Why are O4 and above disqualified from veteran’s preferences?

MAJ Javier Rivera — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:38:54 -0400

As my time for retirement gets closer (1.5 to 2 yrs.) I’m looking into all employments options and found out that 5 USC 2108 explicitly states that only retired members below the rank of major qualify. Perhaps a well versed in legal matter Rally Point member can enlighten me with regards to this provision’s background.

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Sep 13 at 2015 10:40 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:40:41 -0400

Are you saying MAJ and below qualify for veterans preference?

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Sep 13 at 2015 10:40 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:40:49 -0400

MAJ Javier Rivera I don't know, never heard of it, my speculation is that of education and experience, which is not fair.

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Sep 13 at 2015 10:45 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:45:25 -0400

Yep, finally found it in there. Wow, didn't know that. Guess you better retire before you get promoted sir :)

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Sep 13 at 2015 10:53 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:53:05 -0400

My assumption would be that based on the positions Officers have held, there is the real potential for unfair hiring practices to happen....."insider hiring" for lack of a better analogy. You could work yourself into a position with a niche and be hired to fill that very position at retirement, with the only change is going from wearing the uniform to wearing a suit & tie. I have seen that on both sides of the fence (enlisted and officer) and it just seems wrong to me.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2015 11:23 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:23:39 -0400

If I’m not mistaken your still eligible, you just don’t get the added points for veterans preference. You can still apply and could quite likely still get the position without the veteran’s preference. I do believe they still do the interviews and choose the best suited applicant or am I mistaken on this? I’m actually not sure it hurts you all that much. Like CSM Michael J. Uhlig stated lots of insider hiring does occur. SM works at a location, retires and then comes back a short time later as a Civilian. When I was 1SG I had a GS employee who was still on my books, as a MAJ, on Terminal leave for over a month after starting as a civilian. You may not get preference but you still have a good shot at getting picked up for a Government Job.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Sep 13 at 2015 11:42 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:42:34 -0400

That must be only for active duty officers. I received a 5-point Veterans preference when I applied for my current GS position. I had to submit my last DD214 so my rank was all over that. Also, some of that may have been due to deployments as well.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 6:27 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:27:33 -0400

MAJ Javier Rivera, thanks for sharing Sir. I didn't know this.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Sep 14 at 2015 8:34 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:34:42 -0400

I can't answer the question, other than to say they must have assumed Field Grades and above wouldn't need a leg up.

However, this is the first that I've heard that they are excluded from Veteran's preferences. Very good info to share.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Sep 14 at 2015 8:59 AM

CMSgt James Nolan — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:59:57 -0400

MAJ Javier Rivera My best guess would be that the concept of the Veteran's Preference points that would be assigned during testing to a candidate is to help level the playing field for the enlisted personnel to compete against college kids. By the time one is a Field Grade Officer, that there is no need to provide that edge against a college grad, because you have it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 9:35 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:35:19 -0400

If true, then I have mixed feelings...On the one hand, I do feel there is an assumed level of "independent means" suggested by more senior rank; the "average" O-4 likely has a post-graduate degree, some financial assets, and the skills to "self-market" successfully with minimal assistance from the Service. However, (and I should know) not every single O-4 comes "standard" with an MBA, a significant "nest egg", and/or friends in the defense industry. I would say, without fear of sounding "elitist", that the private sector doesn't truly understand the experience or skill sets of the military sufficiently to determine the relative differences between a 30 year old former officer and a civilian who may have gone from bachelor to graduate programs concurrently, with a few years of "internship" or "entry level" employment in between. At the end of the day, I do feel there are some employers/industries who have their own policies that tend to respect service members' experience and weigh it in against civil competitors...sometimes that works in your favor, sometimes not.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 9:36 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:36:38 -0400

I think the key wording in the preference is "retired". I am not fully sure on the reasoning, but I assume, at the risk of sounding like the first half of that word, that it has something to do with the retirement pay and benefits of those who retire at O4 or above.

