reason the Direcvtor is going to be the first person I call to federal court...
mudpie  
#29 Posted : Monday, March 09, 2015 3:22:53 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/3/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,987

Was thanked: 97 time(s) in 90 post(s)
What happened to the 5 year rule?
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.146 seconds.