GAO-03-966R Veterans’ Preference 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

August 22, 2003 

The Honorable Kay Coles James 

Director 

Office of Personnel Management 

Subject: Review of Veterans’ Preference and the “Rule of 3” 

Dear Ms. James: 

This is to inform you that the General Accounting Office has completed a review of selected 

agencies’ compliance with veterans’ preference and the “Rule of 3” in federal hiring. This 

review was requested by Congressman Lane Evans, Ranking Minority Member of the House 

Committee on Veterans Affairs, and Senator Tom Daschle. As agreed with the requesters, 

because of your continuing oversight of agencies’ delegated examining units (DEU) and 

ongoing review of veterans’ preference, we are providing you with the results of our review 

for possible follow-up. 

The requesters specifically asked us to review the results of job announcements for fiscal 

year 2001 for five selected agency personnel offices in the Washington Metropolitan Area: 

the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) headquarters, NASA’s Goddard 

Space Flight Center, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). As 

agreed with the requesters, we reviewed: (1) advertised full-time positions (both permanent 

and temporary) at the GS-7,9,11,13, and 15 levels as identified by the selected agency, 

(2) the use of multiple certificates in filling these positions, (3) the resulting certificates of 

eligibilities, including how often veterans headed these certificates and were selected, and 

(4) the reported reasons why veterans were not selected if they headed these certificates. 

Our observations may be useful to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in following 

up on specific cases, as well as more generally in developing and implementing 

governmentwide personnel oversight and evaluation efforts. Moreover, based on our 

understanding of OPM’s guidance to the agencies, OPM would consider the type of issues 

included in our observations when deciding whether more detailed assessments of agency 

actions by OPM oversight teams would be warranted. We have the following specific 

observations about the cases examined. 

• Multiple certificates were used extensively. Most of the 258 announcements reviewed 

resulted in agencies issuing multiple certificates, including multiple DEU certificates 

and certificates for merit promotion. Multiple DEU certificates were typically issued for 
Page 2 GAO-03-966R Veterans’ Preference 

multiple vacancies at different grades or locations. In a few cases, multiple DEU 

certificates were issued for the same position at the same grade. In general, agencies 

use of multiple certificates was consistent with OPM guidance. See table 1 in the 

enclosure for total cases reviewed. 

• Selections were made more often from certificates without veterans listed. Specifically, 

of the 214 announcements for which DEU certificates were issued, selections occurred 

more often when the certificates included no veterans than when veterans were on the 

certificates. (See table 2 in the enclosure for results of cases with certificates issued.) 

 Out of 134 announcements reviewed with no veterans on the certificates of eligibles, 

90 (67 percent) nonveterans were selected. 

 Out of 77 announcements reviewed with veterans on the certificates of eligibilities, 

21 (27 percent) veterans were selected. 

• Agency files suggested a variety of reasons why veterans were not selected from 

certificates. These include those listed below. (See table 2 in the enclosure for more 

information on the reported reasons why veterans were not selected.) 

 A nonveteran with a higher score on the DEU certificate was selected. 

 A nonveteran was selected from another source, for example, merit promotion, 

noncompetitive appointment. 

 The vacancy/certificate was canceled. 

 The veteran withdrew his/her name. 

• Many case files were incomplete. Of the 258 announcement cases reviewed, there were 

41 for which we could not determine the disposition of the hiring action. At one agency, 

for 18 out of 78 case files we reviewed the status of the vacancy announcements could 

not be determined. Further, there were 11 additional cases where no case file could be 

located. (See table 3 in the enclosure for more details.) Additionally, in at least one 

location, all the application files fitting our criteria may not have been provided for our 

review. We would suggest that as OPM’s evaluation efforts go forward, the number of 

cases reported in agency case files be compared with the relevant listings in USAJOBS. 

• A few cases may warrant further review by OPM. In cases in which selections were 

made from a certificate listing a veteran on top, the veteran was usually selected. 