From 5 USC 2108
"(4) except for the purposes of chapters 43 and 75 of this title, “preference eligible” does not include a retired member of the armed forces unless—
(A) the individual is a disabled veteran; or
(B) the individual retired below the rank of major or its equivalent; and
(5) “retired member of the armed forces” means a member or former member of the armed forces who is entitled, under statute, to retired, retirement, or retainer pay on account of service as a member. "

So, if you retire at O4 or above and are a disabled veteran, you should still qualify for preference.

But I question if anyone, especially DoD Civilians, actually read the law. I have a hard enough time explaining the concept "GS Level equivalent" in their postings to some people.

Response by MAJ Anthony Henderson made Sep 14 at 2015 10:35 AM

MAJ Anthony Henderson — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:35:02 -0400

I'm never heard of this one but I did receive the 5 points. But there are more than one level of veteran's preference. There is the 5 points that almost everyone gets. Then there is the 10 points for disability and then there is the 30 points for disability. The best thing is to read the job announcements and make sure your qualification best fit it and apply. Remember for government resume the more details the better. they are looking for people that have actually done the duties in the announcement but they are also will to training you too.

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 14 at 2015 10:35 AM

SGT David T. — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:35:30 -0400

The simple answer is Congress made it that way. However you are only looking at the basic veterans' preference which does not give a large advantage to a vet. This only gives you 5 additional points when competing for a job that is open to ALL CITIZENS. There are two other hiring authorities that can use for non-disabled veterans: VRA and VEOA. VRA allows for non-competitive appointment for any grade up to GS-11. Honestly, I have never seen this authority used because unless the hiring manager knows the person the chances that they would take a risk on someone like that is very slim. VEOA is more commonly used and probably your best chance at getting in the door. Essentially that authority allows for a veteran to apply to announcements that are for STATUS CANDIDATES in which case veterans' preference doesn't apply anyway. All status candidates (with a few exceptions) are equal in terms of how they are treated and have to compete for jobs. The burden is then on you to show how your experience is equivalent to specialized experience that they are asking for in the announcement. Luckily veterans do have an advantage over their civilian counterparts in this area because the Army (I can't speak for the other services) push high degrees of responsibility to much lower levels. A good example is my boss has less people and is responsible for less than I was as a Sergeant in the Army and she is a GS-15 equivalent. The key is to articulate in the resume that whatever it was that you did to meet the specialized experience was equivalent to the level they are asking for. For example, if the announcement says The definition of specialized experience is experience in supervising small teams equivalent to the next lower grade GS-11, then you would say Supervised small teams of XX amount of people at or exceeding the GS-11 level. You have to say this overtly because the HR folks may not have been in the Army and may not understand how much responsibility a Major has. Also, translating your experiences into civilian terms will also make it easier for them to figure out that you meet the qualifications and don't summarily dismiss your application as being unqualified. Here is a link for the veterans' hiring authorities that outlines the criteria: http://www.fedshirevets.gov/job/shav/index.aspx

Feds Hire Vets - Special Hiring Authorities for Veterans

Special Hiring Authorities for Veterans are just that…designed for veterans. Knowing about these authorities and identifying your eligibility will enhance your job search. These special authorities represent a few of many appointing authorities that agencies can use entirely at their discretion. Veterans are not entitled to appointment under any of these authorities. Check the vacancy announcements, which should clearly state "Who May Apply."...

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Sep 14 at 2015 12:16 PM

MAJ Javier Rivera — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:16:29 -0400

I have receive a lot of great feedback with regards to my question! As I continued researching I found this opinion from the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) in which the appellant goes against the Dept. of State with regards to a maximum age requirement. BLUF: an agency can waive the maximum age for veterans of the person can execute de jobs description. http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=280837&version=281168&application=ACROBAT

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 1:02 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:02:39 -0400

Others have mentioned it, but you are still eligible for VRA and VEOA appointments which is very beneficial. Also, if you are a MAJ or above, but disabled at 30% or greater, you still get the max 10-point preference.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 4:05 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:05:23 -0400

Holy smokes, thanks for alerting me. I'm in an interesting position then, because I'm looking to transition my civilian side career from CTR to GS. Looks like as long as I'm still in I can do Vet Pref, since the O-4 prohibition applies to "retired" personnel, but if I get out after 20 I can't unless I'm also a Disabled Vet.

