U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness
Classification Appeals and FLSA Programs

Atlanta Oversight Division
75 Spring Street, SW., Suite 1018
Atlanta, GA 30303-3109


Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code


	Appellant:		[appellant]

	Agency classification:	Injury Compensation Inspector
				GS-1802-9

	Organization:		United States Marine Corps
				U.S. Department of the Navy
				
	OPM decision:		GS-1802-9
				(title at the agencys discretion)

	OPM decision number:	C-1802-09-04


_____________________________
Virginia L. Magnuson
Classification Appeals Officer

October 31, 2002_______________
Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, this decision constitutes a certificate that is
mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll,
disbursing, and accounting officials of the government. The
agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions
for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure
consistency with this decision. There is no right of further
appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only
under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to
the Position Classification Standards, appendix 4, section G
(address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Decision sent to:

[appellant]

[Civilian Human Resources
 Office]

Director, Civilian Human Resources
 Office
Headquarters United States Marine Corps
2 Navy Annex
Code HRHB, Room 1213
Washington, DC 20380-1775

Mr. Allan Cohen
Office of Civilian Human
 Resources (OCHR)
Nebraska Avenue, Complex
321 Somer Court, NW., Suite 40101
Washington, DC 20393-5451

Ms. Janice W. Cooper
Chief, Classification Appeals
 Adjudication Section
Civilian Personnel Management Service
U.S. Department of Defense
1400 Key Boulevard, Suite B-200
Arlington, VA 22209-5144



Introduction

On August 5, 2002, the Atlanta Oversight Division of the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) accepted a classification
appeal for the position of Injury Compensation Investigator, GS-
1802-9, [organization], United States Marine Corps, U.S.
Department of the Navy, [location]. The appellant requests
that his position be reclassified to Criminal Investigator, GS-
1802-12. We received the agencys administrative report on
September 19, 2002. We have accepted and decided his appeal
under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

The appellants position is currently classified as Injury
Compensation Investigator,
GS-1802-9. It was reclassified from Criminal Investigator, GS-
1811-11, on August 26, 2001, based on review and direction by
the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(ODASN). Prior to appealing to OPM, the appellant filed a
classification appeal review with the Department of Defense
Civilian Personnel Management Service (CPMS). In a decision
dated February 12, 2002, CPMS found the position to be properly
classified as
GS-1802-9, with a title at the agencys discretion.

This appeal decision is based on a careful review of all
information furnished by the appellant and his agency. In
addition, to help decide the appeal, an Oversight Division
representative conducted separate telephone interviews with the
appellant, his supervisor of record, and his operational
supervisor.

General issues

The appellant compares his position to other criminal
investigator positions in the organization where he works, at
other Naval installations, and, in general terms, to FECA
investigators classified as criminal investigators at other
agencies. He makes various statements about his agency and its
evaluation of his position. In adjudicating this appeal, our
only concern is to make our own independent decision on the
proper classification of his position. By law, we must classify
positions solely by comparing their current duties and
responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106,
5107, and 5112). Since comparison to standards is the exclusive
method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the
appellants position to others as a basis for deciding his
appeal, and we have considered his statements only insofar as
they are relevant to making that comparison.

The appellant requested that we consider evaluating his position
based on the impact of the person on the job concept. This
concept holds that, by virtue of exceptional competence, an
incumbent may have such an impact on the duties,
responsibilities, and qualification requirements of a position
that it is changed to the point where its classification must
also be changed. In comparing the appellants official position
description to controlling classification standards, we do not
find that his duties, responsibilities, and qualification
requirements warrant a higher grade when compared to the grade
levels described in the standard. Use of the impact of the
person on the job concept is, therefore, not appropriate.


Position information

The appellant is assigned to position description number [#].
The appellants official supervisor and the Civilian Human
Resources Office agree that the position description accurately
reflects the appellants duties and responsibilities. The
appellant also concurs, but provided clarification of some of his
tasks.

