1
2

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY

ANNUAL EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY

PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715

FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022

PREPARED BY THE:

EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION OFFICE
3

Table of Contents 

PARTS A-D: AGENCY INFORMATION.................................................................4 

PART E: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................9 

PART F: CERTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTINUOUS EEO 

PROGRAMS.................................................................................................38

PART G: AGENCY SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST............................................40

PART H: ESSENTIAL ELEMENT DEFICIENCIES AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES...........67

PART I: BARRIER ANALYSIS AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES...................................98

PART J: EMPLOYMENT PLAN FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.......................138

AGENCY WORKFORCE ANALYSIS.................................................................170

APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS............................................................................206
4
5

 For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022

 Part A - Department or Agency Identifying Information 

Agency Second

Level

Component 

Address City Zip Code Agency 

Code 

 FIPS 

 Code 

Defense 

Threat 

Reduction 

Agency 

(DTRA) 

Not 

Applicable 

8725 John J. 

Kingman 

Road 

Fort 

Belvoir 22060 DD61 

 

51059

 Part B - Total Employment 

Total 

Employment

Permanent

Workforce Temporary 

Workforce 

Total Workforce 

Number of 

Employees 1335 26 1361 

 Part C.1 - Head of Agency and Head of Agency Designee 

Agency 

Leadership Name Title 

Head of 

Agency

Rebecca K.C. Hersman DTRA Director

Head of 

Agency 

Designee Rebecca K.C. Hersman DTRA Director

 Part C.2 - Agency Official(s) Responsible for Oversight of EEO Program(s) 

EEO

Program

Staff

Name Title

Series / Pay 

Plan Grade

Phone

Number

Email Address
6

Principal EEO 

Director/ 

Official 

Willisa Donald Director

0260/GS-15 

571-616-

4544 

willisa.m.donald.civ@mail.

mil 

Affirmative 

Employment 

Program 

Manager 

Mary Lynn 

Dickson 

EEO Manager 

0260/GS-14 

571-616-

2597 

mary.l.dickson7.civ@mail.

mil 

Complaint 

Processing 

Program 

Manager 

Phillip Ellis Informal 

Complaint 

Program 

Manager 0260/GS-13 

571-616-

6251

phillip.t.ellis.civ@ mail.mil 

Diversity & 

Inclusion 

Officer

James Jones Diversity & 

Inclusion 

(D&I) 

Program 

Manager 0260 GS-13

505-853-

0648

james.a.jones125.civ@mail.

mil

Hispanic 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

James Jones EEO 

Specialist

0260/GS-13

505-853-

0648

james.a.jones125.civ@mail.

mil

Women’s 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

Yorshia 

Houseal

EEO 

Specialist 

0260/GS-13

571-616-

6917

yorshia.e.houseal.civ@mail.

mil

Disability 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

Cheryl B. 

WilliamsPayton

SEPM 

Program 

Manager

0260/GS-13

571-616-

6422

cheryl.b.williamspayton.civ

@mail.mil

Special 

Placement 

Program 

Coordinator 

Cheryl B. 

WilliamsPayton

SEPM 

Program 

Manager

0260 GS-13

571-616-

6422

cheryl.b.williamspayton.civ

@mail.mil

Reasonable 

Accommodati 

on Program 

Manager

Sherry 

Parker

RA Program 

Manager

0201/GS-14

571-616-

4342

sherry.d.parker6.civ@mail.

mil

AntiHarassment 

Program 

Manager

Yorshia 

Houseal

AntiHarassment 

Program 

Manager

0260/GS-13

571-616-

6917

yorshia.e.houseal.civ@mail.

mil

ADR Program 

Manager

Richard 

Conyers

ADR Program 

Manager 0260/GS-14

571-616-

5720

richard.f.conyers2.civ@mail

.mil
7

Compliance 

Manger

Richard 

Conyers

Formal 

Compliant 

Program 

Manager 0260/GS-14

571-616-

5720 

richard.f.conyers2.civ@mail

.mil

Principal MD715 PreparerMary Lynn 

Dickson

EEO Manager

0260/GS-14

571-616-

2567 

mary.l.dickson7.civ@mail.

mil

Part D.1 – List of Subordinate Components Covered in this Report 

Please identify the subordinate components within the agency (e.g., bureaus, regions, etc.). 

Subordinate Component City State Country 

(Optional) 

Agency 

Code 

(xxxx) 

FIPS 

Codes 

(xxxxx) 

Part D.2 – Mandatory and Optional Documents for this Report 

Did the Agency submit the following 

mandatory documents? 

Please respond 

Yes or No Comments 

Organizational Chart YES 

EEO Policy Statement YES 

Strategic Plan YES 

Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures YES 

Reasonable Accommodation Procedures YES 

Personal Assistance Services Procedures YES 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures YES 

In the table below, the Agency may decide whether to submit these documents with its 

MD-715 report. 
8

Did the Agency submit the following optional 

documents? 

Please respond 

Yes or No 

Comments

Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program 

(FEORP) Report 

NO DoD Call Memo has not been 

received as of May 30, 

2023 

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program 

(DVAAP) Report 

YES 

Operational Plan for Increasing Employment of 

Individuals with Disabilities under Executive 

Order 13548 

YES 

Diversity and Inclusion Plan under Executive 

Order 13583 YES 

DEIA goals have been established 

Diversity Policy Statement YES 

Human Capital Strategic Plan YES

EEO Strategic Plan YES 

Results from most recent Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey or Annual Employee Survey YES 
9
10

EEOC 

FORM

715-01

PART E

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

For the period covering October 1, 2021 September 30, 2022

PART E: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) DTRA provides cross-cutting solutions to enable the 

DoD, the United States Government, and international partners to DETER strategic attack against the 

United States and its allies; PREVENT, reduce, and counter Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and 

emerging threats; and PREVAIL against WMD-armed adversaries in crisis and conflict. 

 

The Director’s Strategic Intent (2022-2027) included the following Strategic Priorities for FY22. 

 

1. Deter strategic attacks against the United States and its Allies; 

2. Prevent reduce and counter WMD and emerging threats; and 3. Prevail 

against WMD-armed adversaries in crisis and conflict. 

The Director’s Strategic Intent (2022-2027) are enabled by the following Core Functions: 

1. Ensure a reliable, resilient strategic deterrent through nuclear surety, mission assurance, and 

crisis response activities. 

2. Develop and deliver innovative capabilities to the warfighter across the threat spectrum. 

3. Prevent, reduce, and eliminate CBRN threats through risk reduction, arms control, partner

capacity building, and warfighter support. 

4. Provide strategic and operational support through subject matter expertise, technical reachback, 

tailored analysis, and exercise support. 

5. Support the Joint Force with plans, concepts, exercises, and materiel solutions to address CBRN 

operational and strategic risks. 

The DTRA core functions contain many enduring tasks and responsibilities as well as new efforts and 

initiatives to account for rapidly evolving technological and operational challenges. Thus the following 

Essential Approaches were implemented: 

 

1. Campaigning 

2. Integrating 

3. Partnering 

4. Posturing 

DTRA is both a Defense Agency (executing strategic Defense policy oriented programs on behalf of 

offices within OSD); and a Combat Support Agency (responsive to counter-WMD requirements out of 

the Joint Staff, Combatant Commands, and the Services). Our unique, specialized staff works 

collaboratively to find, coordinate, and produce solutions that align resources to strategy, and drive an 
11

actionable, forward-thinking CWMD/emerging threats agenda on behalf of National Defense and 

National Security goals. 

In addition to the Office of the Director (DIR) and its associated staff functions, the DTRA workforce 

is comprised of nine Directorates: Acquisition, Contracts, and Logistics (AL); Cooperative Threat 

Reduction (CT); Human Resources (HR); Information Management and Technology (IT); Nuclear 

Enterprise (NE); On-Site Inspection and Building Capacity (OB); Operations and Integration (OI); 

Research and Development (RD); and Strategic Integration (SI). 

DTRA’s Headquarters is located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The Agency also has a permanent presence 

at a number of other locations worldwide, including New Mexico, Florida, California, Germany, the 

United Kingdom, and deploys members worldwide as necessary. 

 

EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION OFFICE 

MISSION STATEMENT – The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office (EI) mission is to create and 

sustain an inclusive work environment that aligns with DTRA’s mission. 

EI Strategic Goals and Objectives 

Goal 1: Improve focus beyond 

compliance.

SO1: Integrate EEO into the workforce.

SO2: Improve program execution and customer service. 

Goal 2: Leverage and expand our 

collaboration with internal and 

external partners.

SO3: Establish new relationships, to include 

nontraditional partners. 

SO4: Enhance effectiveness of internal relationships. 

Goal 3: Facilitate innovation. SO5: Become a catalyst for change.

Goal 4: Educate and advise DTRA 

Leadership and Staff. 

SO6: Encourage leaders to support innovation and 

creativity. 

SO7: Create a shared understanding of how EEO 

contributes to the DTRA mission. 

SO8: Provide tailored consultative support services. 

EI Office Structure - The EI is comprised of the following: 

• Affirmative Employment Program (AEP) 

• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

• Pre-Complaints, MEO and Formal Complaints 

• Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) 

• Climate Assessments 

• Anti-Harassment Program (AHP) 

• Special Emphasis Programs (SEP) 

• Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) 

• Equal Employment Opportunity/Equal Opportunity (EO) Training 

 

In FY22 the EI staff consisted of an EI Director, two EEO Managers and five EEO Specialists. 
12

SIX ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT A: 

DEMONSTRATED COMMITMENT FROM AGENCY LEADERSHIP 

EEO Policies and Procedures Communicated to the Workforce: The Agency disseminated its EEO 

Policy Statements (Anti-Harassment, Civilian, Military, Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault, 

Harassment, Diversity and Inclusion) and other EEO program information during the EEO Training for 

Supervisors and Employees. The reasonable accommodation (RA) procedures are provided in the 

Supervisory Role in HR Management Training. Additionally, during training Supervisors and 

Employees were informed of their rights and responsibilities pursuant to the EEO process, AHP, ADR 

process, RA program, and behaviors that could result in discipline. These policies are also annotated on 

the Agency’s internal and external website. 

The policy statements reinforced that Employees are protected against discrimination based on race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), age, 

genetic information, disability, and retaliation. The policy statements highlighted that harassment, 

sexual harassment and sexual assault is not and will not be tolerated. They stated that DTRA is 

committed to sustaining an environment where all members of our team have the opportunity to reach 

their maximum potential, where Diversity of thought is both respected and promoted, and inclusiveness 

is consistently practiced. The policy statements also annotated who to contact, the EI Office, to report 

any allegations of discrimination or harassment. 

The EI Office contact information was posted on the internal and external websites to include the EI 

Director, Complaints Manager/Specialist, SEP Managers and other staff members. 

Climate Assessments: The Climate Assessments conducted by the EI Office for individual 

Directorates focus on Senior Leadership, First Line Supervisors, Mission, Communication and 

Teamwork, Promotion and Career Development, Recognition and Awards, and Morale. The EI Office 

created and administered three Climate Assessments during FY22, with 52% (12) members of the 

DTRA Travis workforce, 73% or (46) members of the OB-BP workforce, and 64% or (53) members of 

the IT workforce responding to the Climate Assessments. The information gathered assisted DTRA in 

addressing known and unknown workforce issues. Additionally, the Agency effectively utilized the 

Climate Assessments to be more proactive in its Employee engagement efforts. 

During FY22, the EI Office initiated the creation of an Agency Climate Assessment (ACA) to focus on 

six (6) key areas; Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Harassment, Work Environment and Accessibility. The 

ACA will also include a Nonbinary gender identity as a demographic option on finalization. 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: The Office Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) is an employee survey that tracks how federal employees view their current 

work environment, including; management, policies, and new initiatives. DTRA utilized the FEVS data 

in order to evaluate the Agency and Directorates workforce climate. Prior to the inclusion of the new 

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) Index in 2022 the FEVS focused only on 

Employee Engagement. 
13

DTRA’s FEVS response rate increased in FY22 to 49%, an increase of 14% in comparison with 35% in 

FY21. Additionally, the 2022 OPM FEVS included a new Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and 

Accessibility (DEIA) Index. The 2022 OPM FEVS newly evaluated Innovation and to what extent 

leadership encouraged and supported new ideas and innovative approaches. Other new content added to 

the 2022 survey included assessment regarding changing conditions that impacted employees and 

agencies. Included were questions about returning to the physical workplace after engaging in 

maximum telework to gain a better understanding of the role remote and hybrid work played in agency 

effectiveness. Three new measures were particularly relevant to the future of work and government 

priorities; they included resilience, innovation, and customer responsiveness. 

2022 Index Measures DTRA

OSD, Joint Staff, 

Defense 

Agencies, and 

Field Activities DoD Gov' t

Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion, and 

Accessibility (DEIA)

71.60% 69.50% 69.30%

Diversity

74.90% 71.80% 69.60% 70.20%

Equity

71.70% 67.80% 65.20% 65.20%

Inclusion 77.40% 76.40% 75.00% 74.80%

Accessibility* 74.60% 70.40% 68.20% 66.90%

Involvement 58.70% 55.30% 55.00% 53.20%

Innovation 66.00% 61.50% 59.80% 58.80%

Resilience 64.40% 63.60% 59.80% 59.60%

Customer 

Responsiveness 79.60% 76.20% 71.90% 69.50%

The Legend is for the FEVS chart above: 

POSITIVE responses of 65%, or higher are considered strengths. 

NEUTRAL responses of 30%, or higher, indicating an opportunity for improved communication. 

NEGATIVE responses of 35%, or higher, are considered challenges. 
14

Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Council: In FY22, the new DTRA Director affirmed her commitment 

to EEO Principles and Diversity by including DEIA goals and metrics in the Agency Human Capital 

Plan, meeting with the D&I Council Leadership and attending the July meeting with Employee 

Resource Group (ERG) Leadership. The Council incorporated Quarterly Leadership ERG meetings 

with Directorate Directors, as recommended by the Director. David Mr. Musgrave, Director On-Site 

Inspection and Building Capacity (OB) and COL Christine Enriquez, Director Human Resources (HR) 

chaired the Quarterly Leadership ERG meetings attended by, Dr. Ronald Hann, Jr., SES, Acting 

Director Research and Development (RD); Dr. Robert Pope, Director Cooperative Threat Reduction 

(CT); Brig Gen Peter Bonetti, USAF, and Director Nuclear Enterprise (NE) attended the Quarterly 

Leadership ERG meetings. The Directorate Directors recommended agency outreach efforts with 

industry, academia and high schools be more transparent. 

Council Co-Chair COL Christine Enriquez participated in the Asian American Government Executive 

Network (AAGEN) Leadership Workshop with Asian American Pacific Islanders (AAPI) ERG 

members. COL Enriquez was also the guest speaker for the AAPI Heritage Month Observance 

(Theme: "Advancing Leaders Through Collaboration") for the Military District of Washington, invited 

by the Equal Opportunity Team, Fort Belvoir, VA. The third and fourth issues of the CHARGE 

Quarterly Newsletter were released, which provided an overview of D&I initiatives across the Agency. 

ERG Symposium: The EI Office hosted a two (2) day Diversity and ERG Symposium with over 150 

virtual attendees on both days. Opening remarks were provided by DTRA Director, Rebecca Hersman. 

During this symposium Employee Resource Group (ERG) awards were presented by DTRA Public 

Affairs. The symposium partnered with over twelve (12) different federal agencies and had attendance 

of over 15 local, state and federal agencies. Those who attended included but were not limited to SEC, 

Sandia Labs, DOT, NSF, USDA, FDIC, New Mexico State Department of Disabilities, NASA, and 

Department of Education. The event offered ERG training by notable speakers from both private and 

government sectors. ERG panel discussions covered ten (10) vital areas of ERG management and 

sustainment. By the end of the two days many of the attendees were planning to create a national 

federal ERG council to continue collaboration. 

Diversity in the Hiring Process: During FY22 the EI Office, in collaboration with the Human 

Resources Directorate (HR) participated in 56 Strategic Recruitment Discussions (SRDs). The SRDs 

enhanced DTRA's efforts to diversify the workforce through providing education for DTRA's Hiring 

Managers. Topics discussed during a SRD include the following: 

• Document review to ensure DTRA cast the widest possible recruitment net (i.e. Veterans, 

Individuals with Disabilities, HBCUs, and HSIs); 

• Schedule A and Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP); and 

• Best practices for interview panels and question development. 

The EI Office also reviewed interview questions to identify any potentially discriminatory wording. 

Additionally, the EI Office also participated in more than 5 virtual outreach and recruitment activities; 

also the Joint Science and Technology Institute (JSTI). 
15

Disciplinary Actions for Discrimination: Following a finding of discrimination, the Agency explores 

whether it should take a disciplinary action. The Agency has a disciplinary policy and/or table of 

penalties that covers discrimination conduct. Where appropriate, the Agency disciplines Employees for 

discriminatory conduct. When there is a finding of discrimination, the Agency informs 

Managers/Supervisors about the discrimination conduct (methods of informing can include training, 

webinars, brochures, emails, or types of written communication). 

 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT B: 

INTEGRATION OF EEO INTO THE AGENCY’S STRATEGIC MISSION 

EI Director Involvement: The EI Director continued to build relationships with senior leaders on 

strategies which promote an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that 

prevent Employees from rising to their highest potential by attending the weekly Director Staff Meeting 

(DSM). The EI Director met and provided monthly reports to the Agency Director and regularly 

informed the Agency Director of the EI office top priorities, compliance issues, EEO, and Diversity and 

Inclusion efforts. 

State of the Agency Brief: The EI Director presented the annual State of the Agency briefing to the 

Director and senior officials. The presentation included an assessment overview of the MD715, 

Agency-wide accomplishments, and a review of the six (6) Essential Elements. The briefing also 

included provided detailed information related to the Agency workforce, EEO Complaint and AntiHarassment trends. 

Program Funding: The Agency continued to allocate and execute appropriate funding to ensure 

compliance on EEO programs such as EEO, the Affirmative Employment Program, Special Emphasis, 

Diversity and inclusion, staff training, and contracts for Investigations and Court Reporting services.