Response by SPC David S. made Sep 14 at 2015 4:39 PM

SPC David S. — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:39:36 -0400

Here's your answer sir - unless you have a service related injury - appointment via VAR route - it looks like you're not eligible for the points. Why - I guess if you made to MAJ/Lieutenant Commander you don't need a leg up - Congress and their infinite wisdom. Doesn't seem fair as most 04's and above have more TIS.

http://askthelawyer.federaltimes.com/2012/01/13/q-a-session-veterans-preference-and-rifs/

Q & A Session – Veterans’ Preference and RIFs

Ask the Lawyer received the following question (paraphrased for easier reading and clarity) from a reader on a legal matter that might be of interest to the entire audience. Q: I am an Army retiree…

Response by COL Louis Jordan made Sep 15 at 2015 11:38 AM

COL Louis Jordan — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:38:18 -0400

Actually the Statute says disabled veteran or retired in the rank of Major. The 6 month restriction was placed in suspension for OIF/OEF. The new NDAA will take it out of suspension

Response by Maj Tom Bertenshaw made Sep 15 at 2015 12:22 PM

Maj Tom Bertenshaw — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:22:00 -0400

I am a retired O-4, and the Navy granted me a waiver when I accepted a job at Crane Naval Support Weapons Center. I asked to make the waiver a condition of job acceptance.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 12:59 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:59:25 -0400

Speaking from personal experience, look at it as a blessing. I applied for several government jobs when I got off of active duty. At the time I did not have any preference points (that changed later). As a result I simply could not compete with the applicant pool without the points. I was forced to go back to school and completely redesign my skill set. Long story short, now I make around four times what I would be making had the IRS or FBI picked me up. I have zero regrets. Honestly, outside of the military, in my opinion, government work will hold you and your earnings potential back. Use the new GI Bill and pick up some marketable skills. If you don't want to go to school, start a small business. There are numerous franchises out there or other opportunities. Your military leader skills are valued in the non-government workplace and they pay for it.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Sep 15 at 2015 1:34 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:34:46 -0400

I wonder how old that law is. Back in my day the advantage of being an AUS officer was you could retire and start a guvment job the next day. USA officers had to wait two years, I think. Later at some point, the Army started requiring OTRA officers above Captain to get a USA commission. Maybe this law is reflecting that. I get confused on dates sometimes, but this may have been when USMA grads were getting a USAR Commission in the AUS as part of Clinton's stick it the military policy.

Response by LCDR William Lindner made Sep 15 at 2015 1:36 PM

LCDR William Lindner — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:36:43 -0400

After no answer from my congressman's staff, I wrote to the director of OPM asked the same question. His staff responded with it came out of an old double dipping law, but was approved by congress. Until they change the law we're SOL. It was also worse when I retired in 1990; you had to give up part of your retire pay if you took a civil service job, but that went away in the late '90s.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Sep 15 at 2015 3:05 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:05:44 -0400

No one has ever questioned my vets status. I have not had any problems.

Response by COL John Power made Sep 15 at 2015 3:09 PM

COL John Power — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:09:44 -0400

While I hate to guess what was in the mind of Congress, my sense is that the veterans' preference was intended to assist lower grade enlisted personnel to make the transition back to civilian life. They probably also had in mind that actually former military personnel were pretty good bets so there would be an advantage to government agencies by hiring them. I can see why it should not apply to field grade officer careerists. They should already be rather well prepared, through education and experience, to make a smooth transition.