The appellants position is organizationally aligned under the
[organization]. However, the position is operationally
supervised by the SSA, NCIS located on the base. A Memorandum of
Agreement between [organization] and the NCIS Resident Agency at
[location] specifies that [organization] will provide an
investigator to conduct Federal Employees Compensation Act
(FECA) fraud investigations and the NCIS Resident Agency will
provide immediate operational supervision of the investigator and
oversight of felony investigations conducted under FECA
guidelines. Our fact finding determined that NCIS has
responsibility for felony cases stemming from investigations and
jurisdiction for criminal investigation for fraud.
[organization] provides FECA investigative support to other
[location] Marine Corps Installations and tenant commands.

The position description states that the purpose of the position
is to perform the full range of criminal investigative functions,
delving into suspected or actual criminal violations of frauds,
by recipients of benefits under FECA. The appellant develops
investigations based on leads from Injury Compensation Program
Administrators and anonymous tips and from review of FECA charge
back rosters for indicators of fraud. He plans, organizes,
directs, and conducts investigations. The appellant conducts
investigations of violations of federal criminal laws pertaining
to the fraudulent receipt of workers compensation benefits. In
conducting investigations, the appellant interviews, reviews and
researches documents, and performs surveillance. He coordinates
surveillance by multiple agents and, if necessary, simultaneously
at multiple locations. The appellant works undercover,
coordinates, plans for, obtains and executes searches warrants.
He preserves evidence and prepares investigative reports. Cases
may result in a variety of penalties, both criminal and
administrative, as well as those subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ). The appellant assists U.S. Attorneys in
their criminal prosecution. He participates on joint task forces
and coordinates investigative activity with other agencies to
exchange information or cooperate with other investigations. He
supervises another Injury Compensation Investigator, GS-1802,
and, when requested, provides guidance to others performing FECA
investigations.

The appellant independently plans and carries out FECA
investigations. The NCIS Supervisory Special Agent (SSA)
discusses the investigative direction and case leads with the
appellant. He approves case initiation and initiation of
requests for search warrants, oral intercept, and other official
actions. The SSA reviews completed case reports for
documentation and soundness.

In performing his assignments, the appellant utilizes Federal,
State and local laws and regulations relating to evidence,
arrest, search, seizure, rights of privacy, and various
jurisdictional and operational guidelines. He uses knowledge of
FECA Fraud, Federal Rules of Procedure, and criminal laws. He
must be thoroughly familiar with 18 U.S.C. sections covering
false, fictitious or fraudulent claims, conspiracy, false
statements, mail fraud, FECA fraud, wire fraud, and money
laundering. He must be familiar with methods of identifying ill-
gotten assets and Federal procedures governing asset forfeiture.
The appellant carries a concealed weapon. The appellant uses a
variety of investigative devices during surveillance and
undercover work.
Following the appellants position change from Criminal
Investigator, he is not authorized to perform all the duties,
such as obtaining and executing search warrants, which he
previously performed. Since the type and complexity of cases is
critical to the decision on assignment of both series and grade
level, we are reviewing past cases (prior to current limitations
being imposed) as a part of his representative case work. He
spends the majority of his time on FECA or related cases and
occasionally is assigned other investigations.

Examples the appellant provided of his cases are as follows:

 In a case opened in late 1998 and closed in May 2002, a
 claimant received both workers compensation benefits and medical
 care paid by [organization]. The appellant performed
 surveillance for two years and learned that the claimant was
 selling his monthly prescriptions. Prescriptions included
 onycotton, methadone, and luraset. The Drug Enforcement
 Administration (DEA) declined the case because it didnt meet
 their dosage threshold. NCIS also opened a narcotics case with a
 NCIS agent in charge. The appellant prepared the plan of
 operation for apprehension of the suspect and his clients and the
 arrest report. The case was referred to the U.S. Attorney. This
 case resulted in criminal charges against the claimant as well as
 termination of compensation benefits.

