Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

So I submitted the on-line portion of my NCIS application and was getting my documentation together to fax.

Today I noticed that my application has disappeared from USAJobs. No indication I ever applied.

Absent a glitch I can't imagine what happened: My USSS and FBI apps are still there.

Is NCIS ignoring OPM's Isabella decision like the BATFE (and would they have removed my app due to my age), is it likely some kind of glitch, or could there be another reason?

Is NCIS ignoring OPM's Isabella decision like the BATFE (and would they have removed my app due to my age), is it likely some kind of glitch, or could there be another reason?

While I'm not aware of NCIS currently accepting veteran applicants past age 37 (though I know the case ruling you're referring to, and think all federal LE agencies should allow that for veterans), the best way to get an answer from the source is to email NCISHQ via the email address provided in the vacancy announcement on USAjobs.gov. The average agent in the field or applicant isn't going to know detailed recruiting info about an agency, so best to ask those that would have some insight.

I sent a question to that email a few weeks ago and haven't gotten a response.

I guess I'll try again. Thanks.

I was told by HQ that, despite veteran status, my cutoff was 37. I did not cite any decision or case, but took it for face value. I was looking for any avenue as my age progressed and status in the pool did not. Thank goodness I am getting in 5 days before I turn 37. Talk about last minute.

Is NCIS ignoring OPM's Isabella decision like the BATFE (and would they have removed my app due to my age)...?

You are taking the Isabella decision like it is a law. It is not. There are many factor in this decision that are being ignored by many Vets who take this decision to mean the age requirement of 37 is now automatically waived and they have jobs. It does not.

Here are some facts of the case:
1) Isabella would turn 37 on November 8, 2004

2) He applied to DSS for a Special Agent position under vacancy SA-04-01 which closed June 11, 2004.

3) He was informed his application was being reviewed and processed on June 30, 2004.

4) He did not contest the fact that the maximum entry age was essential to the performance of the duties of the position. Instead, he argued that he believed that he could have been appointed prior to his 37th birthday.

5) He did not hear anything for some time and had a deployment and called the Head DSS recruiter and explained he was concerned about getting hired before he was 37 and the pending deployment. He also offered to come to DC at his own expense to do the written test and interview. He was told "Don't worry about it. We can get you hired in this time period."

6) Isabella then advised he would have be serving in the Reserves, and not completely separating from the military and started probing for information about schedules and training and conflicts with DSS vs. Reserves. He was then told by the same person "We can't get you processed in time then."

7) DSS held the BEX, the first stage of processing Seattle, Washington, Isabella's preferred testing site, during the period from August 23-27, 2004, and he was not invited.

8) The DSS Recruiter took no further action to process Isabella's application after learning he would remain in the Reserves.

9) DSS admitted that it “terminated consideration” of the Isabella's application before he turned 37 “because he was only months away from his 37th birthday,” despite their policy at the time stating candidates could not DQ'd unless they had reached their 37 birthday. DSS stated it was only because of age.

10) 9) Isabella claimed he was not processed as a result of his military service.

11) The MSPB agreed. DSS then argued that 5 U.S.C. § 3307(d) demonstrates that Congress sought to create a special age entry rule – an exception to the ordinary prohibition against age-based discrimination under the ADEA – where a young work force was necessary due to the nature of the work, and where law enforcement officers would receive especially generous retirement benefits to offset a shorter work life.

12) MSPB asked DSS to prove that Isabella could not do the job based upon his current age. They did not argue anything other than retirement law.

13) The MSPB stated based upon the lack of evidence provided by DSS, the mandatory retirement retirement age of 57 is not itself essential to the performance of the duties of the position, an agency cannot rely on the fact that a maximum entry age will serve to effectuate the mandatory retirement age as support for the proposition that the maximum entry age is essential to the performance of the duties of the position. (AKA in layman terms: the practice of establishing a maximum entry age for law enforcement officer positions based on the years of service necessary to qualify for the LEO retirement at the mandatory retirement age, is insufficient to establish that the maximum entry age is essential to the performance of the duties of the position.)

14) The MSPB stated Isabella stated did not establish that the agency would have appointed him if it had continued to process his application.

