U.S. Marshals Service Hiring

[MikeG]

Let me say this again, 37 is the cut-off. Waivers are extremely rare. As I already said, I have only seen a few and, IN EVERY INSTANCE, it was due to the government screwing up the hiring process, causing the person to miss the cut-off.

Buying back military time is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE. It has nothing to do with hiring. However, it is ALL ABOUT YOUR RETIREMENT ANNUITY. Buying back your federal time comes into play AFTER YOU ARE HIRED. IT HAS NO BEARING ON HIRING AGE.

Not diagreeing with you. I think it's theory and practice like in your sig - obviously in practice it never happens. I've never never seen (and I don't claim to have seen them all) an 1811 position advertised without the 37 y/o age cutoff and then followed by the "waiver" clause for eligible veterans and the interpretation that the 37 y/o cutoff was pension related.

Not to derail the thread but I'll see if I can dig up the court decision that dealt with it and the interpretation. I personally know of no one who has received the waiver, so I know even less people than you (except maybe the guy who sued and won - and I don't know what agency that was).

[Switchback]

Not diagreeing with you. I think it's theory and practice like in your sig - obviously in practice it never happens. I've never never seen (and I don't claim to have seen them all) an 1811 position advertised without the 37 y/o age cutoff and then followed by the "waiver" clause for eligible veterans and the interpretation that the 37 y/o cutoff was pension related.

Not to derail the thread but I'll see if I can dig up the court decision that dealt with it and the interpretation. I personally know of no one who has received the waiver, so I know even less people than you (except maybe the guy who sued and won - and I don't know what agency that was).

It'sfunny you say that. One of the instances that I reference was for ICE (now HSI). I really don't care what you dig up. I am telling you, THIS IS HOW IT IS. You telling people otherwise is only instilling false hope.

[ChesCopPodz]

While I'd love to work for the Marshals Service, I reckon that ship has sailed unless something drastic happens with my current department.

The wife really likes where we live, and we're pretty well settled in.

[Joeyd6]

It'sfunny you say that. One of the instances that I reference was for ICE (now HSI). I really don't care what you dig up. I am telling you, THIS IS HOW IT IS. You telling people otherwise is only instilling false hope.

I agree Switch!

MikeG....there has been no COURT decision......it was a Merit Systems Protection Board decision (Robert P. Isabella) and then a memo from the Office of Personnel Management to urge other agencies to waive the 37 age limit for veterans. Some have, some have not. Nobody has sucessfully litigated such in a real court as far as a conferene I went to in October of 2011.
Here: http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdo...cation=ACROBAT

Additionally, the ruling allows those over the age to merely apply and be processed and not be DQ'd because of being over the age limit when they had active duty service. NOWHERE does it say they will nto be DQ'd for other reasons.

I know for a fact there are several folks whocome back, get in with the Vet organizatiosn and hear about getting VA comp and benefits. Recently, with passing of the rule at the VA "say you have PTSD and we give you a monthly compensation check," many of these folks coming back are indeed jumping on the band wagon and playing the game for the check! Then they go for federal employment and are DQ'd for medical reasons they used at the VA to get comp or psych reasons. When the realize they can't get a job in law enforcement with their injury, they come clean and try to have it reversed/cleared so they can get the job. What they admit to is fraud..... I personally know of over three dozen cases like this. Gov't agencies are sharing info...just like the commercial pilots who tell the FAA they have no medical injuries and then collect SSI disability or VA comp for injuries.

[SemperIntel]

I'm 37, retiring from the Corps this summer, and degree in hand. Intelligence and security background. I will be your extremely rare waiver, Switchback ;)

Top

[Joeyd6]

I'm 37, retiring from the Corps this summer, and degree in hand. Intelligence and security background. I will be your extremely rare waiver, Switchback ;)

Top

You first have to hope they allow the waiver to apply...
Then you have to be one of the first 5,000 to sign-up
Then you have to actually show up on the day of the exam
Then you have to score high enough
Then you have to pass a interview
Then you have to pass a medical exam
Then you have to pass a psychological
Then you have to pass a Pt test
Then the G needs to have money to hire
Then FLECT needs to have spots open
Then the USMS needs to get to where ever you fall on the list.

Lost of steps.....long time till anything even happens....years likely! There is a fine line between being cocky/arrogant and confident/hopeful.

People forget those doing the hiring have common sense. Its a physical job and they can pick you with 17 years left to work and the posisbility of an injury that takes forever to heal...or a veteran who is 25 and can give them 32 years.

[Switchback]

I'm 37, retiring from the Corps this summer, and degree in hand. Intelligence and security background. I will be your extremely rare waiver, Switchback ;)

Top

Good luck. However, if I were a betting man, I'd say you had better have a back-up plan.

Your background really doesn't matter (intel & security) and your degree could be a PhD. It doesn't matter. If you are not 37 when the offer comes out, you are going to be SOL. Rather than the anomaly that you consider yourself, your situation is actually fairly common. Sadly, it is not the government's fault. As I already said, EVERY WAIVER WITH WHICH I AM FAMILIAR was extended because of a mistake by the government.

Like I said, good luck... but don't hold your breath.

[MikeG]

I agree Switch!

MikeG....there has been no COURT decision......it was a Merit Systems Protection Board decision (Robert P. Isabella) and then a memo from the Office of Personnel Management to urge other agencies to waive the 37 age limit for veterans. Some have, some have not. Nobody has sucessfully litigated such in a real court as far as a conferene I went to in October of 2011.
Here: http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdo...cation=ACROBAT

So is OPM "urge" the reason for the boiler plate "waiver?" Since that decision I don't think I've seen a position advertised without a veterans preference age waiver (it's practically boiler plate on any job anoouncement regardless of the actual practice). I knew the positions were competitive so a 25 year old might have physical advantage but I didn't realize the age waiver was discretionary and I stand corrected. I thought once the candidate could show "20 years by 57" they were just as age qualified as anyone else because of the results of an age discrimination lawsuit (that I can't seem to find). My mistake.

It made sense to me waive it as if someone could contribute 20 years to the retirement plan by 57, they wouldn't be a burden on the system. It would be hard to argue that a 40 year old vet couldn't physically perform a job that a 55 year old is currently doing (at least for 2 more years). I can see them prevailing on the retirement requirement (i.e. if you can't contribute 20 years to the system by the age of 57, you are a burden on the retirement system since an 1811 can retire on a full pension at age 57 regardless). I thought that's what the waiver process was about.

And to be clear, I am not giving anyone hope they can obtain a waiver. I know of no one that has obtained one and the experience of the people doing the hiring is obviously infinitely more valuable than what my understanding of the rule is. Especially since I can't find hte court case I was sure I read somewhere and Joey's confirmation that I imagined it.

[Fury]

I may just have to pull the trigger on this one and give it a shot. I have 4 years in LE and a BA degree, so I don't really bring much to the table that others don't, but who knows until I try!

[Lunch]

Not diagreeing with you. I think it's theory and practice like in your sig - obviously in practice it never happens. I've never never seen (and I don't claim to have seen them all) an 1811 position advertised without the 37 y/o age cutoff and then followed by the "waiver" clause for eligible veterans and the interpretation that the 37 y/o cutoff was pension related.

Not to derail the thread but I'll see if I can dig up the court decision that dealt with it and the interpretation. I personally know of no one who has received the waiver, so I know even less people than you (except maybe the guy who sued and won - and I don't know what agency that was).

First time posting here. I plan on applying for this position also with 7 years military, 2 years LE and 4+ years of college (26 Y/O).. here is to hoping (been trying for this second career since 2007).
But to reply to this post, my good friend just left to Quantico on Sunday with an age waiver, she had 7 years military and while that isn't USMS it is still a federal agency. She is 39 and acquired a waiver, so don't give up hope? Who knows though. Thanks in advance to the USMS folks who are answering questions.

-Nick

[Joeyd6]

So is OPM "urge" the reason for the boiler plate "waiver?"

Yes!

Since that decision I don't think I've seen a position advertised without a veterans preference age waiver (it's practically boiler plate on any job anoouncement regardless of the actual practice).

You haven't looked hard enough. Many have come out without it.....three from my agency. And the language used is the wording exactly from the OPM memo. In addition, the decison and OPM memo both clearly state the following, allowing each agency to decide if they WILL offer not...and does not mandate they MUST offer it:

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. 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.

I knew the positions were competitive so a 25 year old might have physical advantage but I didn't realize the age waiver was discretionary and I stand corrected. I thought once the candidate could show "20 years by 57" they were just as age qualified as anyone else because of the results of an age discrimination lawsuit (that I can't seem to find). My mistake.

The 1811 and 20 years has nothing to do with age discrimination. That has been litigated and based on the 20 year retirement and physical requirements of the job, the courts have ruled the system in place in acceptable. If it was "age discrimination" anyone without military experience would be "waivable."

The issue in teh MSPB case was that the agency stopped processing him and DQ'd him on a point (over age cut-off) when in fact he had not yet met such.

It made sense to me waive it as if someone could contribute 20 years to the retirement plan by 57, they wouldn't be a burden on the system. It would be hard to argue that a 40 year old vet couldn't physically perform a job that a 55 year old is currently doing (at least for 2 more years). I can see them prevailing on the retirement requirement (i.e. if you can't contribute 20 years to the system by the age of 57, you are a burden on the retirement system since an 1811 can retire on a full pension at age 57 regardless). I thought that's what the waiver process was about.

Nope...the waiver just means they agency does not have to DQ you based on age if you have prior military time. And if they waive you....you have to do 20 years to get the LEO retirement. So a guy at 40 can't retire till 60.

Especially since I can't find hte court case I was sure I read somewhere and Joey's confirmation that I imagined it.

You did NOT imagine anything. The MSPB decision, which was released, looks very much and is written just like a court decision. Only difference is it is not a law or legal decsion as much as the governmenst civil service system reviewing and making an opinion on a certain set of facts in one case. As a result of this decision, OPM took their own interpretation and issued a memo to all agencies.

But to reply to this post, my good friend just left to Quantico on Sunday with an age waiver, she had 7 years military and while that isn't USMS it is still a federal agency.

You friend was "waived" by one of the top two agencies who have a major retention prolem in the fed LEO world....FBI or DEA. They are well below operational levels with agents and can't retain them. It should be a HUGE clue! Three agencies where agents are having issues with management and morale are the two in Quantico and the ATF right now.

Additionally, anyone given a waiver:
1) MUST do 20 years to get the LEO retirement (no partials allowed...you leave early you get the civilian retirement package) and
2) Are STUCK at that agency for life, unless the agency they want to go to also agrees to the waiver.

[MikeG]

You did NOT imagine anything. The MSPB decision, which was released, looks very much and is written just like a court decision. Only difference is it is not a law or legal decsion as much as the governmenst civil service system reviewing and making an opinion on a certain set of facts in one case. As a result of this decision, OPM took their own interpretation and issued a memo to all agencies.



Additionally, anyone given a waiver:
1) MUST do 20 years to get the LEO retirement (no partials allowed...you leave early you get the civilian retirement package) and
2) Are STUCK at that agency for life, unless the agency they want to go to also agrees to the waiver.

This is where I imagined it (maybe two separate cases?). The REAL waiver that you and switch talk about actually waive the maximum 57 y/o retirement age, too. My imaginary one was I thought there was a case where someone was eligible to "buy in" to the Fed LEO annuity due to service elsewhere. In that case, the agency didn't need to waive the 57 y/o retirement age and since the whole "in by 37" was because they wanted "out by 57" with 20 years of service. I am getting old and my ability to remember things is starting to go but I was completely wrong on this. I didn't even realize they pushed out the 57 y/o date.

As for the age evaluation - do you do it from the standpoint of a "37 year old" or a "57 year old"? meaning, your agency might have a lot of 45-50 y/o 1811's that do the job just fine. A new 40 y/o might actually be the youngest, most physically capable person on the squad yet the problem is that he's going to 60 on the squad someday. Do you evaluate the age qualifications of the position based on whether a 40 y/o can do it or whether he'll be able to do it past 57? Or is really just an evaluation of "our current age/position profile and cutoffs produce a workforce capable of doing the job and our injury/retirement/retention data shows this"?