 After review of a long-term claim with few medical bills,
 the appellant, from May 1998 until July 2001, conducted
 surveillance of a claimant who was self-employed in a home repair
 business and using his sons name and social security number. He
 established a fake company and assumed an undercover role,
 interviewed the subject and others having knowledge of the
 subjects activities, and obtained and executed two search
 warrants. This was a joint investigation with NCIS and the
 Department of Labor. Felony violations included mail fraud, wire
 fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy. The U.S. Attorneys
 Office prosecuted the case. FECA fraud was for $338,000. The
 appellant continued to investigate and identified commercial
 property owned by the claimant. He assisted the attorney in
 obtaining a judgment on forfeiture of the property as repayment
 of compensation benefits fraudulently claimed.

 Through review of chargeback records, the appellant opened a
 case in late 1998 involving a claimant running a newspaper
 delivery business under his wifes name. He also serviced
 newspaper vending machines. The appellant used surveillance,
 interviews and records searches, and then obtained and executed a
 search warrant. This was a joint investigation with DOL,
 Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and state and local police
 organizations. The claimant pled guilty to a felony for FECA
 fraud of $104,000 and was sentenced to prison.

 Through review of chargeback records, in February 2000, the
 appellant began an investigation of a claimant who owned and
 operated a car repair company in his sons name. On dozens of
 occasions from February through May 2001, the appellant used
 surveillance and audiotaped the claimant at work and waiting on
 undercover agents. He obtained and executed a search warrant to
 obtain physical evidence that the appellant committed violations
 for fraudulent claims, false statements, and mail fraud. The
 case covered two years of fraud and $41,000 of compensation
 benefits. The U.S. Attorneys Office prosecuted the case.

 Through review of chargeback records, the appellant opened a
 case in December 1998, interviewed witnesses, and, in December
 1999, assumed an undercover role to obtain evidence that a
 claimant was operating a decoy manufacturing business. He also
 uncovered evidence of illegal hunting. This was a joint
 investigation that included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 and DOL. Violations included false, fictitious or fraudulent
 claims, conspiracy to defraud the United States, false
 statements, mail fraud, false statements to obtain Federal
 employees compensation, and unlawful taking of migratory
 waterfowl.

 Through review of chargeback records, the appellant opened a
 case in June 1999 involving a claimant who was operating and
 working in a ceramics shop with his wife for 11 years while
 receiving FECA benefits. The appellant performed surveillance,
 used agents in undercover roles to make controlled buys, used
 wire intercepts, and obtained a search warrant. The claimant
 voluntarily terminated his compensation money in early 2001, but
 has not yet been to court. The total loss value of fraudulently
 received government funds is approximately $268,198.

The appellant has investigated over 25 cases since 1998. All but
one of these cases resulted in, or are awaiting, prosecution by
the U.S. Attorneys Office. In any event, once evidence of other
crime has been developed the appellant coordinates and interacts
with a number of other Federal and civil jurisdictions. He works
that investigation in conjunction with the agency exercising
primary jurisdiction over that crime, in order to build a better
FECA Fraud case against the suspect. The appellant maintains
primary responsibility for only FECA aspects of cases. The
appellant leads the FECA fraud investigations and may direct
other agents in case actions.

Series and title determination

The agency determined the appealed position is covered under the
Compliance Inspection and Support Series, GS-1802, and used the
grade level criteria in the Grade Evaluation Guide for Police and
Security Guard Positions (GEGPSCP), GS-0083/0085, to determine
the grade level. The appellant contends that the position should
be allocated to the GS-18ll Criminal Investigating Series at the
GS-12 grade level.

The appellant selects and primarily orients his FECA cases toward
uncovering criminal activity on the part of workers compensation
recipients and establishing a felony violation for assumption by
the United States Attorney for criminal prosecution in Federal
Court. He does not submit his investigative reports to the
Office of Workers Compensation for administrative action.
Felonies identified through the appellants investigations have
included conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering,
drug trafficking, car theft and organized theft of government
property. The appellants normal caseload consists of
approximately ten cases, but has been as high as twenty-two.
Routinely, the case investigations take two years or even longer.
They usually establish, at the least, that the claimant willfully
failed to report income earned to the Office of Worker
Compensation Programs (OWCP) and then falsified required annual
statements certifying unemployment and earnings.