15) The MSPB then stated ".....in this case, the record does not establish whether the agency would have actually appointed Isabella to the position, even if it had properly waived the maximum entry age requirement and continued to process his application, because the record indicates that there still were several steps left in the appointment process he would have had to successfully complete prior to his appointment at the time the agency terminated its consideration of the appellant’s application."

16) MSPB ruled that "...the proper remedy with regard to Isabella's appeal is an order requiring the agency to waive the maximum entry age requirement on the appellant’s behalf and to reconstruct the selection process, including affording the appellant any other advantage to which his status as a preference eligible might entitle him.

17) The MSPB then ruled the following: We ORDER the agency to waive the age limit for the position of Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent with respect to the appellant's (Isabella) application for the position and to process the appellant’s application to completion.
Read this...it says Isabella, not everyone in the world, just DSS and just Isabella. Thus, the matter handled by the MSPB does not give anyone over 37 a waiver. It is an administrative decision applicable only to Isabella.


In September of 2009, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management gave its OPINION on the matter and gave the following GUIDANCE on the matter:

a) OPM has concluded that qualified preference eligibles (veterans with preference over the age of 37) may now apply and be considered for vacancies, regardless of whether they meet the maximum age requirements. (Note it says apply and considered....not hired!)

b) In order to determine whether it must waive a maximum entry-age requirement, an agency must first analyze the affected position to determine whether age is essential to the performance of the position[/U]. If the agency decides age is not essential to the position, then it must waive the maximum entry-age requirement for veterans' preference eligible applicants. (Thus each agency needs to do a review and determine if age is essential to the performance of duties, and if the agency says it is, then no waiver has to be granted.)

c) OPM adds that in instances where the maximum entry-age is waived, the corresponding mandatory retirement age for these individuals will have to be raised.

d) OPM added agencies are still required to apply suitability, occupational qualification standards, and medical qualification determinations before waiving the maximum entry-age requirements for preference eligible veterans.

So what does all that mean? There is no law requiring a blanket waiver to anyone over 37. If the agency says age matters in the performance of duties, they do not have to give you a waiver. Period.

And by the way, Isabella ended up out of pocket on all lawyer fees. Did he get hired as an 1811? Nope. He received an offer for a 2501, Security Officer position at the age of 43.

Some agencies (DSS, USSS and DHS CBP/BP) have determined age is not essential to the performance of the position, and have waived the maximum entry-age requirement for veterans' preference eligible applicants, and accepts applications and considered them. DSS did it because of the Isabella suit. DHS CBP & BP did it due to a lack of applications. The USSS jumped on worried about its image, but at the same time, tightened certain qualifications, allowing them more DQ options as a result medical exam criteria, background, etc....

Other fed agencies are not on board with such. They are under the view age is essential and are documenting how it applies so when challenged at MSPB they are ready. One point is that there are no current 1811's who are 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, etc..., and thus, there no proof they an do the job at the age, and age is essential. One of many arguments and studies being piled up.

Additionally, keep in mind if you apply at Agency A and get a waiver, and you get bored and want to transfer to agency C, it can't happen unless Agency C also grants you a waiver. Good luck on that.

Not trying to be rude, but age matters. A 43 y/o guy on another board last year was jumping up down about the USSS giving a waiver. He was in "top shape" and a retired "captain" and saw so much combat in the sand pit he believed he was ready for a job and that 5 years didn't mean much. He went to FLETC and admittedly barely made it through. He went to Beltsville and never made it through the program.

We also forget to look at the big picture. I have taken a few doors in my career and been involved in shootings. While we have a few olders guys in decent shape, almost my entire agency senio staff are on meds, Age has casued problems (prostate conditions that makes them have to hit the head every hour, diabetes that measn they have to eat every so often, bones weaken with age and are susceptable to breaking, the ears stop hearing certian tones, eyes loose night vision capabilities, pills for heart conditions or blood pressure, etc... Law enforcement is not an old mans game, and there comes a point where you age is a hinderance. 57 is already pushing the age limit in my opinion. It should be 55.

Do you want to take a door at 6 am with a guy who is 60 and got a waiver because 35 years ago he or she was in the armed forces? No thanks.