However, in a few cases the top-ranked veteran was not selected. For example, at one 

agency the top-ranked veteran was not selected because officials said they were unable 

to contact him. However, the telephone number that the agency noted as being 

disconnected was not the veteran’s listed home number on the application. In addition, 

a note in the file said that the agency tried to contact the veteran with a letter sent via 

Federal Express. The letter was not in the file. In another case, a nonveteran was 

chosen over a veteran with the same score. There was no explanation in the file for this 

action. 
Page 3 GAO-03-966R Veterans’ Preference 

We performed our work on this report from August 2002 through May 2003 in accordance 

with generally accepted auditing standards. In addition, we sent this report to the following 

agencies for comment: the NASA, HUD, BBG, and DLA. The agencies generally agreed with 

our report but provided some technical comments and suggestions that we incorporated 

where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the Chairman of the Senate 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Tom Daschle, the heads of the agencies visited 

during this review, and other interested parties. This report will also be available on GAO’s 

home page at http://www.gao.gov. 

I would appreciate your staff keeping me informed of any action they plan to take in 

response to this information. The major contributors to this review were Edward 

Stephenson, Assistant Director; Charlesetta Bailey, Senior Analyst; and Figen Gungor, 

Analyst. If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-6806. 

Sincerely yours, 

J. Christopher Mihm 

Director, Strategic Issues 

Enclosure 
Page 4 GAO-03-966R Veterans’ Preference 

Enclosure 

Additional Information on Case Files 

Table 1: Total Cases Reviewed 

 NASA 

HQ 

NASA 

Goddard 

HUD BBG DLA Total 

Number of cases reviewed 30 67 78 69 14 258 

 Cases with insufficient information before 

 certificate was issued 

2 0 9 0 0 12 

 Cases canceled before certificate was 

 issued 

2 3 11 6 0 22 

 Cases in which no DEU certificate issued 0 1 0 7 3 10 

 Cases resulting in certificate 26 63 58 56 11 214 

Source: NASA headquarters, NASA Goddard, HUD, BBG, and DLA vacancy announcement files for fiscal year 

 2001. 

Table 2: Comparison of Certificates with Veterans and Nonveterans

 NASA 

HQ 

NASA 

Goddard 

HUD BBG DLA Total 

Number of announcements with certificate 

issued: 

 

 Veteran is top candidate 6 10 26 16 6 64 

 Veteran is not the top candidate 1 2 5 4 1 13 

 No veterans on certificate 19 51 27 33 4 134

 Total announcements with certificate 

 issued 

26 63 58 56a 11 214a 

Results of certificates with veterans: (7) (12) (31) (20) (7) (77) 

 Top veteran selected 0 6 5 3 3 17 

 Other veteran selected 0 1 1 2 0 4 

 Nonveteran selected from certificate 0 0 6 6 0 12 

 Selection from another source 5 0 6 6 3 20 

 Cases canceled 2 1 10 3 0 16 

 Veteran withdrew name 0 2 0 0 0 2 

 Cases with insufficient information 0 2 3 0 1 6 

Results of certificates with nonveterans: (19) (51) (27) (33) (4) (134) 

 Nonveteran selectedb 16 40 19 26 3 104 

 Cases canceled 0 6 2 3 0 11 

 Cases with insufficient information 3 5 6 4 1 19 

Source: NASA headquarters, NASA Goddard, HUD, BBG, and DLA vacancy announcement files for fiscal year 

 2001 and agency officials.

a

For three vacancy announcements, candidates’ status was not noted in files. b

Nonveterans selected included selections from other sources: NASA HQ,7; BBG, 6; and DLA, 1. 

Table 3: Total Cases with insufficient information 

 NASA 

HQ 

NASA 

Goddard 

HUD BBG DLA Total 

Total cases with insufficient information 7 7 18 7 2 41 

Source: NASA headquarters, NASA Goddard, HUD, BBG, and DLA vacancy announcement files for fiscal year 

 2001.

(450141) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good 

government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 

reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web 

site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to

a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs