CBPO, just got this letter......

[audi0xpl0de]

I think that really depends on what your interests and goals are. They are very different positions.

[audi0xpl0de]

I know this is a little off-topic so if you want to pm me if you have details I'd appreciate it. I was wondering what the hiring procedure is for the management and program analyst positions with CBP? How often are these positions filled? I just got a NOR with a 97 rating for the grade 11, so it's definitely something I'd consider.

[1depd]

incorrect. here is a statement from our gs-14 mission specialist in charge of retirement issues:

"The enhanced retirement system for CBP Officers is not considered 6c/12d, or law enforcement coverage. It is, however, on par with the law enforcement coverage of 6c/12d for retirement purposes."

if the i.e.a.'s begin jumping ship for our coverage, they can bring their coverage time with them, however, if they want to jump again to another fleo, the cbp time will NOT go with them.

Well I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I read the law when it was passed and the union's position seems to agree with what I read. Of course you could always agree with the company about how a benefit for the officers is going to be implemented.

As one union representative explained, the union and the "company" each have their own interpretations of the law and there are going to be several lawsuits about the retirement coverage until the specifics are hammered out. So disagreements, even between officers, are not unexpected.

[Firebug]

Well I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I read the law when it was passed and the union's position seems to agree with what I read. Of course you could always agree with the company about how a benefit for the officers is going to be implemented.

As one union representative explained, the union and the "company" each have their own interpretations of the law and there are going to be several lawsuits about the retirement coverage until the specifics are hammered out. So disagreements, even between officers, are not unexpected.

The Union's understanding is that it does stop your coverage clock. If you read the law CBPO's are added to the end as well as US Capital police etc. The difference is CBPO's get to have half of thier overtime allowence added into the formula for thier high three which makes it better than the standard 1811's retirement. Please remember this is not something that Management GAVE CBPO's the union fought for and won this benifet. The wording of the law was written by the union for the congressmen that introduced the bill. It was written carefully so as to not lose COPRA for CBPO's. That means we keep getting paid double time for overtime and not leap or auo and as already stated you get to use half of your overtime towards your high three. If you are over 37 or older on July 6 2008 you will not be able to transfer to a covered postition because you are already over the mandatory retirement age and it is only waived in the CBPO postition.

The following seems to support the above. This is out of the FAQ on the CBP.net which is the CBP employees website.:

Q: What happens to my coverage if I am hired as a Border Patrol Agent or into another law enforcement position?
A: If you are hired as a Border Patrol Agent or into another law enforcement position, your CBPO coverage stops and you are no longer covered by the CBPO provision. However, you may combine both the CBPO service on or after July 6, 2008, and your law enforcement service to qualify for special category retirement at age 50 with 20 years of special category service or (under FERS only) at any age with 25 years of special category service.

Other service that may be combined toward special category retirement includes service as a firefighter or nuclear materials courier, and, under FERS only, as a member of the Capitol Police or Supreme Court Police.






Q: What happens if I move from a Border Patrol Agent position or other law enforcement position to a CBPO position after 07/06/08?
A: If you move from a Border Patrol Agent or other law enforcement position to a CBPO position after July 6, 2008, you may combine your law enforcement and CBPO service to qualify for the special retirement. However, you must meet the same retirement eligibility as a special category employee (i.e. age 50 with 20 years of covered service or, under FERS only, at any age with 25 years of special category service.)





Q: If someone completes the 3 consecutive years of service in a primary position, can they move into any covered LEO position and return to a secondary position within CBP and still be covered?
A: The employee can move to a Federal Law Enforcement position (5 USC 8336(c) or 5USC 8412(d) and not have a break in coverage. However, the employee cannot move to local law enforcement and keep the Enhanced CBPO retirement coverage.






FB

[hey_scooter]

After reading through the jargon and the thread I'm confused; is this affecting both CBP Officer AND Agent positions? The FAQ posted seems to want to refer to the Agent position, but the letter only went out to prospective CBPO's... Any extra clarity would be greatly appreciated.

[Merlin]

After reading through the jargon and the thread I'm confused; is this affecting both CBP Officer AND Agent positions? The FAQ posted seems to want to refer to the Agent position, but the letter only went out to prospective CBPO's... Any extra clarity would be greatly appreciated.

This only affect CBPO's. The 'agent' tie-in is only for those agents looking to cross over into CBPO positions or CBPO's looking to crossover into agent positions.

[chewy]

Ya, CBP doesn't have agents anyway, only BP Agents and Air & Marine Agents but they are all crap and we don't like to admit to being related to them :D :p

[rix031]

although i can care less now that i am leaving cbp, it will be interesting to see the actual truth whether it is 12(d) or not, i find it difficult to understand how or why 2 union stewards, all my supes (including 2 chiefs) and a gs-14 mission specialist all state it isnt 12(d). like i said earlier, she came around to all the ports in the field offices and gave a new retirement coverage seminar, so its not like she is just passing on her interpretation or opinion. she was specifically trained to give these seminars.

at any rate, confusion in cbp is normal and it is just another reason i am jumping ship.

[1depd]

Decide for yourself. Here is a copy of a portion the law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

(b) Amendments Relating to the Federal Employees' Retirement System-

(1) DEFINITIONS- Section 8401 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (34), by striking `and' at the end;

(B) in paragraph (35), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(36) the term `customs and border protection officer' means an employee in the Department of Homeland Security (A) who holds a position within the GS-1895 job series (determined applying the criteria in effect as of September 1, 2007) or any successor position, and (B) whose duties include activities relating to the arrival and departure of persons, conveyances, and merchandise at ports of entry, including any such employee who is transferred directly to a supervisory or administrative position in the Department of Homeland Security after performing such duties (as described in subparagraph (B)) in 1 or more positions (as described in subparagraph (A)) for at least 3 years.'.

(2) IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT - Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 8412(d) of title 5, United States Code, are amended by striking `or nuclear materials courier,' and inserting `nuclear materials courier, or customs and border protection officer,'.

(3) COMPUTATION OF BASIC ANNUITY- Section 8415(h)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking `or air traffic controller.' and inserting `air traffic controller, or customs and border protection officer'.

(4) DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY- The table contained in section 8422(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:


The full law can be found at http://www.thomas.gov/ and searching for Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 it is item 35. Have fun searching. It is a very large law.

[UMD]

just got a letter in the mail from CBP saying that i successfully passed the written test and have been tentaively selected for the postion of CBPO "however we are unable to continue processing your selection at this time. Based upon a review of responses you provided to the questions in the online application and your certifiation that all of your repsonses are true, correct, complete, and made in good faith, we have made a preliminary determination that you do not meet the suitability standards for employment with CBP at this time. This determination was based on issues related to the suitability factor(s) specified below: Illegal drug use/involvement, criminal conduct, and mission critical conduct."

Are you kidding me?? I looked up my application and I answered the last time I used illegal drugs was between 13-24 months ago (Its been about 18 months since I last used drugs) I answered truthfully figuring I might have to take a poly and would most certainly be asked about drug use. Honestly though, how can smoking a handful of times a year and a half ago disqualify me from the process?? I know that I'm not the only candidate or current employee that has ever used before so I'm rather shocked. Was honestly the worst policy in this case?? I have never been arrested, graduated with a GPA > 3.0, and was just a stupid college kid that made a mistake. Does that warrant the termination of my application completely?

[chewy]

just got a letter in the mail from CBP saying that i successfully passed the written test and have been tentaively selected for the postion of CBPO "however we are unable to continue processing your selection at this time. Based upon a review of responses you provided to the questions in the online application and your certifiation that all of your repsonses are true, correct, complete, and made in good faith, we have made a preliminary determination that you do not meet the suitability standards for employment with CBP at this time. This determination was based on issues related to the suitability factor(s) specified below: Illegal drug use/involvement, criminal conduct, and mission critical conduct."

Are you kidding me?? I looked up my application and I answered the last time I used illegal drugs was between 13-24 months ago (Its been about 18 months since I last used drugs) I answered truthfully figuring I might have to take a poly and would most certainly be asked about drug use.

ummmmmm, SERIOUSLY? You seriously thought that because you haven't used drugs in 13 months you would be eligible??? Maybe if your last (and only) time you used drugs was 13 YEARS ago then MAYBE you'd be considered. By the fact that you said "last used" that implies you've done more than once and that in and of it's self is enough to disqualify you from most all LE jobs.

Honestly though, how can smoking a handful of times a year and a half ago disqualify me from the process?? I know that I'm not the only candidate or current employee that has ever used before so I'm rather shocked. Was honestly the worst policy in this case?? I have never been arrested, graduated with a GPA > 3.0, and was just a stupid college kid that made a mistake. Does that warrant the termination of my application completely?

OK... again, SERIOUSLY?

smoking a "handful" of times can disqualify you because most LE jobs DON'T ALLOW DRUG USERS TO HIRE ON. Imagine that. If you have such poor judgment that you're going to smoke dope then how can they trust you with the power and authority to stop drug smugglers??? You aren't the only candidate or employee that has ever used but probably less than 1% of all our Officers have ever even tried drugs let alone used any amount and especially not within a year or 2 of hiring. And for the record:

1) repeated use of narcotics is not "a mistake" it's just stupidity. If this was the 60's I'd say MAYBE but come on, it's the frigging 21st century and REALLY expect us to believe that you didn't know that drugs are illegal, retarded, harmful and would hinder or hurt your hiring process??? If you seriously thought that then they defiantly did the right thing by not allowing you into our ranks.

2) YES



I'm not sure why it still amazes me that idiots who do drugs are dumb founded when they don't get hired as a cop BECAUSE of their drug use! :confused::rolleyes:

[Kimble]

Was honestly the worst policy in this case??

Right now you didn't get hired. Had you lied, during your background investigation (where they go out and talk to friends, neighbors, teachers, bosses/coworkers, fellow students and peers you liked or didn't like, and as many other people as they can find) they would have found this out pretty easily. You would then have been fired, and possibly prosecuted for 18 USC 1001 (False Official Statements). Yeah, I'd say honest is the best policy. If you don't know that already, you have no integrity and have no business working in law enforcement ever.

I have never been arrested, graduated with a GPA > 3.0, and was just a stupid college kid that made a mistake.

Smoking pot isn't a mistake. Not cleaning your dress black socks to go with your business suite, and having to wear white socks, is a mistake. What you did was a conscious decision, and now you're having to face the consequences.

Does that warrant the termination of my application completely?

As chewy already stated, yes it does.

[Barbrady]

So they are still on the regular GS pay scale? Not the LEO pay scale?

[chewy]

So they are still on the regular GS pay scale? Not the LEO pay scale?

Whats the LEO pay scale?

Yes, GS...

[Sierra]

Whats the LEO pay scale?

Yes, GS...

He may be referring to the GS and GL schedules. ICE uses the GL scale:

http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/