Response by CW4 Don Cummings made Sep 15 at 2015 3:16 PM

CW4 Don Cummings — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:16:06 -0400

just so yanno, veterans pref. isn't worth a dam

Response by MAJ William Cussins made Sep 15 at 2015 3:20 PM

MAJ William Cussins — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:20:00 -0400

Never heard of that and never seen it when I have applied to jobs.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Sep 15 at 2015 5:45 PM

MSgt J D McKee — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:45:55 -0400

It probably stems from a time when Major and above was not so much a job as a luxurious lifestyle. I don't know if the US ever did this, but the Brits used to sell commissions--you could buy in at any level, and very few Brit officers made rank any other way, at one point in the 1800's at least. So it may have been that whomever passed the law did not believe Major and above really needed any help.

Response by Maj Marty Greene made Sep 16 at 2015 1:11 AM

Maj Marty Greene — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:11:52 -0400

When I retired from the AF the first time in 1994, anyone retired at O-4 or above gave up $1 for every $2 made on a federal job. This was to prevent "double dipping," and quickly made me abandon any government job search. Evidently others did too, and after a while, this provision was removed. There is still, as others have hinted, a perception of "What do they need it for? They have a good pension!" The current lack of preference seems to indicate that feeling still exists.

Response by Maj Steven W. Beaudry Barnes made Sep 16 at 2015 1:12 AM

Maj Steven W. Beaudry Barnes — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:12:55 -0400

This is the first I\ve heard of this....Steve Beaudry Barnes, 0-4 retired. I'll keep following this web and am anxious to see what information surfaces.

Response by MAJ James Hastings made Sep 16 at 2015 10:37 AM

MAJ James Hastings — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:37:56 -0400

NEWS FLASH! Veteran’s Preference for federal hiring is pure BULL SHIT, its just a scam! How do I know? I bought 12 years active duty into the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and finally retired as a GS-15 in March 2013.

During my civil service career—time and time again I saw the “best qualified” candidate passed over in lieu of the “favored son”. When two applicants are tied, and one is a veteran, the hiring authority simply manipulates the results in order to negate or offset the veteran’s preference, so that the “favored son” is hired.

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: Like any job search success is all about networking. You need to network your arse off so that you become the “favored son” If you’re expecting “veteran’s preference” to secure a federal position—then you are on a fool’s errand. Tough love-yes, reality-yes!

Response by LTC Dennis Johnson made Sep 16 at 2015 1:04 PM

LTC Dennis Johnson — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:04:18 -0400

Did not know this

Response by COL Mike Walton made Sep 16 at 2015 7:40 PM

COL Mike Walton — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:40:09 -0400

Qualified for what veteran's preferences?? Everything I've seen does not mention a rank...and there are plenty of LTCs, COLs and General officers working jobs with some sort of "veteran's preferences".

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 12:09 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:09:45 -0400

As an O5, I have veteran's preference because I am a reservist and not retired. The main issue is that Veteran's Preference was there to ensure that people who had served some time with the military got rewarded with the ability to get a government job. If you are a senior officer who is retired, you are assumed to not need the extra help. Plus, remember what this is aimed at. Junior people looking for lower level entry jobs. As a GS-13, my Veteran's Preference is currently not of any significant use because it doesn't apply to merit promotions at the GS-14 level.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Sep 19 at 2015 12:31 AM

SN Greg Wright — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:31:28 -0400

MAJ Javier Rivera I'll say what every e-1 thru e-5 in current service would LIKE to say, but can't: I'm in the mud, sucking dirt. You're a REMF in an air-conditioned tent making decisions that may or may not get me killed. Precisely how much life advantage over me do you feel entitled to? Inquiring minds want to know?

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 8:20 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 08:20:00 -0500

If it is an consolation, I haven't found being an O-3 qualified vet being a positive discriminator, either.

Response by MSgt Rickley Berry made Oct 2 at 2016 12:49 PM

MSgt Rickley Berry — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 12:49:39 -0400

70,000 a year