Veterans Age Waiver Information

[dagwood44]

Hello everybody,
New guy to the forum here. Thanks in advance for any thoughtful input.

Won't bore with a life story, just the essentials. Here it goes:
Applied to FBI at age 35 and some change. Went through the process and eventually got the thin letter after the panel interview/written exercise. I then aged out of applying again.

Lack of careful thought kept me from applying to any number of different agencies at the time. I'll admit right up front, I got my hopes up with the FBI and thought I was a shoe-in because of my qualifications & experience. This is why I neglected to apply for any number of agencies doing the 1811 thing. Guess I learned my lesson. I now see that the FBI gets some outstanding applicants. Moreover, and not to engage in shameless arse-kissing here, but I really never knew (until it was too late) how the quality of alot of 1811 applicants in general was so high.

At any rate, I'm 40 now and know I'd find 1811 work at any number of agencies to be very satisfying.

Now, after all this background rambling, my request to anyone out there is to tell me how the OPM Aug. 26 memo discussing the age waiver for preference-eligible veterans is playing out agency by agency (the wording of the memo doesn't expressly require agencies to adopt the waiver). I have two agencies (DSS & USSS) who are allowing preference-eligible vets to submit applications, and I have applied to these. Some others (USMS, ICE, FBI, DEA) haven't returned phone calls (I don't mean to dime these guys out - I know the recruiter duty is a collateral duty for Special Agents).

Thanks in advance for any input. I've been lurking on this site for awhile, and am really impressed with some of you out there.


Dagwood

[Switchback]

First of all, the fact that you never had phone calls returned from certain agencies is hardly diming them out. More accurately, it is a reflection of you. You need to understand the volume that these guys deal with and it is the PERSISTANT ones that speak to recruiters. They are too busy answering their phones to take the time out to return calls to potential applicants that may ormay not qualify for the current hiring initiatives.

Now, to answer your primary question, you are probably dead in the water. While there is an age waiver, I have never heard of any agencies using them except for people who were given conditional offers prior to 37 years of age, but getting the final offer after they would otherwise be eligible. Unless you have a close friend of the family who is a Senator, you may be SOL. Sorry.

[dagwood44]

Switchback,
Thanks for the input. Regarding your 'reflection of you comment', I think you misunderstood me.

To be clear, understand that I'm not whining about not having my calls not returned. I thought my post made clear how I understood that SA recruiters are SA's first, and that the recruiter duty is something that they try to make time for in their work day.

In the military, and I'm sure the concept translates to the FLEO community, 'collateral duties' were something we frankly tried to avoid like the plague. However, we all got stuck with them at some point. They were mainly time-consuming distractions that tended to be very labor-intensive. Just look at some representative titles: training officer, education NCO, retention NCO, physical training coordinator, etc. Just shoot me now. I got stuck with all of those during my active duty years.

Ultimately, I guess your 'reflection of you' comment is true. I really don't want to be that one guy who repeatedly calls the SA recruiter and ends up annoying the guy to no end. That's why I posted my question here about the age waiver for vets.

That said, I'd appreciate hearing from anybody who has any insight into the recent OPM memo that opened the door for old farts like me.

Regards,
D.

[MyOwnNemesis]

Switchback,
Thanks for the input. Regarding your 'reflection of you comment', I think you misunderstood me.

To be clear, understand that I'm not whining about not having my calls not returned. I thought my post made clear how I understood that SA recruiters are SA's first, and that the recruiter duty is something that they try to make time for in their work day.

In the military, and I'm sure the concept translates to the FLEO community, 'collateral duties' were something we frankly tried to avoid like the plague. However, we all got stuck with them at some point. They were mainly time-consuming distractions that tended to be very labor-intensive. Just look at some representative titles: training officer, education NCO, retention NCO, physical training coordinator, etc. Just shoot me now. I got stuck with all of those during my active duty years.

Ultimately, I guess your 'reflection of you' comment is true. I really don't want to be that one guy who repeatedly calls the SA recruiter and ends up annoying the guy to no end. That's why I posted my question here about the age waiver for vets.

That said, I'd appreciate hearing from anybody who has any insight into the recent OPM memo that opened the door for old farts like me.

Regards,
D.

I hit the big 38 myself and felt myself wallowing in geriatric cat-calls by my friends too. The VEOA can be pretty vague at best. I contacted a Vet Adviser at the DOL, you will have one in your area as it is a regional position. There is another forum that I have used that this point has been discussed in great detail. I do not remember if I am allowed to post their name or not but it is something "like 911jobfourms.com". Some agencies are "waiving" the 37 cutoff and some write around it - but again, you can be disqualified for any reason and truth be told, it is super competitive. I have not given up entirely but I am no longer hopping on a plane to DC to do anymore interviews. Spent a great deal of $$ on that! Many agencies are conducting telephone interviews for the first round now - indicative of the economy, which I find pretty generous. I wish you the best of luck. If the 1811 position is not your "do or nothing" position I would check out some other Ops with agencies that may fit around your skill set. CBP, FPS, DOD. Cheers

[dagwood44]

Thanks nemesis. Sounds like you know what's going on here. I get the good-natured geriatric cat-calls too. Moreover, some old military pals rib me about how my current white collar work is full of 'danger' - like paper cuts, exploding ball-point pens, carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.