After a case is established for further review, the appellant
initiates record checks to obtain background information such as
financial and medical history, arrest or criminal activities,
property ownership, or business licenses obtained. The appellant
often conducts surveillance of claimants primarily to document
that they are working and earning money. This necessitates
observing the claimants activities at and away from home. The
appellant often interviews the claimants family members,
friends, business partners, or others having some knowledge of
the claimants physical condition or activities. In many
instances, these interviews first involve the appellant
establishing a pretext for seeking the information, usually by
posing as a potential employer or customer. He established his
own company, postal address, etc., for an undercover identity.

In performing his duties, the appellant uses wire intercepts,
audio transmitters, microwave transmitting audio-video devices,
electronic transmitting automobile tracking devices, night vision
photography, thermal imaging, and other surveillance gear. He
uses variety of techniques for developing latent fingerprint
impressions. He makes use of laboratory expertise as well as
centers and networks having databases on crimes, people and
personal and business finances

The GS-1810 series includes positions that involve planning and
conducting investigations covering the character, practices,
suitability, or qualifications of persons or organizations
seeking, claiming, or receiving Federal benefits, permits, or
employment when the results of the investigation are used to make
or invoke administrative judgments, sanctions, or penalties.
These positions require primarily knowledge of investigative
techniques and knowledge of the laws, rules, regulations, and
objectives of the employing agency. They require skill in
interviewing, following leads, researching records, and
reconstructing events; and the ability to elicit information
helpful to the investigation from persons in all walks of life
and to prepare reports of findings.

The GS-1811 series includes positions that involve planning and
conducting investigations relating to alleged or suspected
violations of criminal laws. In addition to the knowledge,
skills, and abilities needed by GS-1810 positions, the work of GS-
1811 positions requires knowledge of what constitutes a crime or
violation as defined in pertinent statutes and the kind of
evidence that is required to prove that a crime was committed.
It requires knowledge of the relationships among the criminal
investigative jurisdictions of various agencies and decisions and
precedent cases involving admissibility of evidence.
Investigators must have knowledge of search and seizure, arrest
authority; sources of information such as informants and methods
of obtaining required evidence; the methods and patterns of
criminal operations; and the availability and use of modern
detection devices and laboratory services. They are aware of
continuing advances in investigative technology; and have skill
in activities such as maintaining surveillance, performing
undercover work, making arrests, and taking part in raids.

The appellants work requires investigative knowledge similar to
that needed by GS-1810 positions and subject-matter knowledge of
compensation benefits payable under 5 U.S.C. chapter 81 and fraud
under 18 U.S.C. Further, the appellants work requires some of
the knowledge and skills needed by GS-1810 positions. Although
some aspects of the appellants position are similar to GS-1810
positions, the appealed position does not focus on administrative
resolution of cases. The appellant must know what constitutes a
crime under the statutes, the kind of evidence required to prove
that a crime was committed, the admissibility of evidence, and
knowledge of citizens constitutional rights. He employs
criminal investigative techniques like surveillance, covert
photography, and search warrants and uses information supplied by
informants and witnesses. He carries a weapon and participates
in arrests of suspects. For these reasons the appellants
position is excluded from the GS-1810 series.

Many of the cited GS-1811 skills are required, to a more limited
extent, by related investigative occupations. The Police Series,
GS-083, includes positions that enforce law, maintain law and
order, preserve the peace, and protect the life and civil rights
of persons. Police are typically trained to deal with
misdemeanors and felonies that can range from petty theft through
murder, theft of national defense information and materials,
theft of office equipment, drug trafficking, assault on
Government facilities and other serious violations of law and
threats to human life. They prevent, detect, and investigate
violations of laws, rules, and regulations involving accidents,
crimes, and misconduct involving misdemeanors and felonies;
arrest violators; and assist in the prosecution of criminals.
Within their jurisdictions, police officers enforce many Federal,
State, county, and municipal laws and ordinances, and agency
rules and regulations relating to law enforcement. They must be
aware of the rights of suspects, the laws of search and seizure,
constraints on the use of force (including deadly force), and the
civil rights of individuals. Arrest and apprehension authority
includes the power to formally detain and incarcerate individuals
pending the completion of formal charges; request and serve
warrants for search, seizure, and arrest; testify at hearings to
establish and collect collateral (bond); and/or participate in
trials to determine innocence or guilt.