Just looking from the outside, IMO not as an attorney or LEO, if the agencies that are waiving the age limit are the ones with retention problems, it seems they are standing the OPM memo on it's head. "All our people are leaving the agency too young, so we need to hire older people." Someone, somewhere is going to make the argument that the agencies with retention problems is partly due to the physical demands of the job (i.e. older people want out) but they are the ones waiving the age requirements. Also, if they ever solve their retention problem, it's going to be hard to explain why they want the age waiver rescinded for the same positions. It seems, once an agency goes down that path, it seems like it's forever.

Wait 'til the accountants realize that the 20 year service annuity they have to purchase for a 60 y/o age/waived veteran is a lot cheaper than the one for a 20 year service 43 year old (or 57 year old for that matter). New OPM memo after austerity measures: "This 1811 position is limited to age-waivable veterans that are older than 37. Must put in 20 at agency to get retirement. No annuities will be purchased for those younger than 60 at retirement.")

[ShootNMove]

has anyone received a call from DM within the past few days?

I did. Had a chance to ask DM about the situation for CSCEPs. Currently there are still about 100 CSCEP's. 30 were contacted, only 5 were no longer eligible. She explained that there would be more information sent out soon. She also said that they were not anticipating to hire anymore CSCEP's this year. But she also told me that i was in the next group, which i assume means the next 30. The list is based on who has been eligible the longest. Im guessing we'll be waiting another year to start if things turn out well, but she also made note that she wasnt sure what would happen with the CSCEP program when Pathways replaces it. I would hope that they would merge us into that program or just give us our original offers. I sounds really iffy but she did ask me to please contact her if I chose to graduate so that they could take me off the list, but I assured her that I would be delaying as much as possible. So there's really some mixed hope within that info that I got, not sure if you got anything different but this is what I got.

While I wait I figured I would obtain an LEO certificate and apply to a few places as a recruit. Instead of waiting around for a year I could gain some training, and if anything fell through with the Marshal's I would have a backup plan ready. But if I get a job offer as a recruit I may just take it instead of the CSCEP. Hard to beat full benefits and starting salary of $100,000 as a police officer when the Marshals come no where near that...

[manstown17]

I'm 37, retiring from the Corps this summer, and degree in hand. Intelligence and security background. I will be your extremely rare waiver, Switchback ;)

Top

I'm not sure why anyone would say not to apply. Switchback and Joey......I will bet a months pay that we'll grant a few waivers this go around. Look one the information on our website and it even says that on there. The reason it hasn't been done before is because HQ/HR didn't have a clue about it. I am guaranteeing they will grant waivers this go around. Buddy of mine was part of getting vacancy ready and I can tell you that vets are still a good pick for the Marshals. This vacancy is just going to broaden the scope of applicants.

Semper......apply. Anyone else that meets the waiver requirements......apply. Waivers will be granted to vets. How many....I don't know. But a few will get them. You will only be SOL if you aren't a vet or a FED where you stopped the clock.

[Switchback]

I'm not sure why anyone would say not to apply. Switchback and Joey......I will bet a months pay that we'll grant a few waivers this go around. Look one the information on our website and it even says that on there. The reason it hasn't been done before is because HQ/HR didn't have a clue about it. I am guaranteeing they will grant waivers this go around. Buddy of mine was part of getting vacancy ready and I can tell you that vets are still a good pick for the Marshals. This vacancy is just going to broaden the scope of applicants.

Semper......apply. Anyone else that meets the waiver requirements......apply. Waivers will be granted to vets. How many....I don't know. But a few will get them. You will only be SOL if you aren't a vet or a FED where you stopped the clock.

Get verified before you say "we". You will be banned otherwise.

Now, I am basing my comments on extensive experience in the agency. Maybe you know better than me, IDK. I wouldn't be sure, based on your single, unverifiable post.

I think it is ignorant to go around giving people false hope. Also, if you look at my posts, I say go ahead and apply. Make the agency reject you. However, they should have realistic expectations.