And hey, let's not sugar coat things about the VEOA. It had great intent behind it, but it is worthless otherwise. It's gotta be the biggest piece of feel-good legislative turd out there. In terms of federal 'job preference' directives, vets are at the bottom. And strangely, we're the only group who has really done anything to earn preference (as opposed to being simply being born a certain way, with certain body parts, etc.). With apologies to some out there, there is a difference.

Sure, that's a digression from the current topic, but a sore subject nonetheless. I've seen too many vets used up, broken, and simply thrown away like garbage after their military service is over.

Just my opinion.

[1depd]

There are two sources to answer your question. The first is the law. It can be found here:
US CODE: Title 5,3312. Preference eligibles; physical qualifications; waiver

Basically it states that unless there is a requirement for an age limit to perform the job a preference eligible vet must be given the opportunity to obtain the job. They can be treated no differently than a person who is over 37 and has completed time with another agency with 6(c)/12(d) retirement.

The second is the decision in Isabella v. Dept of State. The decision can be found here:
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdo...cation=ACROBAT

In this decision the MSPB ruled that because the Dept of State has people working in positions covered by 6(c)/12(d) over 37 years old, the age limit of 37 is not a requirement to perform the work, but merely a requirement to retire.

No agency can deny a preference eligible vet the opportunity to compete for a 6(c)/12(d) covered position for any reason related to age unless the age requirement is a work requirement. The wording is not in the memo because it is in the MSPB decision and the law

[dagwood44]

1depd, thanks for the information. The Isabella decision and the ensuing OMB memo on August 26 is what I'm interested in. Particularly, I was hoping to hear from some people on the forum who may have heard some inside scoop on how it is being applied (or not) in their agency in the initial application process.

See, the rub is that for alot of 1811 openings, the applicant has to fill out an initial qualifications questionaire. One of the first questions is something to the effect of "are you under 37" (I shortened the question for simplicity). At any rate, there is no place to check off anything like "no, BUT I qualify under the Isabella decision...". It's either yes or no, and if you check off no, you can go no further in the app. process. The effect is that an eligible vet is technically allowed to apply, but the automated process doesn't allow for it (unless you check 'yes' in the initial application, and then hope you get a chance to explain the answer; then, what agency would consider an applicant who provides misleading answers on an application...).

Sorry for beating a dead horse on this topic folks, but there is a law and now a recent MSPB affirming that law allowing eligible vets to apply for 1811 positions. Yet, there's no way to submit an application for most of the agencies. Anybody got any insight outside of the DSS and the USSS on this?

[1depd]

Just about all of the job announcements I've seen have had vet preference eligibles and those with prior 6(c)/12(d) time as exceptions to that question. If they are asking that information during the application process and booting you out if you answer "no" to it, I'd either just answer yes, or contact the listed POC and ask how to apply. If the agency refuses to allow your application, you can always file a complaint with your local Dept of Labor and have it go through the process. USAJOBS tells you how to do this. The agencies can not refuse to take your application. It's against the law. The agencies must also have a valid reason why you were not selected over similarly qualified non-vets. Those reasons must be provided if requested by you or your lawyer. But like you state they are several steps that are subjective.

[MyOwnNemesis]

Thanks nemesis. Sounds like you know what's going on here. I get the good-natured geriatric cat-calls too. Moreover, some old military pals rib me about how my current white collar work is full of 'danger' - like paper cuts, exploding ball-point pens, carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.

And hey, let's not sugar coat things about the VEOA. It had great intent behind it, but it is worthless otherwise. It's gotta be the biggest piece of feel-good legislative turd out there. In terms of federal 'job preference' directives, vets are at the bottom. And strangely, we're the only group who has really done anything to earn preference (as opposed to being simply being born a certain way, with certain body parts, etc.). With apologies to some out there, there is a difference.

Sure, that's a digression from the current topic, but a sore subject nonetheless. I've seen too many vets used up, broken, and simply thrown away like garbage after their military service is over.

Just my opinion.

Brother - it is very easy to become jaded with the system. Filling out all of the questionnaires - a million KSA's and huge answers to quantify your experience....and then - eligible, referred. Nothing. Frustrating at times but the follow-up contacts that I have made to humans in the hiring agencies have proved decent. Many times I have been (told at least) that I was in the top 3-50 applicants out of thousands. With the huge volume of applicants I understand that very specific skill-sets can be chosen from and they can split atoms on an application. I focus on applying like a part time job that may pay off. I am past the point of getting frustrated as I believe that the psychosis I began to feel was hampering with my submissions. I submit with a sense of desire for the position - not hopeless abandon.

Good luck! Cheers.

[dagwood44]

Hey Nem, I hear you about runnin into frustrating brick walls with the app process. How about spending the better part of a day custom writing KSA's for a particular announcement, and not even getting ANY reply? That's happened so many times I can't even count. I'll qualify that by saying they weren't for 1811 positions, so I'm not slammin anybody here who has any part of the hiring process. Regarding the age waiver thing, check out post #8 by 1depd. De, you nailed it man. I talked to someone from DOL today who spit back exactly what was in your post.

It's ashamed I'll have to start a complaint process to even get an application looked at, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Just FYI and kudos: I talked to a USMS recruiter today out of the Baltimore-DC region, and this person was top-notch. He/she (opsec and all) returned a call of mine made a few days ago and spent a good long time explaining the whole process and also gave some personal insight into getting past that "first come first serve" testing policy they have. Moreover, the recruiter took a great deal of pride in a personal policy of absolutely returning every phone call by a prospective applicant. It's a thing of mine, but that kind of professionalism rocks my world (I don't see it in my current line of work).

[aegis319]

Very new to this forum and I can't speak for anyone else but I am a vet, 39 going on 40, who's very much in the running for a slot in my Agency's IG--final decision on who gets it is supposed to be this week.

From what I gather any Agency can write a general justification for not waiving the age but they have to do it across the board as a policy. It has something to do with the 1811 positions and strenuous physical requirements. FBI and NCIS are not waiving the age so you are out of luck there.

Honestly, I hadn't really considered applying for a position until one of the 1811's I was working with on some things suggested it. After the suggestion was made it just seemed to be a natural fit. It helped that I was also able to talk with an old shipmate of mine who's working as one too. But and I don't want to discourage you...I think if I were just applying on my own to any 1811 position it would be a much much harder.

One thing to keep in mind is that although the age has been waived the HR person told me that closer to 40 is no problem. 45 and over is a bit problematic because they aren't sure how the 20 yr retirement requirement for LEOs willl play out. I think this will be fleshed out as they run into newer scenarios..the MSPB decisions guiding this change are relatively new.

At any rate...good luck.

[1depd]

From what I gather any Agency can write a general justification for not waiving the age but they have to do it across the board as a policy. It has something to do with the 1811 positions and strenuous physical requirements. FBI and NCIS are not waiving the age so you are out of luck there....

One thing to keep in mind is that although the age has been waived the HR person told me that closer to 40 is no problem. 45 and over is a bit problematic because they aren't sure how the 20 yr retirement requirement for LEOs willl play out. I think this will be fleshed out as they run into newer scenarios..the MSPB decisions guiding this change are relatively new.

At any rate...good luck.

The agency can refuse to accept the federal law, but they must provide a valid reason why they will not hire a person with veterans preference who is over 36 years old. The MSPB gave an indication how it would rule on future cases, when they specifically pointed out that since the DSS had agents who were over 36 years old the requirement to be under 37 was nothing more than a retirement requirement not a job requirement. What this means is that an agency can not have anybody doing the job who is over 36 years old, because if there were people working in the position who were over 36 years old it can't by definition be a requirement of the job. It would be impossible to limit the work force to those people as the mandatory retirement age would have to be 36. If you subtract 25 (minimum work requirement for retirement) from that you get 11 years old. That is far too young to be working, let alone working in LE.

There is a top limit to the hiring age and it is 60 years old. There are no waivers available for anybody to work in a 6(c)/12(d) position past their 60th birthday and in fact they are prohibited by law. If at any time prior to a persons 60th birthday they apply they must be given the opportunity to complete the process. If the person ages out prior to being hired then, obviously, they can be denied based on being 60 years old. The MSPB ruled that retirement can not be taken into consideration when a vet is applying for a job. So even if the vet is 50 years old they must be given the opportunity to complete the process. The law does limit the age to 60 years old, but also does stipulate that a person can serve until they have served enough time to qualify for retirement. I doubt, when it finally does come up, that the MSPB will exempt the vet from the maximum age in service of 60 years old.

I have found a few agencies that restrict the age to 36 and even have it in their announcements that the law does not apply to them. I do not think those policies will withstand scrutiny when someone finally challenges them.

[Ftdtetr]

Simple question does time in Iraq/ Afganistan the past couple of years or recently qualify you for the vets preference so you can get the waiver?

[Kimble]

Simple question does time in Iraq/ Afganistan the past couple of years or recently qualify you for the vets preference so you can get the waiver?

Were you there on active duty with a branch of the military, or by some other means?

[Joeyd6]

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. 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 the cost of defending lawsuits vs just lettig foks apply and weeding them out. The USSS also 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 thus age is essential. One of many arguments and studies being piled up. This an an arguement DSS never even made but one most agencies will use if sued.

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.

If you are over 37 and want to work for somebody besides the USSS, US DHS-CBP, US DHS-BP, hire a lawyer and sue like Isabella. By the time the federal agency is done appealing (keep in mind they employ lawyers who get paid and come to work every day so it does cost or strain an agency to fight anything in court), see how yoru finances look and if you now meet the requirments to get a TS clearnace. You probably won't because you will be broke, but if aren't, see if you can pass the medical standards at your age, and then make it through FLETC.




government is done appealing