While the GS-1810 series is not appropriate for the appealed
position, we cannot necessarily conclude that the correct series
is GS-1811. The Police Series, GS-083, includes at its higher
levels, work that bears similarity to the appellants. The total
context of the position must be taken into account by comparison
with the series definition, occupational information, and grade-
level criteria of the appropriate standard or guide. In its
discussion on the distinctions between investigating and other
occupations, the Grade-Level Guides for Classifying Investigator
Positions (GLGCIP) indicates that not all positions that involve
fact-finding and reporting are classified as investigators.
Investigator positions covered by the GLGCIP are distinguished
from certain other law enforcement occupations and subject-matter
positions involved in fact-finding and reporting that do not
require employees to apply the full range of investigator
knowledge, skills, and techniques described in the GLGCIP.

The appellants position does not require the full range of
knowledge, skills, and techniques as described in the GLGCIP.
For example, the appellants position does not require knowledge
of decisions relating to national security; specialized
industrial, commercial, or agency accounting or record-keeping
practices. As another example, the use of informants in the GS-
1811, occupation does not mean responding to tips provided by a
few persons aware of a suspects employment. Rather, developing
informants means cultivating individuals knowledgeable of and
frequently operating within or on the fringes of criminal
enterprises to expose or further penetrate those enterprises.
Similarly, surveillance in the GS-1811 occupation pertains to
determining when and where its use is appropriate in developing
the facts surrounding a complex criminal conspiracy. The GLGCIP
also indicates that cases conducted by positions in the GS-1811
series involve complexities requiring development over long
periods of time. The appellants cases normally take at least
two years to evolve. They also involve large sums of money. The
extensive time is due in part to the large number of cases
handled by the appellant at any given time and the need to
collect sufficient evidence to establish a pattern of work and a
falsified annual statement relative to employment and earnings.
It does not necessarily establish that the cases are as complex
as those conducted by GS-1811 investigators at the full
performance level who investigate criminal enterprises that
operate in multiple jurisdictions. While the appellants work
has involved investigations of actions that involved alleged
felony violations, the cases center on the activities of a single
individual or relatively few individuals where the scope of
investigatory tasks occurred relatively close to the base. Cases
involve large amounts of money primarily because the sum grows
each year that the suspect continues to receive benefits.

The Grade Evaluation Guide for Police and Security Guard
Positions, GS-083/085, published in April 1988, clarifies that
the GS-1811 series covers positions primarily responsible for
investigating alleged or suspected major offenses or violations
of specialized laws of the United States. The GS-083/085 Guide
defines major crimes found in the GS-1811 occupation as capital
crimes, those involving prescribed monetary values, or others
that may vary in different jurisdictions. As previously noted,
the appealed position limits the appellant to investigations of
frauds by FECA benefit recipients. His cases result in FECA
fraud prosecution. As previously indicated, the appealed
position does not lead cases of suspected violations of criminal
law where the full range of knowledge, skills, and abilities is
called into use in the development of complex cases involving
significant crimes against the United States. The appellants
cases do not involve the variety, scope, or complexity of
criminal cases described in the GSGCIP.

Duties and responsibilities assigned to a position flow from the
mission assigned to the organization in which those positions are
found. The positions created to perform an assigned mission must
be considered in relation to one another; i.e., each position
reflects only a part of the organizations work as a whole.
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Instruction 5520.3B, Criminal and
Security Investigations and Related Activities Within the
Department of the Navy, January 4, 1993, stipulates that NCIS is
responsible for investigating actual, suspected or alleged major
criminal offenses. Major criminal offenses are defined as
punishable by confinement for a term of more than one year. FECA
fraud is punishable by more than one year. Major criminal
offenses must be interpreted within the context of other
requirements stated in the instruction. The instruction
stipulates that command investigators are permitted to
investigate major crimes when NCIS has declined jurisdiction.
Certain types of matters, e.g., fraud offenses under the U.S.
Code or Uniform Code of Military Justice, must be referred to
NCIS. Other suspected felonies must also be referred.

We find SECNAV Instruction 5520.3B limits the breadth, depth, and
complexity of investigations that may be managed by the
appellant. The cases discussed previously evidence the
characteristics of more difficult GS-083 detective work. These
are defined at the highest knowledge level of the GS-083/085
Guide as including: conducting stakeout operations; conducting
long-term investigations from several days to several weeks;
developing informants and informant networks; developing and
following leads, taking statements, and otherwise gathering bits
of information and facts; analyzing facts to identify suspects
and develop case information for use in pressing charges and
bringing suspects to trial; coordinating with U.S. and other
prosecuting attorneys on case development and plans to perform
arrests and prosecutions; developing cover conditions and working
under cover to detect and prevent criminal activities; and
coordinating other law enforcement agencies to gather facts or
evidence for use in assigned cases.

In essence, as mandated by Navy policy, the SSA for the NCIS is
the one who determines whether enough evidence has been gathered
to stand up in court, whether the case should be dropped or
handled differently, and how the investigation impacts the agency
as a whole. The full range of knowledge required to perform in
this capacity, which the NCIS SSA must have since he is
ultimately responsible for the program, is a basic requirement in
the series definition of the GS-1811. It is not however, a basic
requirement that the appellant must have to investigate FECA
cases.

Many of the appellants assignments, in conjunction with some
FECA cases, have been similar to the higher levels of detective
work described in the GS-083 series. However, the GS-083 series
also includes positions with duties that involve the preservation
of peace and public order, assistance to the general public in
emergencies, and the apprehension and arrest of perpetrators.
Such duties are not typical of the appellants position, are not
recognized in his position description, and are not a focus of
his organization. Therefore, the appellants position is
properly excluded from the GS-083 series.

As previously stated, the primary purpose of the appellants
position is to perform criminal investigative functions, delving
into suspected or actual criminal violations of frauds. Most of
the activities the appellant performs are comparable to those
described in the Compliance Inspection and Support Series, GS-
1802. Positions included in this series perform work assuring
compliance with or enforcement of Federal law, regulations, or
other mandatory guidelines, not classifiable to other, more
specific occupational series. The work requires knowledge of
prescribed procedures, established techniques, directly
applicable guidelines, and pertinent characteristics of regulated
items or activities. Such positions perform work in support of
investigations, such as searching for, gathering, screening, and
providing factual information or explanations related to the
subject of an investigation or to the compliance program itself.
This work includes such activities as obtaining background
information on subjects of investigations by means of record
searches, structured interviews, and automated information
retrieval; compiling final investigative reports; and maintaining
required administrative reports. Consistent with positions
allocated to this series, the majority of the appellants work,
and the stated purpose of his position, involve examining records
and investigating former or current Federal employees suspected
of violating OWCP requirements through fraudulent claims.
Accordingly, the appealed position is properly assigned to the GS-
1802 series.

Since no titles are specified for positions in the GS-1802
series, the agency may establish a title consistent with OPMs
guidelines on titling practices outlined in the Introduction to
the Position Classification Standards.
Standard determination

The standard for the GS-1802 series, dated October 1980, does not
contain grade level criteria. Consequently, we made a grade
level determination by comparing the appellants work with a
standard covering a closely related kind of work, i.e., involving
analogous knowledge and skills. FECA fraud investigation duties
are not adequately addressed in the GS-083 Guide. In selecting a
pertinent standard, we based the comparison on identifying a kind
of work as similar as may be found to the appellants position
with respect to (1) the kind of work processes, functions, or
work subject matter involved; (2) the qualifications necessary to
do the work; (3) the level of difficulty and responsibility; and
(4) the combination of classification factors that have the most
influence on the ultimate grade level to be established. In this
instance, we found that the standard for the GS-082, United
States Marshal Series, dated June 1973 provides an appropriate
comparison for the appellants position and help in addressing
the more complex cases the appellant handles. The GS-082 series
requires knowledge of court procedures and the ability to testify
in legal, quasi-legal, and administrative proceedings; a high
degree of ability to meet and deal effectively with a wide
variety of people from every level of society, frequently under
conditions of stress and sensitivity; knowledge, ability, and
sophistication in ways of finding and identifying persons; and
expertise in the use of surveillance and detection techniques.

While we determined that the GS-082 standard is appropriate for
establishing grade level, we did not find it to be an appropriate
series for the appealed position. For positions in the GS-082
series, the service of process and execution of orders issued by
the Federal courts and the Board of Parole must be a regular and
recurring part of the position. Law enforcement positions that
do not involve the service of process are excluded from the
series. The appellants position does not involve such
activities.

Grade determination

The GS-082 standard addresses two factors: Nature of assignments
and Level of responsibility.

Nature of assignments

The GS-9 level is the highest described in the standard.
Positions at this level involve the complete range of
assignments, including those where unusual difficulties are
anticipated. Assignments exceed the GS-7 level because of the
more complex person-to-person relationships required, the
critical nature and scope of the decisions required, and the lack
of clearly defined guidelines. Typical assignments at this level
include planning for, locating, and making arrests of subjects
who are evasive and potentially dangerous, through a series of
leads that the employee builds through astute questioning and
deduction. The GS-9 employee reviews criminal records and
interviews friends, relatives, employers, and others with
knowledge of the subject to gain information about the subjects
background, living habits, temperament, and other characteristics
that could predict reaction to the likelihood of arrest. The
employee traces leads and must put together bits of information
from these many, disparate sources to establish a cohesive,
reasonable case. In many cases, the gathering and assessment of
information is complicated by the unwillingness of persons to
cooperate and the efforts of some to conceal information or to
deliberately give misleading information.

The appellants range and complexity of assignments and the
manner in which he performs them are comparable to the GS-9
level. The appellants assignments include a wide range of
cases, some arising from potential fraudulent claims made under
workers compensation programs, others involving minor criminal
and administrative infractions of both public laws/regulations
and the UCMJ. Similar to positions at the GS-9 level, the
appellant reviews a wide variety of source documents for
information, builds cases based on information that often is
conflicting, and gains the confidence of uncooperative or evasive
persons who have some knowledge of the subject. The appellant
must conduct his investigations in accordance with the stringent
requirements designed to protect the constitutional rights of the
suspects and innocent citizens. The appellants work is made
difficult by the lack of direct guidance on methods and
strategies for conducting some inquiries and jurisdictional
issues. In such instances, the appellant must rely on personal
experience and methods used for past assignments. The nature of
the appellants assignments does not exceed the intent of the
work described at the GS-9 level.

Level of responsibility

The GS-9 level is the highest described in the standard. GS-9
deputy marshals work independently, or they serve as senior
members on small teams. Regardless of assignment, they have
great independence and authority to make a broad range of
decisions, once cases are assigned.

The GS-9 employee keeps the supervisor informed of key details in
specific cases, particularly those with potential repercussions
involving the supervisor or the agency. The GS-9 employee rarely
seeks advice and usually makes decisions based on past training
and seasoned judgement developed through experience, over time.
The employee at this level makes significant decisions without
prior review. In planning their approach, GS-9 employees must
review all information from a wide variety of sources (including
informants), perceive potential problems and/or resolve conflicts
in data, and develop an appropriate strategy. Once planning is
completed, the GS-9 employee is free to take appropriate action.

The appellant works with the same level of independence and
limited supervision as described for the GS-9 level. He
independently develops cases, which may come from tenant
activities or other bases within the appellants area of
responsibility. The appellant reviews records and from tips
provided persons both on and off the base. Once the appellant
has been cleared to open a case, he is free to plan, investigate,
and bring to the point of resolution any case he handles. This
includes leading and coordinating other investigative personnel
as needed. His casework is reviewed, upon completion, only for
overall adequacy in meeting objectives, primarily from a legal or
regulatory perspective. The appellants level of responsibility
fully meets but does not exceed the GS-9 level as described in
the GS-082 standard.

Summary

The appellants work meets the GS-9 level for both factors in the
GS-082 standard.



Decision

The appealed position is properly classified as GS-1802-9, with
the title at the discretion of the agency.