FY22 EEO PROGRAM EXPENDITURES

DIVERSITY CONTRACT $321,435.72

INVESTIGATION CONTRACT $19,325.00

 COURT REPORTING SERVICES $2,592.45

 ICOMPLAINTS CONTRACT $36,052.14 

MEDIATIONS $2,035.00 

TOTAL EXPENSE $381,440.31 

Regular Internal of Remote Sites: The major Geographically Separated Units (GSUs) or Remote 

Sites, Eglin AFB, Kirtland AFB, Travis AFB and DTRA Europe had been visited face-to-face by the EI 

Office Director on a yearly rotation. These visits were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 

however, the EI Office met bi-annually with the Site Chiefs to discuss EEO and Diversity and Inclusion 

Agency-wide initiatives to ensure engagement. 
16

Leadership Development Programs: The Agency continued to create and maintain a model EEO 

program by ensuring professional and career development opportunities were available for participants 

at all levels from the most junior Employee or military Service member to Senior Executives and 

General/Flag Officers. The Agency provided professional and career development opportunities 

through its Workforce Planning, Training and Development Programs. The General Leadership 

Development Program (GLDP) provided non-competitive learning and development opportunities for 

all Employees. The Competitive Leadership Development Program (CLDP) provided Employees the 

opportunity to compete to participate in higher level formal leadership training and development 

opportunities in preparation for higher level leadership positions. Through the Competitive Academic 

Program (CAP) and the Graduate Fellowship Program (GFP) civilians had the opportunity to pursue an 

undergraduate and/or graduate degree on their time; and in some cases, the ability to also pursue a 

Masters or Doctorate degree as a full-time student, for one academic year. Lastly, the Executive 

Development Program focused on Senior Executive Service/General Officer executive development. 

In FY22, DTRA allocated funding to each Directorate, in proportion to its military and civilian 

personnel populations, to execute individual training plans and provide opportunities to attend core 

Leadership development courses. During FY22, the Agency had 8 Employees whom were selected 

during the FY22 solicitation to participate in CAP. Additionally, 22 Employees applied for CLDP of 

which 13 were selected (59% selection rate). All Agency applicants were subjected to a 

comprehensive screening process, which included vetting and selection by the Agency’s Talent 

Development Council (TDC), after obtaining Supervisory approval. The TDC is comprised of 

representatives from each of the Agency’s Directorates and an additional advisor from one of the 

Agency’s Staff Offices. The TDC reviewed, rated, and ranked applications based on a standardized 

application criterion. Finally, as required, a panel of TDC members conducted an interview with each 

of the top candidates and made final recommendations to the Agency’s Chief Learning Officer. 

Personnel who were not selected were afforded the opportunity to receive feedback on their 

submission and results to learn from the experience and ensure transparency in the process. 

Career Broadening Program (CBP): DTRA's Career Broadening Program enabled and promoted 

individual employee development and experiential learning via detail assignments. The program 

provided an opportunity to both fill internal staff vacancies and develop employee skillsets by 

providing detail assignments within the Agency. The program encouraged cross functional experiences 

that broaden employees' understanding of DTRA's missions, goals, and organizational structures. All 

CBP applicants were subjected to a comprehensive screening process, which included vetting and 

obtaining Supervisory approval. During FY22, 15 Employees participated in CBP. 

Mentoring Program: DTRA’s Mentoring Program continued to promote equal opportunity for all 

Employees whether in on-site, remote, telework, or hybrid work environments. The DTRA Mentoring 

Program is designed to improve Leadership skills and increase organizational awareness for civilian 

and military Employees. The program goals were: 1) Facilitate transfer of technical and professional 

knowledge, skills and competencies; 2) Gain an understanding of organizational values, relationships 

and unwritten rules; 3) Strengthen communication and collaboration across DTRA; 4) Increase 

exposure at different organizational levels; and 5) Create a greater sense of community. This program 

was conducted in a virtual format, ensuring successful communication and collaboration across the 

Agency during a time of maximum telework for many federal Employees. The Main Mentoring 
17

Program ran over a nine-month period and could accommodate up to 76 participants (38 mentor/mentee 

partnerships). The Mentoring Component for Supervisors is a six–month program designed to help new 

Supervisors transition from a technical position to a Leadership position that could accommodate 14 

participants (7 mentor/mentee partnerships.) The overall FY22 program consisted of 90 

civilian/military Employees (45 mentor/mentee partnerships). Mentors included 7 Senior Executive 

members. DTRA senior leaders played an active part in the program by hosting virtual brown bags and 

participating in key program activities. Senior leaders met with mentees on a regular basis in a virtual 

environment and discussed key points from the program's featured book, Conversational Intelligence, 

by Judith Glaser. The members participated in a "Presenting with Peers" session which was a stretch 

assignment for those that desired to practice their PowerPoint presentation skills in front of other 

participants and receive feedback. They also participated in a new “Knowledge Sharing Panel” which 

was a panel of Supervisors, primarily Senior Executives, who shared their professional knowledge, the 

panel was open for questions, comments, and dialogue. 

Number of 

Participants 

in Grades 

7-9

Number of 

Participants 

in Grades 

11-12

Number of 

Participants 

in Grades 

13-15

Number of 

SES 

Participants

Mentees 6 6 26 0

Mentors 0 0 32 7

Outreach Program (OP): In April 2022, the Outreach Program was revamped with a new vision and 

guidance. Our outreach strategy is proactive and militant every day, DTRA civilians contribute to the 

success of the DTRA mission by addressing critical national security threats, building partnerships, and 

enabling combatant command functions throughout the globe. The 

Outreach Program coordinated and synchronized the Agency’s outreach plan to shape the future DTRA 

workforce. To target a diverse, highly qualified workforce, the Outreach Program collaborated with 

Directorates, the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office (EI), and local universities to identify the bestqualified candidates to fulfill DTRA’s needs showing that it is an employer of choice. OP built strong 

partnerships with program managers to identify needs toward increasing minority presentation. During 

FY22 our division sought to build relationships with minority groups, and partner with diverse colleges, 

institutions, and organizations such as:

1. Science Technology Engineering Mathematics (STEM) 

2. Minority Institutions of Higher Education. 

3. Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HSIs). 

4. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU). 

5. Veteran organizations. 

6. People with Disabilities. 

 

In addition, OP explored partnerships as alternatives to provide minority recruiting products and 

services. For instance: 
18

1. Partnered with Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Office (EI) to increase public awareness of 

civilian career opportunities for Minorities. 

2. Partnered with Minority professional associations. 

3. Built a strong relationship with career services. 

The Outreach Program participated in the following outreach events: 

1. STEM Career Question and Answer Panel - DTRA Hispanic Employee Resource Group 

(Oxon Hill Senior High School, Science and Technology Program) 

2. DoD Hispanics In STEM and Cyber Virtual Career Fair. 

3. FBI / WWR Joint Training - Job/education/information fair at the event. 

4. DoD Civilian Careers - The event focus on Engineering, Cyber, IT, and Contracting. 

5. American University's Intelligence & National Security Networking Reception. 

Employee Resource Groups (ERG): The ERG’s developed and submitted Action Plans for review by 

the D&I Council Co-Chairs and the EI Director. The ERG’s received quarterly training via HR’s 

Outreach Team to expand recruitment and Outreach. The ERG’s also planned monthly Special 

Observances in coordination with the Special Emphasis Program Manager. Additionally, the EI office 

met with the ERGs monthly to provide DEIA Agency updates. 

• African American (AA): The EI Director met with the ERG to advise and assist with their 

initiatives. 

 African American (AA) Participated in several TAP & Outreach events with HR 

Directorate. 

 MLK Jr. Observance Day - Invited all members and the other ERGs to submit photos for 

a day of service (virtual or in-person) to commemorate Dr. King’s birthday. The photos 

were posted on the SharePoint site. 

 Black History Month’s Theme was “Black History is American History”. 

o Hosted a photo and informational display in the DTRC lobby. 

o Spotlighted seven contributors to Black History weekly, for a total of 28 

contributors. Career fields included: Inventions that Make our Lives Better; Medical 

Contributions; STEM Contributions; and First in Military Contributions. 

o Two DTRA-wide webcast events spotlighted Dr. Njema Frazier, SES, 

Director, Office of Experimental Sciences, Defense Programs, National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA), Washington, DC; and Ms. Joan Mulholland, Civil 

Rights Activist and Freedom Rider. 

 Collaborated with the Women’s ERG for Women’s History Month spotlighting 

March 14th Pi Day. A mathematical quiz/contest was conducted to identify Women 

Mathematicians. This collaboration was one of the first major collaborations between 

two ERGs at DTRA.

 Juneteenth Celebration: 

o Hosted a Historically Black College and University (HBCU) Panel featuring four 

African American (AA) employees whom attended an HBCU. The panel shared 

their experiences while attending a HBCU. 
19

o Hosted a Virtual Road trip to African American Museums through pictures. A 

slideshow of pictures was featured on the AA ERG SharePoint showcasing AA ERG 

members visiting AA Museums around the country. 

 Social Mixers: 

o Hosted the first Social Mixer for ERG members at the Ft. Belvoir Golf Course 

Clubhouse. The event brought ERG members together in an after work setting for 

networking. 

 Updated the AA ERG Holiday Soulful Cookbook to include new recipes. 

• Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI): The EI Director met with the ERG to advise and assist 

with their initiatives. 

 Created a Lunar New Year video and blog describing how various Asian countries 

celebrate the holiday. The video and blog were posted on the SharePoint site. 

 AAPI Heritage month celebrations included; o Senior Leader Round table; 

o Video/webcast of “Why Mannerisms Matter to our Success,”;

o AAPI Awards Ceremony for the “Spirit of the 442nd Infantry Regiment Military 

Awards” and “Senator Daniel K. Inouye Outstanding Civilian Awards.”; and 

o COL Christine Enriquez, D&I Co-Chair was the guest speaker for AAPI Heritage 

Month, Military District of Washington Equal Opportunity Team at Fort Belvoir. 

 Designed a collaborative art piece for the Women’s ERG “Women’s Equality Day” Art 

Gallery. 

 Participated in the DTRA EI “ERG Diversity Training Symposium”. 

 Attended the Asian American Government Executive Network Leadership Workshop. 

• Hispanic: The EI Director met with the Hispanic ERG providing advice and assistance regarding 

their initiatives. 

 Participated in Outreach events with local STEM High School (Oxon Hill Senior High 

School); STEM Career Discussion Panel. 

 Collaborated with the Women’s ERG for information sharing on Women Firsts, within 

DoD – U.S. Navy Submarine Service - First Female Submarine “Chief of the Boat” 

(Command Senior Enlisted Advisor). 

 Participated in Inter-Government mentoring, with other agencies as they stood up their 

Hispanic ERG. 

 Hosted a Cinco de Mayo educational display. 

 Commemorated Hispanic Heritage Month through a series of displays. 

 Continued to highlight DTRA Hispanic Employees. 

• Individuals with Disabilities (IwDs): The EI Director met with the IwD ERG providing advice 

and assistance regarding their initiatives. 

 The IwD ERG was the catalyst for improved sign language interpreting services at 

DTRA. A HR justify modification was enabled for the existing DLA/DTRA MOA to 

add DTRA dedicated, on-site interpreters. One interpreter available in DTRC MondayFriday, and a second interpreter available Tuesday - Thursday was also implemented. 

HR initiated recruitment for a fulltime GS-11/12 Sign Language Interpreter. 
20

 ERG Leadership and HR collaborated to obtain permanent visitor passes for contracted 

interpreters. 

 ERG analyzed and provided a report on sign language interpreting service contracts 

across 12 DoD organizations. 

 Revised the IwD ERG member reengagement plan. 

 Participated in Awareness Strategic Partnering: RD-CXA Briefing. 

 IwD ERG coordinated with the EI Office Director regarding a blog that recognized and 

spread awareness for PTSD awareness month. 

 Participated in Outreach and Internal Awareness Strategic Partnering efforts. 

 Hosted a webinar: “Disabled American Veterans (DAV) – Navigating the 

Veterans Administration (VA) Claims Process and Receiving Assistance with 

Psychiatric Conditions" for the observance of the National Disability Employment 

Awareness Month (NDEAM). 

 Hosted OSD speakers on reasonable accommodations under Section 504 and 508 

• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning/Queer, Intersex, Asexual/Ally 

(LGBTQIA+): The EI Director met with the LGBTQIA+ ERG providing advice and assistance 

regarding their initiatives. 

 Performed outreach within DTRA to build the ERG community and increase the 

membership base. 

 Hosted an “Ask me Anything” panel with over 60 attendees. Questions were answered 

which led building understanding and clarity in the DTRA workplace. 

 Hosted Mr. C. Dixon Osburn, leader of the court case to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

 Discussed the year in legislation that affects LGBTQIA+ individuals. 

• Women’s ERG; The EI Director met with the Women’s ERG providing advice and assistance 

regarding their initiatives. 

 Facilitated DTRA’s LeanIN Circle to connect individuals that are interested in 

empowering women at work and created outreach and fellowship. 

 Women’s History events highlighted significant events and contributions that women 

have made in DTRA and the nation. 

 Hosted a DTRA talk for Women’s History month. 

 Attended The Conference Board Organization’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) 

Virtual Global Event. 

 Performed a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis to 

review the past year and prepare for the year to come. 

 Hosted an art exhibit at DTRA HQs to celebrate National Women’s Appreciation day. 

D & I Contract: KUSI Global, Inc. met weekly with the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office. KUSI 

Global, Inc. developed the DTRA Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) Plan. KUSI 

collaborated on drafts of the Plan in order to meet the evolving requirements and needs within DTRA. 

KUSI Global, Inc. drafted the initial climate survey for DTRA, it was detailed and comprehensive in 

covering Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. KUSI was instrumental in researching assessments and 
21

ensuring the right questions were addressed to initiate a benchmark. KUSI met with the EI Office and 

partnered with DTRA employees to aid in the completion and launch of the survey. 

KUSI Global, Inc. created several brand concepts, KUSI and DTRA finalized a logo and brand concept 

for use on all DEIA related activities. The brand will assist DTRA in embedding DEIA across the 

Agency. KUSI also created a Communication and Campaign Plan with the purpose of further engaging 

the DTRA workforce. 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT C: 

MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY 

Anti-Harassment Program (AHP): The Anti-Harassment Program is managed and monitored by the 

Agency’s Anti-Harassment Program Manager (AHPM). The Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Office 

(EI) revised the AH Policy Statement which supersedes the AH Policy Statement dated 16, July 2021. 

The revised AH policy statement was submitted to the EEOC for review and was approved on June 3, 

2022. Subsequently, the EI office incorporated the agency Directors Strategic Intent and Initiatives and 

submitted the AH policy to be signed by the Director. The EI Office insured that the anti-harassment 

policy includes the following information: 

• A clear explanation of prohibited conduct; and a complaint procedure that encouraged 

employees to report harassing conduct before it became severe or pervasive,”. 

• Outlined an easily understood complaint process that provided accessible avenues of complaint 

that included receipt of and responding to allegations of harassment. 

• The EEO complaint process for allegations of unlawful discriminatory harassment is separate 

and distinct from the AHP’s process for responding to allegations of harassment 

• Assurance that when Employees whom make claims of harassment or provide information 

related to the claims would be protected against retaliation. 

• Supervisors will take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it determines that 

harassment has occurred. 

• The Agency will protect the confidentiality of harassment complaints to the extent possible. 

• Agency Supervisors or designated Management Officials are responsible for conducting a 

prompt, thorough and impartial inquiry within 10 calendar days of allegations being made. 

After the inquiry, if further information is warranted an investigation will be completed to 

resolve the harassment matter. The Agency Deputy Director then will appoint an investigator to 

conduct the investigation within 60 days. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) and Human 

Resources (HR) are consulted regarding corrective action measures. Based on this process there 

is a firewall between the AHP, and the EEO Complaints Process; 

• Retaliation against Employees, to include witnesses, who report harassment or participate in 

harassment investigations is prohibited. 

Reasonable Accommodations (RA) and Personal Assistance Services (PAS): In August 2022, HR 

revised its Reasonable Accommodation Handbook in accordance with guidance from the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The revised procedures are posted on DTRA's external 

website, https://www.DTRA.mil/Work-With-Us/Pay-and-Benefits/.
22

The Agency processed 6 RA requests, which included a combination of assistive technologies, sit/stand 

workstations, ergonomic chairs, extra laptop and dragon software. The RA coordinator worked closely 

with the IT Directorate and Building Manager to provide approved accommodations for individuals, 

such as four sit/stand workstations, three ergonomic chairs; extra laptop, dragon software and 

coordinated with the Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health Office (ES) to ensure ergonomic 

assessments were conducted upon request. The Agency provided Sign Language Interpreter (SLI) 

services for workplace meetings, conferences, training, and special events and maintained an SLI log 

which tracked expenditures for all events and requirements, facilitating participation in over 728 events. 

Supervisory EEO Performance Element: The EI Office revised the Supervisory EEO performance 

element, in FY21 to include a requirement promoting an inclusive workplace where Diversity and 

individual differences are valued while ensuring a work environment free from discrimination. 

Additionally, the Supervisory EEO performance element was approved by the Human Resource Policy 

Board in FY21, and implemented in the Supervisors and Managers, Department of Defense 

Performance Management and Appraisal Program (DPMAP) for the April 2022 DPMAP performance 

period.

EI and HR Monthly Collaboration: The EI Office and HR Leadership continued their monthly 

collaboration on personnel programs, policies, and procedures in accordance with EEOC laws, 

instructions, and management directives. In FY22, EI and HR collaborated on several initiatives, 

including 56 Strategic Recruitment Discussions with hiring officials to articulate the importance of 

Diversity hiring practices. HR leadership was instrumental in assisting the EI Office with obtaining 

military workforce data, preparation of the DVAAP and FEORP reports and in preparation of the MD715. In addition, the EI Office supported the HR Directorate on drafting of the Human Capital Strategy 

for the Agency.

Affirmative Action Plan: EI and HR partnered to implement the Affirmative Action Plan for PWDs. 

The following accomplishments were highlighted in FY22: 

• The EI Office created a Self-Identification flyer for the DTRA workforce. 

• Participated in a Virtual Disability Career Fair, and provided information to individuals 

regarding the Schedule A Hiring Authority and Federal Resume Tips. 

• The EI Office updated the Quick Guide for IWDs Requesting Assistance in an Emergency 

toolkit. 

• The EI Office provided Schedule A applicants information regarding the Schedule A hiring 

process, a Schedule A Fact Sheet, Federal Resume Tips and additional information regarding 

programs available to assist Individuals with Disabilities. The SEP Manager reviewed USAJobs 

for available positions within DTRA and surrounding agencies that the applicant may be 

qualified for and provided the link to the applicant. 

• The IwD ERG was the catalyst for improved sign language interpreting services at DTRA. 

• ERG Leadership and HR collaborated to obtain permanent visitor passes for contracted 

interpreters. 

• IwD ERG coordinated with the EI Office Director regarding a blog that recognized and spread 

awareness for PTSD awareness month during June. 
23

EI Office Advises Senior Leaders and Supervisors on EEO Matters: The EI Office provided 

Management and Supervisory officials with regular EEO updates, including complaints and workforce 

data summaries, through the State of the Agency Brief, monthly briefings and EEO Training. The EI 

Office readily addressed EEO questions or concerns raised by Managers and Supervisors. The EI 

Office created and continue to share Supervisory Toolkits for the Prevention of Harassment, Employee 

Engagement, Disability Toolbox: Disability Etiquette, Facts for Hiring managers, and a Toolkit for the 

Workforce Recruitment Program. 

Directorate Partnerships to Promote an Inclusive Workplace 

 

The Office of the Inspector General (IG/OIG) Office promoted an inclusive workplace by 

conducting the following initiatives: 

• OIG assisted Employees with allegations of possible climate, Diversity, or discrimination 

concerns. 

• They held discussions with EI when EI-related cases were being addressed. 

• OIG served as an advisory member on the monthly Diversity and Inclusion Working Group. 

• OIG served as an advisory member on the Human Resources Personnel Board, where senior 

Managers review personnel programs throughout the Agency. 

• During the IG Mission brief for Agency newcomers, Employees learned about their procedural 

opportunity to inform EI of equity, diversity, and inclusion concerns before presenting them to 

the IG.

The Acquisition, Contracts, and Logistics (AL) Directorate promoted an inclusive 

workplace by conducting the following initiatives: 

• Integrated Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) programs and policies in hiring decisions 

and processes. 

• Incorporated diversity and fairness practices in hiring ensuring: consistent scoring criteria and 

interview questions for all applicants; all hiring panels included at least one female; one 

individual from another directorate; and blind resume reviews for all hiring actions. 

• Leaders and personnel within AL continued to demonstrate their commitment to Diversity by 

participating in various DTRA Employee Resource Groups. 

• The AL Leadership team remained committed to continuing to foster an inclusive workplace 

where everyone is treated with respect and dignity, coming together for constructive dialogues 

and solving challenges. 

• AL All Hands and Teambuilding Events included interpreter services to promote and sustain an 

inclusive engagement. 

• The Office of Small Business Programs (AL-SB) participated in several outreach and 

recruitment events which promoted diversity and collaboration with Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutes (MSIs), including: 

o The DoD Hispanics in STEM and Cyber Virtual Career Fair hosted by Defense Civilian 

Personnel Advisory Services with 290 participants in attendance. ALSB participated in 

DTRA’s virtual booth discussing open positions, the DTRA mission space, and tips on 

navigating the hiring process with 12 people who were interested in positions with 

DTRA. 

o Presented at two DoD Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity,
24

“Taking the Pentagon to the People” events. The first was co-hosted by the 

University of Texas with 200 attendees and the second was co-hosted by Central State 

University with 600 attendees. Educated attendees on how HBCUs and MSIs can 

support DoD through Research and Development, including the Small Business 

Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Program by provision of 

developmental assistance to Protégé firms through the DoD Mentor Protégé Program, 

and by participation in full and open recruitment solicitations. 

The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CT/CTR) Directorate promoted an inclusive workplace by 

conducting the following initiatives: 

• The CTR fully supported and enforced the Inclusion and Diversity policies of the Agency. 

• CTR integrated Inclusion and Diversity initiatives throughout the hiring process and duration of 

employment by enacting several internal policies and practices including blind resume reviews 

and diverse hiring panels, with the goal of providing Equal Employment Opportunities for new 

hires and reducing potential inherent biases. Blind resume reviews allowed the hiring Manager 

to solely focus on the technical information on the resume and how they align to the 

requirements of the position. 

• In line with DTRA’s Diversity Guidance and cleared by the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

(EI) Office, interview panels were convened with the following make-up: at least one panelist 

who identified as a man; at least one panelist who identified as a woman; at least one panelist 

external to CTR; and at least one panelist representing an underrepresented minority group 

within DTRA. 

• Inclusion and Diversity were addressed directly to the workforce throughout the year by the 

CTR Director in the form of virtual town halls, climate surveys, and Employee training. The 

CTR Director addressed proper reporting of incidents through chain of command, the CTR 

Front Office, and DTRA EI or IG, as appropriate. CTR Climate surveys were issued and used to 

improve the CTR Leadership climate in FY21. Several CTR departments offered Unconscious 

Bias, Arbinger and Brookings trainings that were well attended, during FY21. 

The Research and Development (RD) Directorate promoted an inclusive workplace by 

conducting the following initiatives: 

• Chemical and Biological Technologies Department (RD-CB): In FY22, DTRA engaged with 

24 HBCU/MIs through recorded webinars, Resume writing for Federal Employment in 

partnership with OPM. These virtual events enabled direct engagement with students and 

faculty and recordings of these events were posted to the Defense Visual Information 

Distribution Service (DVIDS) for broader continuing access. 

• Enabling Capabilities (RD-EC) Department: The DTRA basic research program operated 

two University Research Alliances (URAs). Each URA was made up of approximately twenty 

(20) partner organizations, primarily universities. Multiple historically black colleges and 

universities/minority institutions (HBCU/MIs) were important partners within these alliances, 

including Morgan State University, Fisk University, University of California Riverside, and 

University of Arizona. Workforce development was a key objective of these alliances, and both 

programs aimed at developing students from HBCU/MIs, including internships. During FY22, 

the URAs trained 97 Students (27 from MSEE and 70 from IIRM) in DTRA relevant STEM 

fields. Additionally, over 100 diverse students have been involved in Sea Air and Land Events 

this year with over 7 events planned for 2023. 
25

The On-Site Inspection and Building Capacity (OB) Directorate promoted an inclusive workplace 

by conducting the following initiatives: 

• Integrated Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs or policies throughout the hiring 

process and duration of employment by creating Directorate specific hiring guidance, including 

review of interview questions by the EI office. Additionally, the guidance required one external 

directorate panel member for GS-13 or above hiring actions; and one external department panel 

member for GS-12 or below hiring actions. 

• Created inclusive workforce engagement activities (i.e. Requested Unconscious and Implicit 

Bias training as a team building activity). 

The Strategic Integration (SI) Directorate promoted an inclusive workplace by conducting the 

following initiatives: 

• DTRA Hispanic Employee Resource Group leadership traveled to DTRA Albuquerque 24 Nov 

to meet with ERG members, potential members, supervisors and site senior leadership. Mr. 

Rivera participated in a series of meetings with ALBQ senior staff. 

• SI-PL conducted a potluck teambuilding event for the Thanksgiving Holiday on 22 November. 

Over 50 PLEX personnel attended the event. Each potluck dish was a personal favorite of the 

person providing it, giving the participants an opportunity to share family and regional favorites 

with their coworkers. This event created an opportunity for the team to bond and for leadership 

to express its appreciation of the hard-work, dedication, and professionalism of the PLEX 

workforce in an informal environment of camaraderie and Thanksgiving. 

• SI-FM offered and sponsored professional growth opportunities and for SI staff. 

• The blind resume process was utilized for all hiring actions. 

• The EI Office reviewed all interview questions to ensure they were free of unconscious bias. 

DTRA-Europe promoted an inclusive workplace by conducting the following initiatives: 

• Executed the first post-COVID Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty inspection in two years in 

which a third of the team consisted of women: Team Chief, an interpreter, and a weapons 

inspector. 

• DTRA-E fully supported and enforced the Inclusion and Diversity policies of the Agency 

during its hiring process ensuring male/female and underrepresented minority panelists. 

Additionally, enacted policies and practices including blind resume reviews and diverse hiring 

panels with the goal of providing Equal Employment Opportunities for new hires and reducing 

potential inherent biases. Blind resume reviews allowed the hiring Manager to solely focus on 

the technical information on the resume and how they align to the requirements of the position. 

• Provided Unconscious and Implicit Bias training opportunities for all of DTRA-E employees. 

• Hosted heritage and awareness events to include Asian Pacific American Heritage (AAPI). 

• Hosted a representative from the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP). The team based in 

Landstuhl, Germany conducted a briefing at DTRA-E covering services available through the 

WWP to disabled veterans and their families in Europe. 
26

The Information Management & Technology (IT) Directorate integrated Diversity and Inclusion 

(D&I) initiatives and events throughout the organization. Our goal and priority was to support the 

Agency’s D&I Council goals and objectives. 

• The IT Directorate promoted D&I throughout the employee hiring process by introducing blind. 

Hiring panels consisted of a diverse group from both internal and external IT Directorate 

partners. The focus on hiring was to ensure the best candidate was selected based on his/her 

knowledge, skills and abilities. 

• The IT Directorate conducted Sensing Sessions with employees to identify specific areas of 

focus in order to make improvements, these included: Recognition, Hiring and 

Retention, Communications, Leadership Development, and Morale and Welfare. 

Champions/Leads were selected for each of the five major Focus Areas, and actions plans were 

developed identifying specific objectives to demonstrate improvements. 

• The IT Governance leadership guided staff on conducting virtual meetings with attendees that 

require accommodations. Staff members altered their meeting to ensure attendees could actively 

participate in meetings through interpreters and other assistive technologies. 

• IT Directorate personnel supported the following ERGs and committees: Individuals with 

Disabilities ERG; 

o DTRA Employee Engagement & Morale Council (EEMC); Participated in the 

Hispanic ERG event on September 27, 2022; Mrs. Rachel Maxwell, DTRA IT-KT 

Department Chief, and four other women from across DTRA attended Ms. Rosenblum’s 

presentation at the March 25, 2022 session of the Women’s ERG. 

o Albuquerque IT Department selected one participant from the Summer Student Intern 

program to work in the organization from June 2022 thru September 2022. 

• IT Program Management Department selected one participant from the Summer Student Intern 

program to work in the Program Support Office. 

• Throughout the IT Directorate, various Morale and Welfare events were conducted. 

• DTRA IT-IR Governance team updated DTRA Instruction 1020.02 “Implementation of Section 

508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” and established a strategy for providing 

DTRA personnel with disabilities, as well as members of the public, access to the same (or 

comparable) use of information and data as DoD personnel who do not have disabilities. The 

document is currently in final review prior to issuance. 

• IT assigned a 508 Compliance Coordinator to monitor compliance, verify accessibility of 

products and services, resolve accessibility issues, and distribute information regarding Section 

508. 

• On 18 Oct 2022 IT facilitated a “Section 508 Lunch and Learn” in observance of the “National 

Disability Employment Awareness Month” with speakers “Mr. Randy Cooper the Director, 

Disability Equal Opportunity Policy and Compliance” and “Ms. Jen Haggerty the DoD Section 

508 Coordinator in the Office of the DoD Chief Information Officer”. This event focused on 

what DTRA employees and supervisors should know about disability equal opportunity 

programs, including how to request and obtain IT and physical workspace accessibility 

resources and the roles of DTRA Section 504 & 508 coordinators. 

• Initiated an update of DTRA’s Section 508 Compliance reporting, in preparation for the 

February 2023 submission to the DoD CIO. Initiated review and analysis of additional web sites 

and pages for compliance. 
27

The Operations and Integration (OI) Directorate promoted an inclusive workplace by conducting 

the following initiatives: 

• Fully supported and enforced the Inclusion and Diversity policies of the Agency. 

• Adhered to Inclusion and Diversity initiatives throughout the hiring process and duration of 

employment by using blind resume reviews and diverse hiring panels. Hiring panels contained a 

diverse membership to ensure hiring rankings, and ultimately selections that promoted equity, 

diversity and inclusion throughout their deliberations. Interview panels were convened with the 

following make-up: at least one panelist who identified as a man, at least one panelist who 

identified as a woman, and at least one panelist representing an underrepresented minority 

group within DTRA. 

• Recognized Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month in April 2022 through events onsite at the Reston location. 

• Addressed Diversity and Inclusion throughout the year via town halls, climate surveys and 

employee training, as well as the implementation of “Winning through Culture” within the OA 

Department. Winning through Culture is a long term strategic and ongoing endeavor, which 

brought together the full spectrum of the workforce to understand and shape all elements toward 

a common focus and execution of its mission and functions, all under the guiding theme of 

mutual respect and the principals of equity, diversity and inclusion. 

The Nuclear Enterprise (NE) Directorate promoted an inclusive workplace by conducting the 

following initiatives: 

• Directorate Leadership: In April 2022, the NE Chief of Staff hosted a Talent 

Management Summit that included members of the DTRA Human Resources Staff, 

Engagement and Inclusion Staff, Industry, and Academia. The summit focused on identifying 

how the directorate could attract, recruit, and retain a diverse workforce and grow nuclear 

expertise for the workforce. Several innovative ideas were identified and have since been 

implemented. The summit was attended by 15 personnel. 

• Defense Nuclear Weapons School (DNWS): The DNWS hosted a Diversity and Inclusion 

Training session on 15 December 2022 for the staff and others from DTRA ABQ. The training 

helped foster an environment inclusive to all employees and provided tools for supervisors 

working in a diverse environment. There were 25 personnel in attendance. 

• Hiring Standard Operating Procedures: NE continued to develop diverse hiring panels and have 

extended invitations to all employees to participate or observe hiring panels. The directorate 

noted an increase in the diversity of its hiring actions. 

• Nuclear Enterprise All Hands: The NE Director addressed diversity and inclusion at each NE 

All Hands, to the over 500 NE employees. Several DTRA Staff Offices were invited to discuss 

specific topics, such as having difficult conversations, employee relations, etc. 

• Nuclear Enterprise Round Tables: In FY22, NE held a series of round table discussions where 

employees were given the opportunity to openly discuss any topic. Follow-up actions from the 

round tables were immediately addressed and disseminated to the attendees. 

• NE Outreach Video: From August to December 2022, the NE Directorate facilitated an 

Outreach Video project aimed at increasing recruitment efforts. The video highlighted the 

diversity within the directorate from student interns to fellows, to senior civilians and 

Military who shared their experiences and the unique skills developed while working in the 

directorate. The video is scheduled to be released in the calendar year 2023. 
28

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT D: 

PROACTIVE PREVENTION OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION 

The Agency proactively reviewed, revised, and published (internal/external websites) EEO policies 

relating to harassment prevention, EEO complaints process, RA, and PAS. 

Trends Report and Data Monitoring Tool: The EI Office utilized the FY22 EEOC Trigger A and 

Trigger B tables to assist in the barrier analysis process to identify potential barriers. The trigger tables 

analyze data such as sex, race, occupational category, participation rates, awards, and directorate break 

down of the workforce compared to the Civilian Labor Force Census (CLF). HR also reviewed exit 

surveys from departing Employees and provided relevant information. The Agency continually strives 

to improve its recruitment, hiring, inclusion, and advancement of people with disabilities. 

Exit Interviews Survey: There were 150 surveys completed in FY22, of which 87% of the respondents 

were civilian Employees. Of the Civilian Employees whom completed the exit survey, 82% responded 

they would recommend working at DTRA to others. Additionally, a high percentage of civilian 

Employees provided positive feedback with their response on recommending the Agency to others as a 

place of employment.

Affirmative Action Plan: The EI Office and HR promoted the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of 

qualified PWDs and Persons with Targeted Disabilities (PWTDs), and encouraged them to apply for 

vacancies via Schedule A and WRP hiring authorities. They also ensured all disability-related questions 

and concerns were addressed promptly and correctly by the Disability Program Manager. The EI Office 

collaborated with HR to ensure a comprehensive plan for specialized training; mentoring and career 

development opportunities were in place for PWDs and PWTDs. 

Issuance, Policies and Procedures Review: In FY22, the EI Office reviewed DoD issuances and 

DTRA issuances about management and personnel policies, procedures and practices (Employee 

development/ training program, Director’s Planning Guidance, Human Capital Roadmap, Directorate 

Hiring Practices, and Talent Development Program) through the DTRA Enterprise Access Management 

Service-Army (ETMS2). 

EEO Training for Supervisors and Employees: The Agency provided EEO Training for all

Supervisors, Managers, and Employees. The trainings included the Disability Employment and Hiring 

Authorities Management, Disability and Reasonable Accommodation, EEO Complaints Process, 

Prevention of Harassment, the ADR Experience, and EEO laws and guidance. Additionally, Civil 

Treatment Training was also provided for DTRA Employees. 

The EI Office proactively enhanced training efforts during FY22, by increasing the number of 

instructor-led Prevention of Harassment sessions, a Diversity and Inclusion Now training module as 

well as monthly Diversity Chat and Chew events. These virtual trainings were available to all remote 

locations (Germany, ABQ, Eglin, and Travis). EEO and Diversity Training were also provided to 

Directorates and Divisions upon request. 
29

Mandatory EEO

Training

FY21 

Participation 

FY22 

Participation

EEO for Employees 347 594

EEO for Supervisors 92 154

Prevention of 

Harassment Training

FY21 

Participation 

FY22 

Participation

Employee 40 407

Supervisor 34 157

Briefing and 

Workshops 

oarding (Brief) 135 119

Agency Overview

Diversity Training 617 361

ADR Webinar 16 81

Disability Training 45 44

Diversity and Inclusion 

Chat & Chews 450 

Total 1429 2470

Office Inspector General (OIG): In FY22, the OIG office received eighty-one (81) contacts, ten (10) 

of which involved an EEO-type of concern, which is a significant decrease in comparison with FY21 

(90 contacts, 4 EEO-type of concern). None of the ten (10) cases led to an OIG investigation, however, 

two contacts were related to a management-directed investigation, following an IG referral. In total, 

five (5) of ten (10) cases required a referral to management for resolution. Two (2) of ten (10) contacts, 

OIG assisted the Employee with a resolution that addressed their concern. One (1) of ten (10) contacts, 

OIG assisted the Supervisor with a resolution that addressed their concern. One (1) contact alleged 

management abused their authority. One (1) contact involved an allegation of hiring fairness, which 

led to investigation. None of OIG’s ten (10) contacts involved an allegation of reprisal.

OIG sustained monthly “Blotter” updates with the Director, where IG-related activities were addressed, 

which at times included matters involving climate, Diversity, or discrimination. OIG provided similar 

“Blotter” updates to respective Directorate leaders. OIG conducted monthly Personnel Action 
30

Meetings with EI, GC, SC, and HR to review personnel concerns that potentially contained an EI 

nexus; the Deputy Director could also chair some meetings. The Personnel Actions Meetings were to 

ensure there was a process to elevate internal investigations to DTRA Leadership. 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT E: 

EFFICIENCY 

In FY22, the EI Office continued to enhance its systems to accurately collect, monitor, and analyze data 

related to the EEO program. To comply with Part 1614 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

and MD-715 requirements, the EI Office remains neutral and impartial. This helps to prevent 

institutional conflicts of interest that otherwise could arise and instill confidence in the integrity of the 

EEOC’s EEO complaint program. 

Neutral EEO Process: To comply with Part 1614 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 

MD-715 requirements, the EI Office remained neutral and impartial. The impartiality of the EI Office 

helped prevent institutional conflicts of interest that otherwise could arise and to instill confidence in 

the integrity of the DTRA EEO complaint program. The EI Office ensures the Agency representative is 

not the attorney providing legal sufficiency reviews or involved in counseling, investigations, or final 

Agency decision stages of the EEO process. 

Efficient, Fair and Impartial Complaint Resolution Process: DTRA’s EEO complaint program was 

timely in completion of EEO counseling, including written notification of rights and responsibilities, 

investigations, acceptance/dismissal decisions, final Agency decisions, and final actions. The EI Office 

routinely utilized the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) and submitted complaint files and other 

documents in the proper format to EEOC. 

Data Collection Systems: In FY22, the AH Program Manager created two tracking systems that 

tracked Contacts as well as Harassment allegations. Contacts and harassment allegations were tracked 

for type of issue, Directorate, Manager, and Alleged Harasser. Additionally, harassment allegations 

were tracked for completion of inquiry. A four (4) year trend analysis was conducted that identified 

trends such as type of issue, Directorate, Manager, and Alleged Harasser as well as the number of 

contacts and number of harassment allegations received. Completion of the trend analysis allowed for 

identification of increased or decreased contacts and harassment allegations as identification of trends 

in the type of concerns expressed by DTRA employees. 

In FY22, the EI Office ensured that the necessary updates to the current iComplaints case management 

system were in place to continue to maintain and accurately collect, monitor, and analyze data related 

to the EEO program. A contract was awarded for the implementation and annual support of ETK EEO. 

EI coordinated with the DTRA Human Resources Directorate to request and receive additional 

reporting data in support of the MD 715, FEORP, DVAAP Reports, as well as ad hoc requests. 

EEO Complaints: The EI Office tracked its EEO complaint trends during FY22, via the iComplaints 

data management tool. EI also utilized the iComplaints data management tool to produce the FY22 

Annual Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints (462).
31

EEO Pre-Complaints & Formal: EEO Pre-Complaints & Formal: In FY22, EI received 14 precomplaints which is the same number of pre-complaints received as FY21. In FY22, seven (7) of the 14 

aggrieved Employees filed formal EEO complaints. 

DTRA’s most frequently claimed basis was sex in FY22. Complaints in which sex was a basis 

increased from five (5) in FY21 to eight (8) in FY22, an increase of 37.5%. Complaints in which the 

basis was age increased from one (1) in FY21 to three (3) in FY22, an increase of 33.33%. 

Figure 4: Bases of Discrimination FY2018 – FY2021

Alternative Dispute Resolution: In FY22 the DTRA EI office continued to implement the ADR 

program. The EI Office continued the process of routing the Agency instruction for approval. 

Additionally, the EI Office presented ADR experience and ADR Brown Bag sessions to educate the 

workforce. The EI Office developed a training module to demonstrate the core principles of ADR, 

which was delivered in semi-annual ADR briefings offered to the workforce on a voluntary attendance 

basis, and was also incorporated into the Prevention of Harassment for Employees/Supervisors, EEO 

Training for Employees/Supervisors, Onboarding Briefings and the Virtual Agency Overview 

Briefings, which are Agency-wide mandatory trainings.

The ADR program was available during the pre-complaint and formal complaint processes. ADR was 

offered to all aggrieved Employees during the EEO pre-complaint process by the EEO Counselor. The 

EEO Counselor informed all aggrieved Employees of the benefits of ADR and emphasized how the 

ADR process was voluntary and allowed disputes/issues to be handled swiftly to get matters resolved. 

In FY22, DTRA processed 14 informal and 7 formal EEO complaints. Mediation was offered each 

time, one Employee elected to participate and resulted in an informal resolution. 

The Agency did not require Managers and Supervisors to participate in ADR when offered during the 

EEO complaint process, during FY22. However, the draft ADR Instruction includes language that 

would make this a requirement, and if accepted in the final Instruction, will be enforceable. 

DTRA submitted the annual ADR Report to DoD on March 21, 2022. The annual ADR Report 

included the types of ADR conducted, number of resolutions, marketing conducted in the prior year 

and enhancements projected for the next year. 
32

Complaint Funding: During FY22, EI contracted services for five (5) EEO Investigations and one 

Anti-Harassment case mediation. EI also contracted court reporter services, for an EEOC hearing. 

Additionally, a contract was awarded to update iComplaints to ETK EEO including technical support 

and annual subscriptions for its complaints tracking and reports software. The table below reflects the 

FY expenditures. 

FY22 COMPAINT PROCESSING EXPENDITURES

INVESTIGATIONS CONTRACT $19,325.00

MEDIATIONS $2,035.00 

 COURT REPORTER $2,592.45 

 ICOMPLAINT CONTRACT $36,052.14 

TOTAL EXPENSE $60,004.59

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT F: 

RESPONSIVENESS AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE 

Compliance: The EI Office ensured full and prompt compliance with orders from Administrative 

Judges (AJ) and implemented terms of settlement agreements that were reached in FY22. This fiscal 

year, DTRA continued to process complaints filed in previous Fiscal Years, two (2) from FY16, two 

(2) from FY17, three (3) from FY18, one (1) from FY19, and one (1) from FY21, as well as complaints 

filed in FY22. DTRA reached monetary settlements with eight complainants along with one finding 

and one dismissal by the AJ. The terms of the agreements included lump sum and attorney’s fees 

payments and one promotion to GG-14. 

Date Submitted Report Title 

January, 2023 

22 No FEAR Act Report 

22 Harassment Report 

March 2022 FY21 Alternative Dispute Resolution Report 

October 31, 2022 FY22 Annual Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical 

Report of Discrimination Complaints (462 Report) 

November 15, 2022 FY22 Civil Rights Reports Age Discrimination Act Report and 

Executive Order 13160 Report 

No FEAR Act Report: The EI Office timely and accurately submitted its quarterly and annual No 

FEAR Report to the EEOC. These reports were also posted on the Agency’s external website in a 

timely manner. 
33

Figure 5: Monetary Settlements FY18 – FY22. FY22 funds paid includes settlements reached for Complaints filed in FY16, 

FY17, FY18, FY19 and FY21. 

Compliance with Settlement Agreements: The EI Office ensured full and prompt compliance with 

terms of settlement agreements that were reached in FY22. DTRA reached settlements during FY22 

with nine complainants: FY16 (2), FY17 (2), FY18 (2), FY19 (1), FY21 (1), and FY22 (1). The terms 

of the agreements included one promotion to GG-14, lump sum and attorney’s fees payments.

Anti-Harassment Trends: In FY22, a total of 22 employees contacted the Anti-Harassment Program 

Manager (AHPM) regarding concerns of harassment. A total of 11 employees filed harassment concern 

and 11 employees requested information from the AH Program Manager but did not file a harassment 

case. 

During FY22, DTRA experienced a decrease in the number of complaints of harassment received. 

Mediation was offered to three (3) employees/alleged harassers. Mediation was accepted by one 

employee/alleged harasser as a means to resolve their concerns/issues. The AHPM facilitated the 

coordination of the mediation which resulted in an agreement being reached. 

FY No. of case

Total 

Contacts/

Inquiries 

Closed Mediations FY

No. of 

Contacts

22 11 11 11 1 22 11

21 16 16 16 1 21 2

20 14 14 14 0 20 1

19 23 23 23 0 19 8

18 7 7 7 0 18 1

The following chart depicts the various types of harassment alleged by DTRA Employees during FY18 

- FY21. 
34

During FY22 the top issues reported were Hostile Work Environment, nonsexual Harassment, and 

Inappropriate comments. During FY22 Allegations of Hostile Work Environment decreased in FY22 

from 10 in FY21 to one (1) in FY22. Inappropriate comments was the third most reported concern from 

FY18 – FY21; however, no allegations of inappropriate comments were filed with the EI office during 

FY22. 

AGENCY ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

DTRA’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EI) Office compared its current EEO program status to the 

Model EEO Program Self-Assessment measures (Part G). Of the 156 measures, the EI Office identified 

14 deficiencies within its EEO program reflecting a compliance rate of 91%. Utilizing the results of the 

Self-Assessment, the Agency developed plans to address program deficiencies (Part H). 

DTRA continues to work diligently to resolve the identified program deficiencies. Numerous steps 

were taken to address each deficiency during FY22. Accomplishments during FY21 include the 

resolution of the following program deficiencies: 

• The EI Office revised and submitted the Anti-Harassment Policy to the EEOC, which was 

approved. The EEOC approval resolved the deficiency related to DTRA Anti-Harassment 

policy and procedures. 

• The EI Office updated the training provided to employees and Supervisors to include examples 

of disability-based harassment. 

• The Anti-Harassment Program Manager facilitated the processing of all allegations of 

harassment submitted during FY22. 

During FY22, the EI Office continued working to establish an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action 

Award. The award will provide recognition to DTRA civilian and/or military Employees demonstrating 
35

superior accomplishments in equal opportunity, and Diversity and inclusion in the workplace and 

community. The award have been completed and is currently undergoing final review. 

During FY22 the Agency with the support of Managers and Supervisors hosted the following events: 

• Participated in a Disability Hiring Authority Career Fair for Individuals with Disabilities 

(IwDs). 

• The utilization of Toolkits and quick guides provided by the EI Office regarding hiring 

Individuals with Disabilities and the valuable assets, skills, and experience they bring to the 

workforce. 

• Supported the Employee Resource Groups. 

• Obtained permanent visitor passes for contracted sign language interpreters. 

• Participated in “Disabled American Veterans (DAV) – Navigating the Veterans Administration 

(VA) Claims Process and Receiving Assistance with Psychiatric Conditions”. 

The EI Office provided an EEO and Diversity Supervisory performance element, to ensure supervisors 

and managers are held accountable for fostering an inclusive work environment. The performance 

element was implemented during the April 2022 performance cycle. 

Enhanced collaboration between the EI office and the HR Directorate on recruitment and outreach 

strategies resulted in 56 Strategic Recruitment Discussions (SRDs). These discussion continue DTRA’s 

efforts to diversify the workforce through providing education to Hiring Officials. As a result of the 

enhanced collaboration and the SRDs, we were able to close the outreach and recruiting deficiency. 
36
37

EEOC 

FORM

715-01

PART F

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

CERTIFICATION of ESTABLISHMENT of CONTINUING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS 

I, Willisa M. Donald, am the Director, Equal Opportunity and Diversity Programs Office 

Principal EEO Director/Official For Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

The Agency has conducted an annual self-assessment of Section 717 and Section 501 programs against 

the essential elements as prescribed by EEO MD-715. If an essential element was not fully compliant with the 

standards of EEO MD-715, a further evaluation was conducted and, as appropriate, EEO Plans for 

Attaining the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program, are included with this Federal Agency 

Annual EEO Program Status Report. 

The Agency has also analyzed its workforce profiles and conducted barrier analyses aimed at detecting 

whether any management or personnel policy, procedure or practice is operating to disadvantage any 

group based on race, national origin, gender or disability. EEO Plans to Eliminate Identified Barriers, 

as appropriate, are included with this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report. 

I certify that proper documentation of this assessment is in place and is being maintained for EEOC 

review upon request. 

Director, Equal Opportunity and Diversity Programs Office Date 

Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency Date 

June 5, 2023
38
39

MD-715 - PART G 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Essential Element A: DEMONSTRATED COMMITMENT FROM AGENCY 

LEADERSHIP

This element requires the Agency head to communicate a commitment to equal employment 

opportunity and a discrimination-free workplace. 

Compliance Indicator 

A.1 – The Agency issues an effective, 

up to-date EEO policy statement. 

Measure 

Met? 

Measures 

A.1.a 

Does the Agency annually issue a 

signed and dated EEO policy 

statement on Agency letterhead that 

clearly communicates the Agency’s 

commitment to EEO for all Employees 

and applicants? If “yes”, please 

provide the annual issuance date in the 

comments column. [see MD715, II(A)] 

 

YES

 

04/28/2023

A.1.b 

Does the EEO policy statement 

address all protected bases (age, color, 

disability, sex (including pregnancy, 

sexual orientation and gender identity), 

genetic information, national origin, 

race, religion, and reprisal) contained 

in the laws EEOC enforces? [see 

29 CFR § 1614.101(a)] 

 

YES

Compliance Indicator 

A.2 – The Agency has communicated 

EEO policies and procedures to all 

Employees. 

Measure 

Met? 

Measures 

A.2.a 

Does the Agency disseminate the 

following policies and procedures to 

all Employees: 

A.2.a.1 Anti-harassment policy? [see MD 715, 

II(A)] YES 

A.2.a.2 

Reasonable accommodation 

procedures? [see 29 C.F.R § 

1614.203(d)(3)] 

YES 

A.2.b 

Does the Agency prominently post the 

following information throughout the 

workplace and on its public website: 
40

A.2.b.1 

The business contact information for 

its EEO Counselors, EEO Officers, 

Special Emphasis Program Managers, 

and EEO Director? [see 29 C.F.R § 

1614.102(b)(7)] 

YES 

A.2.b.2 

Written materials concerning the EEO 

program, laws, policy statements, and 

the operation of the EEO complaint 

process? [see 29 C.F.R § 

1614.102(b)(5)] 

YES 

A.2.b.3 

Reasonable accommodation 

procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. § 

1614.203(d)(3)(i)] If so, please provide 

the internet address in the comments 

column. 

YES 

RA-HandbookUpdates_15-

July2021.pdf (DTRA.mil)

A.2.c Does the Agency inform its Employees 

about the following topics: 

A.2.c.1

EEO complaint process? [see 29 CFR 

§§ 1614.102(a)(12) and 

1614.102(b)(5)] If “yes”, please 

provide how often. 

YES During the informal and formal 

process as well as during 

training. 

A.2.c.2 ADR process? [see MD-110, Ch. 

3(II)(C)] If “yes”, please provide how 

often. 

YES 

During the informal and formal 

process as well as during 

training. 

A.2.c.3 

Reasonable accommodation 

program? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.203(d)(7)(ii)(C)] If “yes”, 

please provide how often. 

YES 

Posted on internal DTRA1 

portal. 

 A.2.c.4 

Anti-harassment program? [see 

EEOC Enforcement Guidance on 

Vicarious Employer Liability for 

Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors 

(1999), § V.C.1] If “yes”, please 

provide how often. 

 

 

YES 

 During monthly training. 

A.2.c.5 

Behaviors that are inappropriate in 

the workplace and could result in 

disciplinary action? [5 CFR § 

2635.101(b)] If “yes”, please provide 

how often. 

YES 

Addressed in the 

Agency-wide Ethnics 

Training 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

A.3 – The Agency assesses and 

ensures EEO principles are part of 

its culture. 

Measure 

Met? 
41

A.3.a 

Does the Agency provide recognition 

to Employees, Supervisors, Managers, 

and units demonstrating superior 

accomplishment in equal employment 

opportunity? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.102(a) (9)] If “yes”, provide one 

or two examples in the comments 

section. 

NO Part H 1

 A.3.b Does the Agency utilize the Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey or other 

climate assessment tools to monitor 

the perception of EEO principles 

within the workforce? [see 5 CFR 

Part 250] 

YES 

Essential Element B: INTEGRATION OF EEO INTO THE AGENCY’S

STRATEGIC MISSION

This element requires that the Agency’s EEO programs are structured to maintain a workplace that 

is free from discrimination and support the Agency’s strategic mission.

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

B.1 - The reporting structure for the 

EEO program provides the principal 

EEO official with appropriate 

authority and resources to 

effectively carry out a successful 

EEO program. 

Measure 

Met? 

B.1.a 

Is the Agency head the immediate 

Supervisor of the person (“EEO 

Director”) who has day-to-day 

control over the EEO office? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(b)(4)] 

YES 

B.1.a.1 

If the EEO Director does not report to 

the Agency head, does the EEO 

Director report to the same Agency 

head designee as the mission-related 

programmatic offices? If “yes,” 

please provide the title of the Agency 

head designee in the comments. 

YES 

B.1.a.2 

Does the Agency’s organizational 

chart clearly define the reporting 

structure for the EEO office? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(b)(4)] 

YES 

B.1.b 

Does the EEO Director have a regular 

and effective means of advising the 

Agency head and other senior 

management officials of the 

effectiveness, efficiency and legal 

compliance of the Agency’s EEO 

program? [see 29 CFR 

 

 

YES 
42

§1614.102(c)(1); MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

B.1.c 

During this reporting period, did the 

EEO Director present to the head of 

the Agency, and other senior 

management officials, the "State of the 

Agency" briefing covering the six 

essential elements of the model EEO 

program and the status of the barrier 

analysis process? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I)] If “yes”, please 

provide the date of the briefing in the 

comments column. 

 

 

YES 

FY 2021 State of the Agency

Brief was provided on January 24, 

2023.

B.1.d 

Does the EEO Director regularly 

participate in senior-level staff 

meetings concerning personnel, 

budget, technology, and other 

workforce issues? [see MD-715, II(B)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

B.2 – The EEO Director controls all 

aspects of the EEO program. 

Measure 

Met? 

B.2.a 

Is the EEO Director responsible for the 

implementation of a continuing 

affirmative employment program to 

promote EEO and to identify and 

eliminate discriminatory policies, 

procedures, and practices? [see MD110, Ch. 1(III)(A); 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)] 

YES 

B.2.b 

Is the EEO Director responsible for 

overseeing the completion of EEO 

counseling [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(4)] 

YES 

B.2.c 

Is the EEO Director responsible for 

overseeing the fair and thorough 

investigation of EEO complaints? [see 

29 CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This 

question may not be applicable for 

certain subordinate level components.] 

YES 
43

B.2.d 

Is the EEO Director responsible for 

overseeing the timely issuance of final 

Agency decisions? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may 

not be applicable for certain 

subordinate level components.] 

YES 

B.2.e 

Is the EEO Director responsible for 

ensuring compliance with EEOC 

orders? [see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(e); 

1614.502] 

YES 

B.2.f Is the EEO Director responsible for 

periodically evaluating the entire EEO 

program and providing 

recommendations for improvement to 

the Agency head? [see 29 CFR 

1614.102(c)(2)] 

YES 

B.2.g If the Agency has subordinate level 

components, does the EEO Director 

provide effective guidance and 

coordination for the components? [see 

29 CFR §§ 1614.102(c)(2) and (c)(3)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

B.3 - The EEO Director and other 

EEO professional staff are involved 

in, and consulted on, 

management/personnel actions. 

Measure 

Met? 

B.3.a 

Do EEO program officials participate 

in Agency meetings regarding 

workforce changes that might impact 

EEO issues, including strategic 

planning, recruitment strategies, 

vacancy projections, succession 

planning, and selections for 

training/career development 

opportunities? [see MD-715, II(B)] 

 

 

NO 

 

Part H 2 

B.3.b 

Does the Agency’s current strategic 

plan reference EEO / Diversity and 

inclusion principles? [see MD-715, 

II(B)] If “yes”, please identify the EEO 

principles in the strategic plan in the 

comments column. 

NO Part H 3 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

B.4 - The Agency has sufficient 

budget and staffing to support the 

success of its EEO program. 

Measure 

Met? 
44

B.4.a 

Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(1), 

has the Agency allocated sufficient 

funding and qualified staffing to 

successfully implement the EEO 

program, for the following areas: 

B.4.a.1 

to conduct a self-assessment of the 

Agency for possible program 

deficiencies? [see MD-715, II(D)] 

YES 

B.4.a.2 

to enable the Agency to conduct a 

thorough barrier analysis of its 

workforce? [see MD-715, II(B)] 

YES 

B.4.a.3 

to timely, thoroughly, and fairly 

process EEO complaints, including 

EEO counseling, investigations, final 

Agency decisions, and legal

sufficiency reviews? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.102(c)(5) & 1614.105(b) – (f); 

MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D) & 5(IV); MD715, II(E)] 

YES 

B.4.a.4 

to provide all Supervisors and 

Employees with training on the EEO 

program, including but not limited to 

retaliation, harassment, religious 

accommodations, disability 

accommodations, the EEO complaint 

process, and ADR? [see MD715, II(B) 

and III(C)] If not, please identify the 

type(s) of training with insufficient 

funding in the comments column. 

 

 

YES 

B.4.a.5 

to conduct thorough, accurate, and 

effective field audits of the EEO 

programs in components and the field 

offices, if applicable? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(2)] 

YES 

B.4.a.6 

to publish and distribute EEO 

materials (e.g. harassment policies, 

EEO posters, reasonable 

accommodations procedures)? [see 

MD- 715, II(B)] 

YES 

B.4.a.7 

to maintain accurate data collection 

and tracking systems for the following 

types of data: complaint tracking, 

workforce demographics, and 

applicant flow data? [see MD-715, 

II(E)]. If not, please identify the 

systems with insufficient funding in 

the comments section. 

 

 

YES 
45

B.4.a.8 

to effectively administer its special 

emphasis programs (such as, Federal 

Women’s Program, Hispanic 

Employment Program, and People 

with Disabilities Program Manager)? 

[5 USC § 7201; 38 USC § 4214; 5 

CFR § 720.204; 5 CFR § 213.3102(t) 

and (u); 5 CFR § 315.709] 

YES 

B.4.a.9 

to effectively manage its anti-

harassment program? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I); EEOC 

Enforcement Guidance on 

Vicarious Employer Liability for 

Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors 

(1999), § V.C.1] 

YES 

B.4.a.10 

to effectively manage its reasonable 

accommodation program? [see 29 CFR 

§ 1614.203(d)(4)(ii)] 

YES 

B.4.a.11 

to ensure timely and complete 

compliance with EEOC orders? [see 

MD-715, II(E)] 

YES 

B.4.b 

Does the EEO office have a budget 

that is separate from other offices 

within the Agency? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.102(a)(1)] 

YES 

B.4.c 

Are the duties and responsibilities of 

EEO officials clearly defined? [see 

MD-110, Ch. 1(III)(A), 2(III), & 

6(III)] 

YES 

B.4.d 

Does the Agency ensure that all new 

counselors and investigators, including 

contractors and collateral duty

Employees, receive the required 32 

hours of training, pursuant to Ch. 

2(II)(A) of MD-110? 

YES 

B.4.e 

Does the Agency ensure that all 

experienced counselors and 

investigators, including contractors and 

collateral duty Employees, receive the 

required 8 hours of annual refresher 

training, pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(C) of 

MD-110? 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

B.5 – The Agency recruits, hires, 

develops, and retains Supervisors and 

Managers who have effective 

Managerial, communications, and 

interpersonal skills. 

Measure 

Met? 
46

B.5.a 

Pursuant to 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5), 

have all Managers and Supervisors 

received training on their 

responsibilities under the following 

areas under the Agency EEO program: 

B.5.a.1 EEO Complaint Process? [see MD

-

715(II)(B)] YES 

B.5.a.2 

Reasonable Accommodation 

Procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. § 

1614.102(d)(3)] 

YES 

B.5.a.3 

Anti-Harassment Policy? [see MD-

715(II)(B)] YES 

B.5.a.4 

Supervisory, Managerial, 

communication, and interpersonal 

skills in order to supervise most 

effectively in a workplace with diverse 

Employees and avoid disputes arising 

from ineffective communications? [see 

MD-715, II(B)] 

YES 

B.5.a.5 

ADR, with emphasis on the federal 

government’s interest in encouraging 

mutual resolution of disputes and the 

benefits associated with utilizing 

ADR? [see MD-715(II)(E)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

B.6 – The Agency involves Managers 

in the implementation of its EEO 

program. 

Measure 

Met? 

B.6.a 

Are senior Managers involved in the 

implementation of Special Emphasis 

Programs? [see MD-715 Instructions, 

Sec.I] 

YES 

B.6.b 

Do senior Managers participate in the 

barrier analysis process? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

YES 

B.6.c 

When barriers are identified, do senior 

Managers assist in developing Agency 

EEO action plans (Part I, Part J, or the 

Executive Summary)? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

YES 

B.6.d 

Do senior Managers successfully 

implement EEO Action Plans and 

incorporate the EEO Action Plan 

YES 
47

Objectives into Agency strategic 

plans? [29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5)] 

Essential Element C: MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY

This element requires the Agency head to hold all Managers, Supervisors, and EEO officials 

responsible for the effective implementation of the Agency’s EEEO Program and Plan. 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

C.1 – The Agency conducts regular 

internal audits of its component and 

field offices. 

Measure 

Met? 

C.1.a 

Does the Agency regularly assess its 

component and field offices for 

possible EEO program deficiencies? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If ”yes”, 

please provide the schedule for 

conducting audits in the comments 

section. 

YES 

Larger Remote Sites were 

visited annually prior to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. The visits 

will restart during FY23 

pending pandemic status. 

C.1.b 

Does the Agency regularly assess its 

component and field offices on their 

efforts to remove barriers from the 

workplace? [see 29 CFR 

1614.102(c)(2)] If “yes”, please 

provide the schedule for conducting 

audits in the comments section. 

YES 

C.1.c 

Do the component and field offices 

make reasonable efforts to comply 

with the recommendations of the field 

audit? [see MD-715, II(C)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

C.2 – The Agency has established 

procedures to prevent all forms of 

EEO discrimination. 

Measure 

Met? 
48

C.2.a 

Has the Agency established 

comprehensive anti-harassment policy 

and procedures that comply with 

EEOC’s enforcement guidance? [see 

MD-715, II(C); Enforcement 

Guidance on Vicarious Employer 

Liability for Unlawful Harassment by 

Supervisors (Enforcement 

Guidance), EEOC No. 915.002, § 

V.C.1 (June 18, 1999)] 

 

YES

C.2.a.1 

Does the anti-harassment policy 

require corrective action to prevent or 

eliminate conduct before it rises to the 

level of unlawful harassment? [see 

EEOC Enforcement Guidance on 

Vicarious Employer Liability for 

Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors 

(1999), § V.C.1] 

 

YES 

C.2.a.2 

Has the Agency established a firewall 

between the Anti-Harassment 

Coordinator and the EEO Director? 

[see EEOC Report, Model EEO 

Program Must Have an Effective AntiHarassment Program (2006] 

 

 

YES 

There is a firewall within the 

Anti-Harassment program and 

the EI Director. Management 

officials make all the final 

decisions and corrective actions. 

C.2.a.3 

Does the Agency have a separate 

procedure (outside the EEO complaint 

process) to address harassment 

allegations? [see Enforcement 

Guidance on Vicarious Employer 

Liability for Unlawful Harassment by 

Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), 

EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 

1999)] 

 

YES 

The Anti-Harassment Program 

is separate from the Complaint 

Process. 

C.2.a.4 

Does the Agency ensure that the EEO 

office informs the anti- harassment 

program of all EEO counseling 

activity alleging harassment? [see 

Enforcement Guidance, V.C.] 

YES 

The Complaint Manager refers 

Employees alleging harassment to 

the Anti-Harassment program, 

and notifies the AntiHarassment program Manager of 

all counseling related to claims of 

harassment.
49

C.2.a.5 

Does the Agency conduct a prompt 

inquiry (beginning within 10 days of 

notification) of all harassment 

allegations, including those initially 

raised in the EEO complaint process? 

[see Complainant v. Dep’t of Veterans 

Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 

0120123232 (May 21, 2015); 

Complainant v. Dep’t of Defense 

(Defense Commissary Agency), EEOC 

Appeal No. 0120130331 (May 29, 

2015)] If “no”, please provide the 

percentage of timely processed 

inquiries in the comments column. 

 

 

 

YES 

C.2.a.6

Do the Agency’s training materials on 

its anti-harassment policy include 

examples of disability-based 

harassment? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(2)] 

 

YES 

 

C.2.b 

Has the Agency established disability 

reasonable accommodation procedures 

that comply with EEOC’s regulations 

and guidance? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(3)] 

YES 

C.2.b.1 

Is there a designated Agency official or 

other mechanism in place to coordinate 

or assist with processing requests for 

disability accommodations throughout 

the Agency? [see 29 CFR 

614.203(d)(3)(D)] 

YES 

C.2.b.2 

Has the Agency established a firewall 

between the Reasonable 

Accommodation Program Manager 

and the EEO Director? 

[see MD- 110, Ch. 1(IV)(A)] 

YES 

C.2.b.3 

Does the Agency ensure that job 

applicants can request and receive 

reasonable accommodations during the 

application and placement processes? 

[see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(B)] 

YES 

C.2.b.4 

Do the reasonable accommodation 

procedures clearly state that the 

Agency should process the request 

within a maximum amount of time 

(e.g., 20 business days), as established 

by the Agency in its affirmative action 

plan? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(3)(i)(M)] 

YES 
50

C.2.b.5 

Does the Agency process all 

accommodation requests within the 

time frame set forth in its reasonable 

accommodation procedures? [see MD715, II(C)] If “no”, please provide the 

percentage of timely-processed 

requests in the comments column. 

YES 

C.2.c 

Has the Agency established procedures 

for processing requests for personal 

assistance services that comply with 

EEOC’s regulations, enforcement 

guidance, and other applicable 

executive orders, guidance, and 

standards? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(6)] 

YES 

C.2.c.1 

Does the Agency post its procedures 

for processing requests for Personal 

Assistance Services on its public 

website? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.203(d)(5)(v)] If “yes”, please 

provide the internet address in the 

comments column. 

YES 

RA-HandbookUpdates_15-

July2021.pdf (DTRA.mil)

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

C.3 - The Agency evaluates 

Managers and Supervisors on their 

efforts to ensure equal employment 

opportunity. 

Measure 

Met? 

C.3.a 

Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(5), 

do all Managers and Supervisors have 

an element in their performance 

appraisal that evaluates their 

commitment to Agency EEO policies 

and principles and their participation 

in the EEO program? 

YES 

C.3.b 

Does the Agency require rating 

officials to evaluate the performance of 

Managers and Supervisors based on 

the following activities: 

C.3.b.1 

Resolve EEO Problems, 

disagreements, conflicts, including the 

participation in ADR proceedings? 

[see MD-110, Ch. 3.I] 

YES 
51

C.3.b.2 

Ensure full cooperation of Employees 

under his/her supervision with EEO 

officials, such as counselors and 

investigators? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(b)(6)] 

YES 

C.3.b.3 

Ensure a workplace that is free from all 

forms of discrimination, including 

harassment and retaliation? [see MD-

715, II(C)] 

YES 

C.3.b.4 

Ensure that subordinate Supervisors 

have effective Managerial, 

communication, and interpersonal 

skills to supervise in a workplace with 

diverse Employees? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

YES 

C.3.b.5 

Provide religious accommodations 

when such accommodations do not 

cause an undue hardship? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(7)] 

YES 

C.3.b.6 

Provide disability accommodations 

when such accommodations do not 

cause an undue hardship? [ see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(8)] 

YES 

C.3.b.7 

Support the EEO program in 

identifying and removing barriers to 

equal opportunity. [see MD-715, 

II(C)] 

YES 

C.3.b.8 Support the anti

-harassment program 

in investigating and correcting 

harassing conduct. [see Enforcement 

Guidance, V.C.2] 

 

YES 

C.3.b.9 

Comply with settlement agreements 

and orders issued by the Agency, 

EEOC, and EEO-related cases from 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, 

labor arbitrators, and the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority? [see MD-715, 

II(C)] 

 

YES 

C.3.c 

Does the EEO Director recommend to 

the Agency head improvements or 

corrections, including remedial or 

disciplinary actions, for Managers and 

Supervisors who have failed in their 

EEO responsibilities? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(2)] 

YES 
52

C.3.d 

When the EEO Director recommends 

remedial or disciplinary actions, are 

the recommendations regularly 

implemented by the Agency? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator Measures 

C.4 – The Agency ensures effective 

coordination between its EEO 

programs and Human Resources 

(HR) program. 

Measure 

Met? 

C.4.a 

Do the HR Director and the EEO 

Director meet regularly to assess 

whether personnel programs, policies, 

and procedures conform to EEOC 

laws, instructions, and management 

directives? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(2)] 

YES 

C.4.b 

Has the Agency established 

timetables/schedules to review at 

regular intervals its merit promotion 

program, Employee recognition 

awards program, Employee 

development/training programs, and 

management/personnel policies, 

procedures, and practices for systemic 

barriers that may be impeding full 

participation in the program by all 

EEO groups? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

 

YES 

C.4.c 

Does the EEO office have timely 

access to accurate and complete data 

(e.g., demographic data for workforce, 

applicants, training programs, etc.) 

required to prepare the MD-715 

workforce data tables? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.601(a)] 

YES 

C.4.d 

Does the HR office timely provide the 

EEO office with access to other data 

(e.g., exit interview data, climate 

assessment surveys, and grievance 

data), upon request? [see MD-715, 

II(C)] 

YES 

C.4.e 

Pursuant to Section II(C) of MD-

715, does the EEO office collaborate 

with the HR office to: 
53

C.4.e.1 

Implement the Affirmative Action 

Plan for Individuals with Disabilities? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.203(d); MD-715, 

II(C)] 

YES 

C.4.e.2 

Develop and/or conduct outreach and

recruiting initiatives? [see MD-715, 

II(C)] 

YES 

C.4.e.3 

Develop and/or provide training for 

Managers and Employees? [see MD715, II(C)] 

YES 

C.4.e.4 

Identify and remove barriers to equal 

opportunity in the workplace? [see 

MD715, II(C)] 

YES 

C.4.e.5 Assist in preparing the MD-715 

report? [see MD-715, II(C)] YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

C.5 – Following a finding of 

discrimination, the Agency explores 

whether it should take a disciplinary 

action. 

Measure 

Met? 

C.5.a 

Does the Agency have a disciplinary 

policy and/or table of penalties that 

covers discriminatory conduct? [see 

29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(6); see also 

Douglas v.Veterans Administration, 5 

MSPR 280 (1981)] 

YES 

C.5.b 

When appropriate, does the Agency 

discipline or sanction Managers and 

Employees for discriminatory 

conduct? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(6)] If “yes”, please state 

the number of disciplined/sanctioned 

individuals during this reporting 

period in the comments. 

 

 

YES 

No employees or supervisors 

were disciplined or sanctioned 

for discriminatory conduct in 

FY22.

C.5.c 

If the Agency has a finding of 

discrimination (or settles cases in 

which a finding was likely), does the 

Agency inform Managers and 

Supervisors about the discriminatory 

conduct? [see MD+715, II(C)] 

YES

Compliance Indicator 

C.6 – The EEO office advises 

Managers/Supervisors on EEO 

matters. 

Measure 

Met? 
54

Measures 

C.6.a 

Does the EEO office provide 

management/Supervisory officials 

with regular EEO updates on at least 

an annual basis, including EEO 

complaints, workforce demographics 

and data summaries, legal updates, 

barrier analysis plans, and special 

emphasis updates? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] If “yes”, please 

identify the frequency of the EEO 

updates in the comments column. 

 

 

YES 

During the Agency Director 

Staff Meeting. 

C.6.b 

Are EEO officials readily available to 

answer Managers’ and Supervisors’ 

questions or concerns? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

YES 

Essential Element D: PROACTIVE PREVENTION

This element requires that the Agency head make early efforts to prevent discrimination and to 

identify and eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity. 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

D.1 – The Agency conducts a 

reasonable assessment to monitor 

progress towards achieving equal 

employment opportunity throughout 

the year. 

Measure 

Met? 

D.1.a 

Does the Agency have a process for 

identifying triggers in the 

workplace? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

YES 

D.1.b 

Does the Agency regularly use the 

following sources of information 

for trigger identification: workforce 

data; complaint/grievance data; exit 

surveys; Employee climate surveys; 

focus groups; affinity groups; 

union; program evaluations; special 

emphasis programs; reasonable 

accommodation program; antiharassment program; and/or 

external special interest groups? 

[see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

 

 

NO 

 

Part H 6 

 
55

D.1.c 

Does the Agency conduct exit 

interviews or surveys that include 

questions on how the Agency could 

improve the recruitment, hiring, 

inclusion, retention and 

advancement of individuals with 

disabilities? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(1)(iii)(C)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

D.2 – The Agency identifies areas 

where barriers may exclude EEO 

groups (reasonable basis to act.) 

Measure 

Met? 

D.2.a 

Does the Agency have a process for 

analyzing the identified triggers to find 

possible barriers? [see MD-715, 

(II)(B)] 

YES 

 

D.2.b Does the Agency regularly examine 

the impact of management/personnel 

policies, procedures, and practices by 

race, national origin, sex, and 

disability? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(3)] 

NO Part H 5 

D.2.c 

Does the Agency consider whether any 

group of Employees or applicants 

might be negatively impacted prior to 

making human resource decisions, 

such as reorganizations and 

realignments? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(3)] 

YES 

D.2.d 

Does the Agency regularly review the 

following sources of information to 

find barriers: complaint/grievance data, 

exit surveys, Employee climate 

surveys, focus groups, affinity groups, 

union, program evaluations, antiharassment program, special emphasis 

programs, reasonable accommodation 

programs; anti-harassment program; 

and/or external special interest groups? 

[see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] If 

“yes”, please identify the data sources 

in the comments column. 

 

 

 

NO 

 

Part H 6 
56

Compliance Indicator 

 

Measures 

D.3 – The Agency establishes 

appropriate action plans to remove 

identified barriers.

Measure 

Met? 

D.3.a. 

Does the Agency effectively tailor 

action plans to address the identified 

barriers, in particular policies, 

procedures, or practices? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(3)] 

NO Part H 7

 

 

D.3.b 

If the Agency identified one or more 

barriers during the reporting period, 

did the Agency implement a plan in 

Part I, including meeting the target 

dates for the planned activities? [see 

MD-715, II(D)] 

NO Part H 7 

 

D.3.c Does the Agency periodically review 

the effectiveness of the plans? [see 

MD-715, II(D)] 

NO Part H 7 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

D.4 – The Agency has an affirmative 

action plan for people with 

disabilities, including those with 

targeted disabilities.

Measure 

Met? 

D.4.a 

Does the Agency post its affirmative 

action plan on its public website? [see 

29 CFR §1614.203(d)(4)] Please 

provide the internet address in the 

comments. 

YES 

https://www.DTRA.mil/

Mission/EI-Annual- Reports/ 

D.4.b 

Does the Agency take specific steps to 

ensure qualified people with 

disabilities are aware of and 

encouraged to apply for job vacancies? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(1)(i)] 

YES 

D.4.c 

Does the Agency ensure that disability

related questions from members of the 

public are answered promptly and 

correctly? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(A)] 

YES 

D.4.d 

Has the Agency taken specific steps 

that are reasonably designed to 

increase the number of persons with 

disabilities or targeted disabilities 

employed at the Agency until it meets 

the goals? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.203(d)(7)(ii)] 

YES 
57

Essential Element E: EFFICIENCY

This element requires the Agency head to ensure that there are effective systems for evaluating the 

impact and effectiveness of the Agency’s programs and an efficient and fair dispute resolution 

process.

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

E.1 - The Agency maintains an 

efficient, fair, and impartial 

complaint resolution process.

Measure 

Met? 

E.1.a 

Does the Agency timely provide EEO 

counseling, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.105? 

YES 

E.1.b 

Does the Agency provide written 

notification of rights and 

responsibilities in the EEO process 

during the initial counseling session, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105(b)(1)? 

YES 

E.1.c 

Does the Agency issue 

acknowledgment letters immediately 

upon receipt of a formal complaint, 

pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(I)? 

YES 

E.1.d 

Does the Agency issue acceptance 

letters/dismissal decisions within a 

reasonable time (e.g., 60 days) after 

receipt of the written EEO Counselor 

report, pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 

5(I)? If so, please provide the 

average processing time in the 

comments. 

YES Sixty days or less. 

E.1.e 

Does the Agency ensure all 

Employees fully cooperate with EEO 

counselors and EEO personnel in the 

EEO process, including granting 

routine access to personnel records 

related to an investigation, pursuant to 

29 CFR §1614.102(b)(6)? 

YES 

E.1.f 

Does the Agency timely complete 

investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.108? 

YES 

E.1.g 

If the Agency does not timely 

complete investigations, does the 

Agency notify complainants of the 

date by which the investigation will 

be completed and of their right to 

request a hearing or file a lawsuit, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108(g)? 

YES 
58

E.1.h 

When the complainant does not 

request a hearing, does the Agency 

timely issue the final Agency 

decision, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.110(b)? 

YES 

E.1.i 

Does the Agency timely issue final 

actions following receipt of the 

hearing file and the administrative 

judge’s decision, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.110(a)? 

YES 

E.1.j 

If the Agency uses contractors to 

implement any stage of the EEO 

complaint process, does the Agency 

hold them accountable for poor work 

product and/or delays? [see MD-110, 

Ch. 5(V)(A)] If “yes”, please describe 

how in the comments column. 

N/A 

E.1.k 

If the Agency uses Employees to 

implement any stage of the EEO 

complaint process, does the Agency 

hold them accountable for poor 

work product and/or delays during 

performance review? [see MD- 110, 

Ch. 5(V)(A)] 

YES 

E.1.l 

Does the Agency submit complaint 

files and other documents in the 

proper format to EEOC through the 

Federal Sector EEO 

Portal (FedSEP)? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.403(g)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

 Measures 

E.2 – The Agency has a neutral 

EEO process.

Measure 

Met? 

E.2.a 

Has the Agency established a clear 

separation between its EEO complaint 

program and its defensive function? 

[see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)] 

YES 
59

E.2.b 

When seeking legal sufficiency 

reviews, does the EEO office have 

access to sufficient legal resources 

separate from the Agency 

representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(IV)(D)] If “yes”, please identify 

the source/location of the attorney 

who conducts the legal sufficiency 

review in the comments column. 

 

 

YES 

OGC and EEO agreed to have a 

different attorney review Final 

Agency Decisions beginning 

April 2019. 

E.2.c 

If the EEO office relies on the 

Agency’s defensive function to 

conduct the legal sufficiency review, 

is there a firewall between the 

reviewing attorney and the Agency 

representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(IV)(D)] 

YES 

E.2.d 

Does the Agency ensure that its 

Agency representative does not 

intrude upon EEO counseling, 

investigations, and final Agency 

decisions? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(IV)(D)] 

 

YES 

E.2.e 

If applicable, are processing time 

frames incorporated for the legal 

counsel’s sufficiency review for 

timely processing of complaints? [see 

EEOC Report, Attaining a Model 

Agency Program: Efficiency 

(Dec. 1, 2004)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

 Measures 

E.3 - The Agency has established 

and encouraged the widespread use 

of a fair alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR) program.

Measure 

Met? 

E.3.a 

Has the Agency established an ADR 

program for use during both the 

precomplaint and formal complaint 

stages of the EEO process? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(b)(2)] 

YES 

E.3.b 

Does the Agency require Managers 

and Supervisors to participate in 

ADR once it has been offered? [see 

MD-715, II(A)(1)] 

NO Part H 8 
60

E.3.c 

Does the Agency encourage all 

Employees to use ADR, where ADR 

is appropriate? [see MD-110, Ch. 

3(IV)(C)] 

YES 

E.3.d 

Does the Agency ensure a 

management official with settlement 

authority is accessible during the 

dispute resolution process? [see MD110, Ch. 3(III)(A)(9)] 

YES 

E.3.e 

Does the Agency prohibit the 

responsible management official 

named in the dispute from having 

settlement authority? [see 

MD- 110, Ch. 3(I)] 

YES 

E.3.f 

Does the Agency annually evaluate 

the effectiveness of its ADR 

program? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(D)] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator

Measures 

E.4 – The Agency has effective and 

accurate data collection systems in 

place to evaluate its EEO program.

Measure 

Met? 

E.4.a 

Does the Agency have systems in 

place to accurately collect, monitor, 

and analyze the following data: 

E.4.a.1 

Complaint activity, including the 

issues and bases of the complaints, 

the aggrieved 

individuals/complainants, and the 

involved management official? [see 

MD-715, II(E)] 

YES 

E.4.a.2 

The race, national origin, sex, and 

disability status of Agency 

Employees? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.601(a)] 

YES 

E.4.a.3 Recruitment activities? [see MD-715, 

II(E)] YES 

E.4.a.4 External and internal applicant flow 

data concerning the applicants’ race, 

national origin, sex, and disability 

status? [see MD715, II(E)] 

NO Part H 9 
61

E.4.a.5 The processing of requests for 

reasonable accommodation? [29 CFR 

§ 1614.203(d)(4)] 

YES 

E.4.a.6 

The processing of complaints for the 

anti-harassment program? [see EEOC 

Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious 

Employer Liability for Unlawful 

Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § 

V.C.2] 

YES 

E.4.b Does the Agency have a system in 

place to re-survey the workforce on a 

regular basis? [MD-715 Instructions, 

Sec. I] 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

E.5 – The Agency identifies and 

disseminates significant trends and 

best practices in its EEO program.

Measure 

Met? 

E.5.a 

Does the Agency monitor trends in its 

EEO program to determine whether 

the Agency is meeting its obligations 

under the statutes EEOC enforces? 

[see MD-715, II(E)] If “yes”, provide 

an example in the comments. 

YES Part H 10 

E.5.b 

Does the Agency review other 

agencies’ best practices and adopt 

them, where appropriate, to improve 

the effectiveness of its EEO program? 

[see MD-715, II(E)] If “yes”, provide 

an example in the comments. 

NO Part H 10 

E.5.c 

Does the Agency compare its 

performance in the EEO process to 

other federal agencies of similar size? 

[see MD-715, II(E)] 

NO Part H 10 

Essential Element F: RESPONSIVENESS AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE

This element requires federal agencies to comply with EEO statutes and EEOC regulations, policy 

guidance, and other written instructions. 

Compliance Indicator 

 

F.1 – The Agency has processes in 

place to ensure timely and full 

compliance with EEOC Orders and 

settlement agreements.

Measure 

Met? 
62

 Measures 

F.1.a 

Does the Agency have a system of 

management controls to ensure that 

its officials timely comply with 

EEOC orders/directives and final 

Agency actions? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(e); MD-715, II(F)] 

YES 

F.1.b 

Does the Agency have a system of 

management controls to ensure the 

timely, accurate, and complete 

compliance with 

resolutions/settlement agreements? 

[see MD-715, II(F)] 

YES 

F.1.c 

Are there procedures in place to 

ensure the timely and predictable 

processing of ordered monetary 

relief? [see MD-715, II(F)] 

YES 

F.1.d 

Are procedures in place to process 

other forms of ordered relief 

promptly? [see MD-715, II(F)] 

YES 

F.1.e 

When EEOC issues an order requiring 

compliance by the Agency, does the 

Agency hold its compliance officer(s) 

accountable for poor work product 

and/or delays during performance 

review? [see MD- 110, Ch. 9(IX)(H)] 

 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

 

Measures 

F.2 – The Agency complies with the 

law, including EEOC regulations, 

management directives, orders, and 

other written instructions.

Measure 

Met? 

F.2.a 

Does the Agency timely respond and 

fully comply with EEOC orders? [see 

29 CFR §1614.502; MD-715, II(E)] 

YES 

F.2.a.1 

When a complainant requests a 

hearing, does the Agency timely 

forward the investigative file to the 

appropriate EEOC hearing office? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.108(g)] 

YES 
63

F.2.a.2 

When there is a finding of 

discrimination that is not the subject 

of an appeal by the Agency, does the 

Agency ensure timely compliance 

with the orders of relief? [see 

29 CFR §1614.501] 

YES 

F.2.a.3 

When a complainant files an appeal, 

does the Agency timely forward the 

investigative file to EEOC’s Office of 

Federal Operations? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.403(e)] 

YES 

F.2.a.4 

Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.502, does 

the Agency promptly provide EEOC 

with the required documentation for 

completing compliance? 

YES 

Compliance Indicator 

Measures 

F.3 - The Agency reports to EEOC 

its program efforts and 

accomplishments.

Measure 

Met? 

F.3.a 

Does the Agency timely submit to 

EEOC an accurate and complete No 

FEAR Act report? [Public Law 107-

174 (May 15, 2002), §203(a)] 

YES 

F.3.b 

Does the Agency timely post on its 

public webpage its quarterly No 

FEAR Act data? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.703(d)] 

YES 
64
65

MD-715 Part H - 1 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

A.3.a 

Does the agency provide recognition to employees, supervisors, managers, 

and units demonstrating superior accomplishment in equal employment 

opportunity? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a) (9)] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

01/04/2021 

EI will develop a recognition 

award for employees, 

supervisors and managers 

demonstrating superior 

accomplishment in equal 

employment opportunity and 

Diversity. 

2/31/2022 

 

02/28/2023 

06/30/2022 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address 

the Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

Office (EI) 

Willisa Donald 

NO 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding 

& Staffing? 

(Yes or No) 

Modified Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

12/01/2020 

EI will research other Federal 

EEO Awards for best 

practices. 

 

YES 01/30/2021 

01/31/2021 

EI will develop the criteria for 

the equal employment 

opportunity and Diversity 

award. 

YES 07/30/2021 07/30/2021 
66

03/15/2021 

EI will coordinate the award 

criteria with HR and GC (via 

EIS Tasker) for review and 

approval. 

YES 

03/2021 

12/2021 

08/2021 

10/31/2021 

04/01/2021 

The EI Office will meet with 

the Human Resources 

Directorate to finalize the 

award to ensure standard 

conformity with other Agency 

Awards. 

YES 

12/31/2022 

05/01/2021 

The award will be solicited 

to the Agency annually to 

obtain awardees and the 

Agency Human Capital 

Board will select the annual 

civilian and/or military 

recipient. 

YES 

2/28/2023 

12/31/2022 

03/2022 

 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

2022 

The Human Resources Directorate and Office of General Counsel 

completed their review of the Equity Diversity and Inclusion Action 

Award. The EI office adjudicated all comments and forwarded the Equity 

Diversity and Inclusion Action Award for review by Directorates and 

Staff Offices. 

2021 

The award criteria has been drafted and is currently under review by 

Human Resources and General Counsel for the Equity Diversity and 

Inclusion Action Award. Once all procedures are completed for 

establishing the award EI will establish a selection board to evaluate all 

submissions and determine the award recipient. 

2020 

EI began to explore best practices and developing the award criteria for 

an annual Martin Luther King Distinguished Award for 

Employees, Supervisors and Managers. The criteria is being drafted, once 

finalized, the criteria will be submitted and coordinated with HR and GC. 
67

MD-715 Part H - 2 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

B.3.a 

Do EEO program officials participate in agency meetings regarding 

workforce changes that might impact EEO issues, including strategic 

planning, recruitment strategies, vacancy projections, succession 

planning, and selections for training/career development opportunities? 

[see MD-715, II(B)] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

10/01/2017 

HR will collaborate 

with EI regarding 

Strategic Workforce 

Planning groups; 

Recruitment/Outreach 

Planning and 

Training/Career 

Development Planning 

and other workforce 

changes. 

12/31/2020 

 

12/31/2023 

12/31/2022 

12/2020 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

Office (EI) 

Willisa Donald 

NO 

Director, Human Resource Directorate Christine Enriquez, Colonel, United 

States Army NO 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding 

& Staffing? 

(Yes or No)

Modified Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)
68

05/15/2019 

HR will provide EI with 

the annual outreach 

schedule to solicit 

participation schools 

and organizations 

(HBCUs, TCUs, and 

MSIs). 

YES 09/30/2020 

7/31/2019 

EI and HR Directors 

will meet monthly to 

discuss programs and 

processes that 

intertwine in both 

offices and track 

collaborative action 

items to completion 

YES 09/30/2020 

09/20/2020 

HR will ensure EI is 

invited to participate as 

an Advisor on the 

Leadership 

Development Programs 

(LDP). 

YES 06/30/2021 

09/30/2020 

HR will collaborate 

with EI regarding 

Recruitment and 

Outreach Planning 

events and activities for 

regular participation. 

YES 09/30/2021 

04/05/2021 

EI will participate on 

the Human Resources 

Policy Board (HRPB) 

as an advisor. 

YES 09/30/2023 

09/30/2022 

04/15/2021 

HR will invite EI as an 

advisor during Strategic 

Workforce Planning 

(SWP) discussions to 

ensure regular 

attendance and 

participation. 

NO 

09/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

08/2021 

06/12/2021 

EI will participate in 

HR’s Workforce 

Development Council 

(WDC) as an advisor to 

ensure regular 

attendance and 

participation. 

YES 

09/30/2023 

09/30/2022 

12/2021 
69

 

09/15/2021 

HR will collaborate 

with EI regarding 

Training and Career 

Development Planning 

and execution on a 

reoccurring basis. 

 

YES 

09/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

09/15/2021 HR will invite EI as an 

advisor during Vacancy 

Planning for the 

Agency and/or 

Directorates for regular 

attendance and 

participation. 

YES 09/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

08/2021 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 

The EI Office and HR Directorate continued their monthly 

collaboration on personnel programs, policies, and procedures in 

accordance with EEOC laws, instructions, and management directives. 

In FY22, EI and HR collaborated on several initiatives such as 

collaborating on 56 Strategic Recruitment Discussions with hiring 

officials to articulate the importance of Diversity hiring practices. In 

addition, the EI Office supported the HR Directorate on drafting the 

Human Capital Plan with DEIA initiatives. The EI and HR Directorate 

also collaborated on completing the DVAAP, FEORP and the MD-715 

reports.

2021 

The EI Office, in collaboration with HR participated in 95 Strategic 

Recruitment Discussions (SRDs). SRDs continue DTRA's efforts to 

diversify the workforce through providing education to Hiring 

Officials. Topics covered included: document review to ensure DTRA 

cast a recruitment net, including Veterans, Persons with Disabilities, 

graduates of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) 

and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). Schedule A and Workforce 

Recruitment Program (WRP) opportunities are discussed, best practice 

interview panel and question development. The EI Office also provides 

interview question reviews to look for any discriminatory wording. 

2020 

During FY2020, the Human Resources (HR) and Equity Diversity and 

Inclusion (EI) Directors scheduled monthly recurring meetings to 

discuss collaborative efforts. The offices were able to coordinate and 

accomplish the following: 

• FEORP and DVAAP Reports 

• EEOC Technical Assistance Response for the Reasonable 

Accommodation Procedures 

• EEOC Technical Assistance Response for DTRA’s Model EEO 

Program and Model Disability Program 
70

• Transitioned Diversity & Inclusion training funds to HR 

HR and EI staff held bi-weekly meetings to discuss upcoming events 

and job fairs. HR hosted a university engagement webinar titled, 

"Student Workforce Opportunities." During the hour and a half session, 

DTRA RD-CB, HR Talent Acquisition Program and Science, 

Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Program 

subject matter experts discussed internships, scholarships, fellowships, 

postdoctoral and employment opportunities available by the DoD and 

Federal government. Students and staff members from 53 Institutions 

were in attendance, to include 25 Research Doctorial Universities and 

14 MSIs (HBCUs, HISs, Asian American and Native American Pacific

Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), and Alaska Native-Serving 

and Native Hawaiian (AANH). 

MD-715 Part H - 3 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

B.3.b Does the Agency’s current strategic plan reference EEO/Diversity and 

Inclusion principles? [see MD-715, II(B)] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

01/01/2021 

Ensure EEO and Diversity 

and Inclusion principles are 

integrated into the Agency’s 

Strategic mission/plan. 

12/31/2021 12/31/2023 

12/31/2022 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Affirmative Employment Manager Mary Lynn Dickson YES 

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office 

Willisa Donald YES 
71

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding 

& Staffing? 

(Yes or No) 

Modified Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

04/01/2021 

EI will craft language to 

include into the Agency 

Strategic Initiative/Plan 

YES 

 05/31/2021 

05/01/2021 

EI will review the Agency 

Strategic Initiative/Plan to 

determine where to include 

the EEO/D&I language. 

YES 06/30/2021 

06/01/2021 

EI will meet with the 

Strategic Team to ensure 

that the EEO/D&I principles 

are included in the Agency’s 

Strategic Initiative/Plan. 

YES 12/31/2023 

12/31/2022 

09/2021 

 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

2022 

The Directors Strategic Intent do not have EEO, Diversity and 

Inclusion principles. However, within the Strategic Intent, Goal 4 is 

“Build the Workforce of the Future” which emphasizes recruiting, 

retaining, and empowering a diverse, equitable, inclusive and highly 

skilled workforce to ensure the Agency sustains a human capital 

advantage. In addition, the Agency created a Human Capital Plan and 

Roadmap which includes DEIA priorities. 

2021 

The EI office provided verbiage in FY20 for inclusion in the DTRA 

Strategy that addressed EEO Principles and Elements of Diversity. The 

DTRA Strategy 2022-2027, did not include EEO Principles, but does 

contain Elements of Diversity. 

The following was included in the DTRA Strategy: What was put in the 

Agency Strategic Plan: The Agency will reflect the changes in the 

broader American landscape. It will be a workforce that is more 

diverse, inclusive, and representative of the changing demographics in 

our country. Further, we will have collaborative suites of information 

technology tools that enable conceptualization, understanding, and 

collaboration within the workforce. By combining a workforce with a 

diverse set of expertise, skills, and backgrounds with innovative 

technical solutions, DTRA will enable DoD to respond to crises and 

develop solutions to detect, deter, and defeat current and emerging 

WMD threats. To this end, the Agency will: Increase the relative 

percentage of entry level and early career professionals; Shift the 

makeup of the workforce to better align with the nation’s 

demographics; and Realize a workspace that facilitates greater and 
72

more meaningful collaboration, to include in-person, virtual, and 

mixed.

2020 

In FY20, in accordance with EEOC guidance, EI drafted the 

following language, which will be updated in the next Agency 

Strategic Initiative: 

DTRA is committed to supporting and promoting the intent of equity, 

Diversity, and inclusion, which mirrors our culture, values, and goals. 

DTRA’s strength lies in our Diversity and serves as the driving force 

behind our organization’s excellence and mission success. 

Discrimination, workplace harassment and retaliatory actions are 

contrary to our team being successful. Therefore, all Managers and 

Supervisors have an obligation to handle issues swiftly and foster a work 

environment that achieves an opportunity for each Employee to 

experience a fair and level playing field in the workplace. 

MD-715 Part H - 4 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

C.2.a 

Has the agency established comprehensive anti-harassment policy and 

procedures that comply with EEOC’s enforcement guidance? [see 

MD715, II(C); Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability 

for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), EEOC 

No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 1999)] CLOSED

C.2.a.6 

Do the Agency’s training materials on its anti-harassment policy include 

examples of disability-based harassment? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(2)] 

CLOSED

E.4.a.6 

The processing of complaints for the anti-harassment program? [see 

EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for 

Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.2] CLOSED

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 
73

09/01/2018 

Create an effective AntiHarassment Program in 

compliance with EEOC 

guidance and communicate 

the Anti-Harassment Policy 

to prevent and eliminate all 

types of harassment. 

12/31/2021 

 

06/30/2022

06/03/2022 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Anti-Harassment Program Manager Yorshia Houseal YES 

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

Office 

Willisa Donald YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

02/28/2019 

Develop a Supervisor’s Toolkit 

and Employee Question and 

Answer Fact Sheet to assist 

Managers with processing AH 

cases (C.2.a.6). 

YES 

08/2021 12/21/2020 

 

02/28/2019 

Develop Employee Question 

and Answer Fact Sheet to assist 

Managers with processing AH 

cases (C.2.a.6) 

YES 12/31/2020 

04/30/2020 

Create AH training material, 

which includes examples of 

disability based harassment 

(C.2.a.6). 

YES 11/2021 11/30/2021 

 

04/30/2021 

EI will revise the AntiHarassment Policy to ensure 

compliance with EEOC’s 

guidance (C.2.a). 

YES 07/30/2021 
74

06/15/2021 

Provide Anti-Harassment 

training to Managers, 

Supervisors and Employees 

(C.2.a.6). 

YES 08/30/2021 08/30/2021 

05/03/2021 

EI will revise the language in 

the Instruction for Supervisors 

to ensure all inquiries of 

harassment allegations are 

addressed within 10 days of 

notification and track by the 

Anti-Harassment (AH) 

Program Manager (C.2.a; 

E.4.a.6). 

 

YES 

6/30/2022 

11/2021 

10/2021 

05/26/2022 

05/03/2021 

EI will revise the DTRA AntiHarassment Instruction to 

include the 60 day timeframes 

for all investigations (C.2.a; 

E.4.a.6). 

 

YES 

6/30/2022 

11/2021 

10/2021 

05/26/2022 

06/15/2021 

EI will revise the process to 

ensure it clearly explain the 

process (C.2.a.6). 

YES 6/30/2022 

12/2021 05/26/2022 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 
75

2022 

DTRA received approval of the Anti-Harassment 

Policy/Procedures and Supervisor's Prevention of Harassment Toolkit 

from EEOC upon revision to include the following: 

• Clear explanation of prohibited conduct and a procedure that 

encouraged the reporting of harassing conduct before it becomes 

pervasive. 

• Outlined an easily understood complaint process with accessible 

avenues for receipt of and responding to allegations of harassment. 

• That the EEO complaint process for allegations of unlawful 

discriminatory harassment is separate and distinct from the AHP 

process for responding to allegations of harassment. 

• Assurance that Employees making claims of harassment or whom 

provide information related to such claims would be protected 

against retaliation. 

• Supervisors will take immediate and appropriate corrective action 

when a determination is made that harassment occurred. 

• The Agency will protect the confidentiality of harassment 

complaints to the extent possible. 

The AH training for Supervisors and Employees was revised to confirm 

all of the above is included. 

Research was conducted to identify online soft skill and sensitivity 

training for DTRA supervisor and managers to further enhance a culture 

of dignity and respect. 

The AHPM coordinated with the Asian American/Pacific Islander 

ERG to complete the Agency Plan for White House Initiative on Asian 

Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders in accordance with 

the policy goals outlined in the Executive Order. 

Prevention of Harassment training was provided for 407 employees and 

157 Supervisors. 

The AH Program Manager created a red-light-green-light heat Map 

of the Harassment program to view the overall project status with a 

glance of the harassment program for continuing compliance.
76

2021 

The EEOC provided training for DTRA Employees and Supervisors 

during August and September of 2021. DTRA implemented 

mandatory Prevention of Harassment training for Employees and 

Supervisors in October 2021 (FY22). Additionally, EI coordinated 

with Human Resources to ensure the Prevention of Harassment 

training has been added to the Agency’s mandatory training 

requirements. The training is offered monthly for Employees and 

Supervisors. 

The Agency’s Anti-Harassment Civilian and Military Instruction 

1020.03/04 has been revised and pending review. 

 

The EI Office created slides focused on disability for the Prevention of 

Harassment training. The slides includes examples of disability based 

harassment. 

DTRA established a Policy Statement on Harassment in the 

Workplace dated July 2021, in accordance with EEOC’s enforcement 

guidance. In addition, the Agency established an easy to understand 

Anti-Harassment toolkit for Supervisors. 

2020 

The Anti-Harassment Instruction 1020.03 was updated to include 

elements a – e in accordance with EEOC Guidance. The instruction 

is pending revision and coordination. 

A Supervisory Toolkit and an Employee Question and Answer Fact 

Sheet were developed to inform the workforce of the AntiHarassment process. 

EI included disability-based harassment in the Anti-Harassment and 

the Disability Training modules. The update includes slides and a 

video on disability-based harassment. In addition, these slides were 

also included in the mandatory EEO for Supervisors and Employees 

training. 

2019 

EEO established its Anti-Harassment Program (AHP) in October 2018. 

Currently, the Anti-Harassment Directive 1020.03 is being revised. 

Since October 2018, the AH Program Manager conducted approximately 

20 Anti-Harassment intakes and met with Management Officials. 

The Anti-Harassment Program Manager (AHPM) proactively complied 

with the EEOC guidance by promptly working with Supervisor’s to 

address and resolve workplace issues within the 

10-day timeframe. The distinction between EEO and the AH Program 

was taught during the Civil Treatment for Supervisors to include 

elements of ADR and Retaliation. 
77

MD-715 Part H - 5 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

D.2.b 

Does the Agency regularly examine the impact of management/personnel 

policies, procedures, and practices by race, national origin, sex, and 

disability? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

01/04/2021 

Examine the impact of 

management/personnel 

policies, procedures, and 

practices by race, national 

origin, sex and disability. 

12/31/2021

06/30/2023 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

Office 

Willisa Donald NO 

Affirmative Employment Program 

Manager 

Mary Lynn Dickson NO 

Director, Human Resource Directorate Christine Enriquez, Colonel, 

United States Army NO 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding 

& Staffing? 

(Yes or No) 

Modified Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

06/30/2021 

EI will identify a system and a 

process to obtain a viable plan 

to regularly examine 

management/personnel 

policies related to merit 

promotion, Employee 

recognition, Employee 

YES 

03/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

09/2021 

 
78

development/training 

programs. 

08/31/2021 

EI will formulate a timeline 

and schedule with milestones 

to the review of all 

management/personnel 

policies. 

YES 03/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

12/31/2021 

EI will examine the impact of 

the management/personnel 

policies, procedures and 

practices on race, national 

origin, sex and disability. 

YES 

06/30/2023 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

2022 

In FY22, the EI Office reviewed DoD issuances and DTRA issuances 

about management and personnel policies, procedures and practices 

(Employee development/ training program, Director’s Planning 

Guidance, Human Capital Roadmap, Directorate Hiring Practices, and 

Talent Development Program) through the DTRA Enterprise Access 

Management Service-Army (ETMS2). 

2021 

EI identified the following management and personnel policies and 

will develop a timeline to review these policies for systemic barriers: 

Instructions/Directives: 

• DTRA Instruction 1100.2 – Telework Program, Change 1 

• DTRA Instruction 1200.1 – Military Reserve Program 

• DTRA Instruction 1300.01 – Military Assignments 

• DTRA Instruction 1348.4 – Military Decorations Program 

• DTRA Instruction 1400.25-V400 – Merit Promotion Plan, Change 

1 

• DTRA Instruction 1400.25-V2009 – Defense 

• Civilian Intelligence Personnel System: Disciplinary and Adverse 

Actions Procedures 

• DTRA Instruction 1402.1 – Five-Year Limitation on Foreign 

Employment, Change 1 

• DTRA Instruction 7230.01, Professional Liability Insurance, Change 1 
79

MD-715 Part H - 6 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

D.1.b 

Does the Agency regularly use the following sources of information for 

trigger identification: workforce data; complaint/grievance data; exit 

surveys; employee climate surveys; focus groups; affinity groups; union; 

program evaluations; special emphasis programs; reasonable 

accommodation program; anti-harassment program; and/or external special 

interest groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

D.2.a Does the Agency have a process for analyzing the identified triggers to find 

possible barriers? [see MD-715, (II)(B)] CLOSED 

D.2.d 

Does the Agency regularly review the following sources of information to 

find barriers: complaint/grievance data, exit surveys, employee climate 

surveys, focus groups, affinity groups, union, program evaluations, antiharassment program, special emphasis programs, reasonable 

accommodation program; anti-harassment program; and/or external special 

interest groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

10/30/2019 

Establish a regular review 

of the following sources of 

information to find barriers: 

complaint/grievance data, 

exit surveys, Employee 

climate surveys, focus 

groups, affinity groups, 

union, program 

evaluations, antiharassment program, 

special emphasis programs, 

reasonable accommodation 

program; anti-harassment 

program; and/or external 

special interest groups. 

12/31/2022 

 

 

 

03/31/2023 

 
80

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office 

Willisa Donald NO 

Affirmative Employment Program 

Manager 

Mary Lynn Dickson YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding &

Staffing? 

(Yes or No) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

10/30/2019 

EI will review management 

policies, practices and 

procedures for any hidden 

impediments to equal 

opportunity (D.1.b; D.2.d). 

YES 

 12/31/2020 

02/28/2020 

Conduct complaint and 

grievance trend analysis by 

gender and RNO (D.1.b; 

D.2.d).

YES

12/31/2020 

04/30/2020 

Finalize the ERG Guidance 

to include an effective 

process for managing results 

(D.2.a). 

YES

12/31/2020 

04/30/2020 

Review the Agency-wide 

training evaluations to 

access needs and 

overarching EEO concerns 

(D.1.b; D.2.d). 

YES

12/31/2020 

05/30/2020 

Identify Special Emphasis 

Program trends utilizing 

various data (i.e. 

Observances, WRP, 

Schedule A and 

Outreach/Recruitment) 

(D.1.b; D.2.d). 

YES

12/31/2020 
81

03/15/2021 

Create a statistical 

tool/workbook to identify all 

the potential triggers and 

collaborate with HR and the 

Agency ORSA’s (D.1.b; 

D.2.d). 

YES 

3/31/2023 

01/2022 

06/30/2021 

Collect information from the 

Federal Employee

Viewpoint Survey to 

identify and address 

opportunities for 

improvement (New DEIA) 

(D.2.d). 

YES

06/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

12/31/2021 

07/30/2021 

Schedule quarterly meetings 

with HR to discuss the 

tool/workbook and any 

potential triggers on a 

regular basis (D.1.b; D.2.d). 

YES

06/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

12/2021 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 

The EI Office conducted a multi-year trend analysis of Harassment cases 

and contacts. Employee Climate Assessment surveys were conducted for 

two Directorates. The FEVS data and the Climate Assessment data was 

reviewed in order to identify potential trends and barriers. The EI Office 

initiated Barrier Analysis training for Employee Resource Groups (ERG), 

providing information regarding the EEOC Barrier Analysis process, 

EEOC Trigger A & B tables. 

2021 

The EI Office reached out to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) to receive training on their EEO Diagnostic Tool. 

This monitoring tool will provide source information for trigger 

identification and barrier analysis. The EI Office is also working with the 

Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) for them to identify and analyze 

barrier analysis data and provide feedback. 
82

2020 

In September 2020, DTRA established a Diversity and Inclusion 

Council, which includes five Employee Resource Groups: African 

American; Asian Pacific Islander; Hispanic; Individuals with Disabilities; 

Women and LGBTQIA. 

In January 2021, EI created a Barrier Analysis Toolkit and conducted a 

briefing session with the ERGs to assist with their efforts in conducting 

barrier analysis. 

Conclusions concerning the existence of workplace barriers cannot be 

drawn from solely numerical analysis. The EI Office began exploring and 

analyzing other sources of data, the EI Office created a 3 Year Trends 

Report. The report conveys a comparison of EEO Complaint 

(Informal and Formal), Anti-Harassment, Special Emphasis Program 

Observance, Training, and the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The 

EI Office developed a trigger table to analyze workforce data and identify 

the need for barrier analysis. 

2019 

In FY19, EEO Office developed several processes to analyze and identify 

barriers. 

o Program Trend Analysis – A three-year trends report was developed 

to communicate our program areas successes and measures. The report 

conveyed trends for EEO programs such as: complaints (informal and 

formal), FEVS, Anti-Harassment, EEO budget, contract expenditures 

and execution, EEO Mandatory Training, WRP and Special 

Observances data. (Appendix E)

o Women’s Pay Equity Study – The study was conducted to determine 

triggers in regards to Women in the DTRA workforce. We examined 

pay grades from GS-3 to SES and the study revealed that 96% of DTRA 

personnel are between the GS-11 to GS-15 grade levels. On average, 

women compare with men in pay. However, there are more men in 

grades 11-15 which decreased the pay of women by 7.3% ($9K) less 

than men overall. 

o FY19 FEVS Report – The FEVS results highlights that the Agency 

Employees loved the mission, 96% expressed that they are willing to 

put in the extra effort to get the job done. Employees (95%) indicated 

that they are always looking for better ways to do their jobs and 88% 

of DTRA Employees felt that the organization is prepared for potential 

security threats. The most notable change was the positive trend 

concerning “poor performers”. Employees (41%) indicated steps are 

taken to deal with poor performers, an increase of +5% from 2018; 

Employees (56%) felt that they are recognized for doing a good job, an 

increase of +5% from 2018. Employees (45%) also felt that differences 
83

in performance are recognized in a meaningful way, also a +5% 

increase from 2018. 

MD-715 Part H - 7 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

D.3.a 

Does the Agency effectively tailor action plans to address the identified 

barriers, in particular policies, procedures, or practices? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(3)] 

D.3.b 

If the Agency identified one or more barriers during the reporting period, 

did the agency implement a plan in Part I, including meeting the target dates 

for the planned activities? [see MD-715, II(D)] 

D.3.c Does the Agency periodically review the effectiveness of the plans? [see MD715, II(D)] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Modified Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

03/03/2021 

Tailor action plans to 

address identified barriers, 

in policies, procedures, 

practices, Part I and Part J 

and determine if the plans 

are effective. 

12/31/2023 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office 

Willisa Donald YES 

Affirmative Employment Program 

Manager 

Mary Lynn Dickson YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 
84

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

06/01/2021 

After examination of the 

policies, practices and 

procedures an action plan 

will be developed to 

address and eradiate 

barriers (D.3.a; D.3.b). 

YES 

06/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

09/30/2021 

 

06/01/2021 

EI will utilize the EEOC 

guidance on barrier 

identification to address 

and eradiate barriers 

(D.3.b). 

YES 

12/31/2023 

08/01/2021 

Incorporate assistance 

from the ERGs to see if 

their action plans align or 

connect with the identified 

barriers (D.3.c). 

YES 

02/28/2023 

09/30/2021 

Create timelines within the 

action plan to correct the 

deficiencies with HR 

(D.3.a). 

YES 

06/30/2023 

04/30/2022 

10/01/2021 

Format the action plans to 

address the identified 

barriers in Part I including 

meeting the target dates for 

the planned activities 

(D.3.a; D.3.b). 

YES 

06/30/2023 

08/31/2022 

10/30/2021 

EI will create a trigger 

table to identify red flags 

within the workforce data 

(D.3.b). 

YES 

 07/30/2021 

03/01/2022 

Establish a procedure to 

annually review the 

effectiveness of the Parts I 

and J plans (D.3.c). 

YES 

06/30/2023 

10/31/2022 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 
85

2022 

The EI Office initiated Barrier Analysis training for Employee Resource 

Groups (ERG), as well as review of the EEOC Trigger A and B tables to 

identify potential barriers and triggers for further investigation. The 

Women’s ERG initiated a Barrier Analysis to identify potential barriers 

and triggers, and will be conducting a deeper study and alignment of their 

action plans to the identified issues in FY23. 

2021 

EI collaborated with the Agency ERGs to address barriers, and develop 

action plans to address identified deficiencies. Additionally, a trigger table 

was developed and utilized to assist in data analysis. 

2020 

In FY20, EI developed action plans for Part I and Part J, timelines were 

created to correct identified deficiencies. A trigger table was developed to 

identify red flags within the workforce. 

MD-715 Part H - 8 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

E.3.b Does the agency require managers and supervisors to participate in ADR 

once it has been offered? [see MD-715, II(A)(1)] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

01/05/2021 

The Agency’s ADR Instruction 

has been drafted to include 

requirement for Managers and 

Supervisors to participate in 

ADR for EEO complaints when 

offered. Is approved, the 

requirement will be effective 

upon publication. If not 

approved, the Agency will keep 

the stance that ADR is 

voluntary for all workplace 

disputes. 

01/31/2023 

 

 

 

06/30/2023 

 

Responsible Official(s) 
86

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

Office 

Willisa Donald YES 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Program Manager 

Richard Conyers YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

01/31/2022 Work out edits to ADR Instruction 

with Tech Writers. 

YES 2/23/2022 

10/31/2022 

Route ADR Instruction through 

Directorates for feedback and 

implement feedback accordingly. 

YES 

 4/04/2022 

12/31/2022 

Route ADR Instruction through 

CoS and DIR for feedback and 

implement feedback accordingly. 

YES 

 12/07/2022 

01/31/2023 Publish ADR Handbook YES 10/31/2023 

06/30/2023 Create draft ADR Handbook YES 

09/30/2023 

Route ADR Handbook through 

CoS and DIR for feedback and 

implement feedback accordingly. 

YES 

 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 

During FY22, the Disputes and Resolutions team presented to the 

DTRA workforce a training titled the Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) Experience which included an overview of ADR with a 

demonstration of a mediation session and follow up discussion. 

 

The Disputes and Resolutions team adjudicated comments regarding the 

draft ADR Instruction from General Counsel, the Inspector General, and 

Directorate Chief of Staff. 

2021 

During FY21, the Complaints and Resolutions team continued to 

coordinate the draft ADR Instruction with Tech Writers for review 

ensuring accurate and clear guidance is conveyed and properly 

formatted. 
87

MD-715 Part H - 9 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

E.4.a.4 External and internal applicant flow data concerning the applicants’ race, 

national origin, sex, and disability status? [see MD-715, II(E)] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

01/04/2021 

Maintain accurate data collection for 

workforce demographics and 

applicant flow. 

12/30/2021 12/31/2023 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

Office 

Willisa Donald YES 

Affirmative Employment Program Manager Mary Lynn Dickson YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

12/31/2020 EI will Obtain applicant flow data from 

USA Staffing for Table A/B 7. 

YES 01/31/2021 
88

02/28/2021 

EI will conduct analysis to determine 

what occupational series and grades 

candidates are applying. 

YES 

 04/30/2021 

03/31/2021 

EI will develop trigger tables (A&B) to 

collect applicant flow data by series, 

RNO, Grade, Gender and Disabilities. 

YES 

 07/30/2021 

06/30/2021 

EI will analyze the AFD for any 

disparities within the RNO, Grade, 

Gender and Disabilities. 

YES 06/30/2023 

5/31/2022 

12/2021 

 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 

The Affirmative Employment Manager received access to USAStaffing 

and ADVANA data during FY22 and initiated a review of the available 

data. The Agency Mission Critical Occupations (MCO) were updated 

and data obtained for each MCO regarding FY22 New Hires and 

Internal Promotions for further study. A comparison of the 

USAStaffing data and the ADVANA data identified various 

discrepancies which are currently being addressed by ADVANA. 

 

 

 

 

2021 

In FY21, EI Office obtained applicant flow data via USAStaffing. The A 

& B tables include applicant flow data for new hires and internal 

promotions. The A Tables include applicant flow data for the following 

categories: (1) Total number of applicants; (2) Total number of qualified 

applicants; (3) Total number referred; and (4) Total number of 

selections. The data is categorized by Race, Ethnicity and Sex. The B 

Tables include applicant flow data for the following categories: (1) 

Total number of applicants; (2) Total number of qualified applicants; (3) 

Total number referred; and (4) Total number of selections. The data is 

categorized by Disability. 

 

An analysis was conducted for Mission Critical Occupations, and will be 

expanded in FY22 to include an analysis of all available Applicant Flow 

Data. 

2020 

In FY20, EI Office collected the applicant flow data for permanent 

mission critical occupations (MCO). The tables reflect the FY20 new 

hires and internal promotion candidate’s applications that were submitted 

for employment vacancies announced through USAJOBs. The data 

revealed applicants who self-identified and were (1) qualified; (2) 

referred; and (3) selection for vacancies posted on USAJOBs. 

The following analysis was conducted for Internal Competitive 

Promotion and New Hires by Mission Critical Occupations (MCOs). 
89

Internal Competitive Promotion: The Agency received 607 

applications through USAJOBS and made 4 selections for Security 

(0080) Administration positions. Of the 4 selected 3 (75.00%) were 

Males (1 Hispanic and 2 White) and 1 (25.00%) Asian Female. 

Misc. Administration (0301) MCO, the Agency received 1840 

applications and made 29 selections of which 15 (51.72%) were Males (1 

Hispanic, 10 White, 1 black, and 3 Asian) 9 (31.03%) were Females (7 

Whites, 1 Black and 1 Two or more races) 4 Omitted. 

Information Technology Management (2210%) MCO, the Agency 

received 500 applications and made 6 selections of which 5 (83.33%) 

were Males (3 White, 1 Black and 1 Asian) and 1 (16.67%) Female 

(Two or more races). 

New Hires: The Agency received 764 applications through USAJOBS 

and made 3 selections for Security (0080) Administration positions. Of 

the 3 selected, there were 1 (33.33%) Black Male, 1 (33.33%) White 

Female and 1 (33.33%) Omitted. 

Misc. Administration (0301) MCO, the Agency received 1593 

applications and made 8 selections of which 3 (37.50%) were White 

Males, 3 (37.50%) were Females (2 White and 1 Black) and 2 (25.00%) 

were Omitted. 

The Budget Analysis (560) MCO, the Agency received 565 applications 

and made 9 selections of which 2 (22.22%) were Males (1 White and 1 

Asian), 5 (55.56%) Females (3 White and 2 Black) and 2 (22.22%) were 

Omitted. 

 

General Physical Science (1301) MCO, the Agency received 1127 

applications and made 16 selections of which 5 (31.25%) were White 

Males, 5 (31.25%) were Females (3 White, 1 Black and 1 Asian) and 6 

(37.50%) were Omitted. 

 

Information Technology Management (2210) MCO, the Agency 

received 567 applications and made 3 selections of which 3 (100.00%) 

were Omitted.

MD-715 Part H - 10 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 
90

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency 

E.5.a 

Does the agency monitor trends in its EEO program to determine whether 

the agency is meeting its obligations under the statutes EEOC enforces? 

[see MD-715, II(E)] If “yes”, provide an example in the comments. 

CLOSED

E.5.b 

Does the agency review other agencies’ best practices and adopt them, 

where appropriate, to improve the effectiveness of its EEO program? [see 

MD-715, II(E)] 

E.5.c Does the agency compare its performance in the EEO process to other 

federal agencies of similar size? [see MD-715, II(E)] 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Objective Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

01/30/2020 

Monitor the EEO program trends to 

ensure Agency obligations; review 

other agencies best practices to 

improve effectiveness and compare 

Agency’s performance to similar 

federal agencies. 

12/15/2021 

 

12/31/2022 11/07/2022 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

Office 

Willisa Donald YES 

Affirmative Employment Program Manager Mary Lynn Dickson YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding 

& 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)
91

06/30/2021 

Conduct online research to identify 

Federal agencies, best practices to 

incorporate and implement new 

strategies and ideas (E.5.b, E.5.c). 

YES 

12/31/2022 

09/30/2021 

07/30/2021 

Visit and partner with various 

Federal agencies on specific 

program areas to enhance EEO 

program effectiveness (E.5.c). 

YES 

12/31/2021 

05/20/2021 

Conduct specific trend analysis of 

EEO programs annually to identify 

triggers and improve any 

deficiencies to ensure alignment 

with EEOC (Employee 

Engagement/New IQ, 

Complaints, ADR, AntiHarassment, 

Disability Employment Programs 

(Schedule A and WRP) (E.5.a). 

 

 

YES 

12/31/2022 

09/15/2021 

Conduct comparative analysis 

within DoD with other 4th Estate 

agencies (review DoD Annual 

Reports) and/or conduct face to face 

meetings (E.5.c). 

YES 

12/31/2022 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 

AHPM conducted a 5 year trend analysis in FY21, followed by 

individual Directorate trend analysis in FY22. The AHPM tracks each 

employee contact, and each allegation of harassment by type of 

harassment, RNO of employee and alleged harasser, Directorate and 

resolution. 

2021 

The EI Office Collaborated with the following Federal Agencies: 

 

DoD/Armed Forces Harassment Ms. Shirley Raguindin, from the 

Associate Director, Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and 

Inclusion Diversity Management Operations Center. She provided HQ 

level information regarding the operations. Additionally, she shared a 

brief she conducted at DEOMI during the Leadership Training 

Awareness Seminar on the MEO program initiatives. Information 

regarding initiatives in the MEO sphere is vital to ensure DTRA’s 

programs and initiatives are aligned accordingly. 

NASA/DOL/DHA - Discussed with Mr. James Gilliam, Defense Health 

Agency, best practices in their Agency’s Disability Programs, i.e. the 

Selective Placement Program procedures and the importance of 
92

providing candidates with information to assist applicants in seeking 

employment with the federal government. Additionally, we also 

discussed the various reports that the Disability Program Manager 

prepares for their programs. Mr. Gilliam provided an introduction to 

Rosemary Salak, Department of the Army Disability Program Manager. 

EI Office collaborated with Ms. Vhay, Department of Labor, to provide 

a virtual training regarding the Workforce Recruitment program and 

hiring affiliated hiring authorities. The goal of the training was to 

provide hiring Managers and Supervisors information regarding the 

benefits of the WRP program and hiring individuals with disabilities. 

She provided information regarding utilization of the Schedule A hiring 

authority for a position vs hiring a non-Schedule A person. 

 

Coordinated with DTRA Individuals with Disabilities ERG Chair and 

Co-Chair to meet with NASA Disability Program Manager, Special 

Emphasis Program Managers and their Disability ERG Chair to discuss 

their best practices with individual’s disabilities in their Agency.

2020 

In FY20, EEO identified benchmarking opportunities with several 

Federal agencies of similar size to compare their Diversity and 

Inclusion, Disability, ERGs efforts. 

The Diversity, Engagement and Outreach Team reached out to Federal 

Maritime Commission Agency to gain insight on their Employee 

Engagement successes, strategies and their experiences establishing their 

programs, lesson learned and pitfalls. 

The Agency Disability Coordinator partnered with Department of the 

Blind and Vision Impairment (DBVI) and the Department for Aging and 

Rehabilitation Services (DARS) to educate the workforce on how to 

interact with disability community. Also, EI partnered with the 

Wounded Warriors Regiment of Quantico, VA to obtain a speaker for 

the virtual disability program. 

The EI Office collaborated with the newly established ERGs to promote 

Special Emphasis Programs, activities and events in the workforce. 

2019

In FY19, EEO identified benchmarking opportunities with several 

Federal agencies of similar size to compare their Diversity and 

Inclusion, Disability, ERGs efforts. 

The Affirmative Employment Team attended the Human Health 

Services, ERG Forum and gained insight on establishing ERGs. The 

Affirmative Program Manager also visited Department of Labor, and 

discussed Diversity and Inclusion strategies and their experiences 

establishing their programs, lesson learned and pitfalls. 

The EEO Office in an effort to garner "best practices" for Employee 
93

Engagement, met with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Workforce Engagement Office (WEO). EEO gained insight on how to 

analyze Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) information 

utilizing the existing tools of EVS Art and the OPM Employee 

Engagement Toolkit in order to develop a solid understanding of 

DTRA's FEVS results.
94
95

MD-715 – Part I #1

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier 

DTRA FEMALE WORKFORCE 

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 

Female 

Workforce

Table A1, A3, 

A9

DTRA’s Total workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,361 individuals a 

decrease of 119 (8.04%) workforce members in comparison with 

FY21. The Female workforce consisted of 463 

(34.02%) Females, a decrease of 1.18% in comparison with the 

Female workforce in FY21. The DTRA Female workforce remains 

significantly below the 48.21% Civilian Labor Force (CLF).

Permanent workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,335 individuals, an 

8.18% decrease in comparison with FY21. The Female workforce 

consisted of 454 (34.01%) a 1.20% decrease in comparison with 

FY21 remained significantly lower than the 48.21% Civilian Labor 

Force (CLF). 

The Permanent workforce Female participation rate (34.02%) is 

broken down as follows: 

 Executives (26.72%); 

 Managers (21.21%); 

 Supervisors (0.00%; 

 Professionals (36.52%); and 

 Administrative Workers (66.67%). 

The participation rate of Female New Hires in the Total workforce 

was 35.56% in FY22 a decrease of 6.28% in comparison with FY21. 

New Hire participation rates are broken down as follows: 

 Hispanic (3.11%); 

 White (20%); 

 Black/AA (9.33%); 

 NHPI (0.44%); 

 AIAN (0.44%); and 

 Two or More Races (0.00%). 

The DTRA Female workforce remained significantly 

underrepresented in comparison with their perspective CLFs. 

The Separation rate for Females in the Total workforce was 76 

(40%) in FY22, an increase of 5.62% in comparison with FY21. 

Female separations were represented as follows: 

 Hispanic 2.11% a decrease of 4.14% in comparison with 

FY21; 
96

 White 26.32% an increase of 6.01% in comparison with 

FY21; 

 Black/AA 7.89% an increase of 1.64% in comparison with 

FY21; and 

 Asian 3.68% an increase of 2.12% in comparison with FY21. 

Analysis of the Time-Off Award data revealed that Females received 

Time Off awards in all categories except as noted. 

 One (1) Hispanic Females received a Time-Off Award of 1-

10 hours, an increase by one (1) in comparison with FY21. 

 No NHPI Females received Time-Off Awards in the 1-10 

hours, or 11-20 hours categories. 

 No AIAN Females received Time-Off Awards in the 1-10 

hours, 11-20 hours or 21-30 hours categories. 

 Two or More Races Females 

• One (1) received a Time-Off Award of 1-10 hours, an 

increase by one (1) in comparison with FY21. 

• No Two or More Races Females received Time-Off 

Awards in the 11-20 hours or 21-30 hours categories. 

Analysis of the Cash Award data revealed that Females received 

Cash Awards in all categories except as noted. 

 NHPI Females 

• No NHPI Females received Cash Awards in the $501-

$999 category. 

• Two (2) received Cash Awards in the $1000$1999 

category, an increase by two (2) in comparison with 

FY21. 

• No NHPI Females received Cash Awards in the $2000-

$2999, $3000-$3999, or $5000 or more categories. 

 AIAN Females 

• No AIAN Females received Cash Awards in the $500 

and under, $501-$999, $1000-$1099, $2000-$2999, 

$3000-$3999, or $4000-$4999 categories. 

• One (1) AIAN Female receive a Cash Award in the $5000 

or more category, an increase by one (1) in comparison 

with FY21. 

 Two or More Races Females 

• Two (2) Two or More Races Females received a Cash 

Award in the $501-$999 category, an increase by two (2) 

in comparison with FY21. 

• Two (2) Two or More Races Females received a Cash 

Award in the $3000-$3999 category, an increase by two 

(2) in comparison with FY21. 
97

• One (1) Two or More Races Females received a Cash 

Award in the $5000 or more category, an increase by one 

(1) in comparison with FY21. 

• No Two or More Races Females received a Cash Award 

in the $2000-$2999, or $4000-$4999 categories. 

Analysis of the Quality Step Increases (QSI) data indicates that the 

participation rate for Females was 39.44% a decrease of 2.45% in 

comparison with FY21. 

 No Hispanic Females received a QSI, a decrease by one (1) 

in comparison with FY21. 

 One (1) NHPI Female received a QSI, an increase by one 

(1) in comparison with FY21. 

 No AIAN Females received a QSI. 

 No Two or More Races Females received a QSI, a decrease 

by one (1) in comparison with FY21. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.

Female 

Workforce 

GS-14 thru 

SES 

Table A4 

The Female participation rate within the Permanent workforce was 

34.02%. 

 

The Agency has 13 individuals in SES positions. The Female 

workforce representation is as follows: 

 Female SES population was two (2) (15.38%) both of whom 

were White Females. 

 

Senior-grade level Female participation rates were; 

 GS-14, 118 (31.47%) an increase of 0.64% in 

comparison with FY21. 

 GS-15, 51 (27.57%) an increase of 1.15% in comparison 

with FY21. 

 SES, 2 (15.38%) an increase of 8.24% in comparison with 

FY21. 

 

The majority of White Females, 198 (77.04%) of the 257, in the 

permanent workforce were in the GS-13 and GS-15 pay grades, 

placing them in the SES pipeline. During FY22 the participation of 

White Females in GS-13 to GS-15 positions increased by 

3.06% in comparison with FY21. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger

All Women 

Barrier Analysis Process
98

Sources of Data Source Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables YES Analysis of Female workforce utilizing ADVANA 

Data. 

Complaint Data 

(Trends) NO 

Grievance Data 

(Trends) NO

Findings from 

Decisions (e.g., EEO, 

Grievance, MSPB, 

Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

NO 

Climate Assessment 

Survey (e.g., FEVS) NO 

Exit Interview Data NO 

Focus Groups NO 

Interviews NO 

Reports (e.g., 

Congress, EEOC, 

MSPB, GAO, OPM) 

NO 

Other (Please Describe) 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

NO YES 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

DTRA will need to determine the following: 

• Why do Females have a low participation rate in DTRA’s total workforce 

• Why are Females separating from the Agency at 36.54% 

• Are Females being hired at a comparative rate to Males 

• Are Females being paid comparable to Males

• Address and implement strategies for the recruitment and selection of highly qualified 

Females for positions at the highest levels.

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 
99

Objective Date Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Sufficient 

Funding 

and 

Staffing? 

Modified Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Collaborate with HR on 

Recruitment Events and 

Outreach for Females.

04/14/2019 09/30/2020 

YES 

09/30/2023 

12/31/2022 

Participate in HR’s 

Strategic Recruitment 

Discussions to provide 

guidance in hiring 

process. 

09/01/2020 09/30/2020 

 

YES 

 

09/30/2020 

Review applicant flow 

data to identify the 

number of Females 

applying for positions 

01/01/2021 12/31/2021 

YES 

09/30/2023 

09/30/2022 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance Standards Address 

the Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office Willisa Donald NO 

Director, Human Resource Directorate Christine Enriquez, Colonel NO 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities Modified Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

02/15/2020 

Conduct a Gender Pay Study to 

examine pay gap between Males and 

Females within the Agency 

 03/30/2020 

03/20/2020 

Collaborate with HR’s 

Recruitment and Outreach Team on 

events and efforts for Females 

 09/30/2020 

04/30/2020 

Develop a Recruitment and 

Outreach Plan identifying 

undergraduate, graduate schools and 

universities, summer internships, 

and associations for Women 

 08/30/2020 
100

07/01/2020 

Participate in HR’s Strategic 

Recruitment Discussions and 

provide hiring guidance to hiring 

Managers 

09/30/2020 

07/30/2020 

Examine exit survey data to 

determine why Females are leaving 

the Agency 

09/30/2022 12/30/2022 

08/05/2020 

Establish the Women’s ERG 

(W/ERG) to address the low 

participation of Women in the 

Agency. Select a Lead and Co-lead 

to play an active role within the 

W/ERG. 

09/30/2020 

10/01/2020 Develop an Action Plan and a way 

forward with the W/ERG 01/29/2021 

10/31/2020 

Hold W/ERG monthly meetings to 

collaborate on targeted outreach 

strategies and Diversity related 

matters. 

12/31/2021 9/30/2022 

05/01/2021 

Develop and provide workshops, 

brown bags and seminars to 

promote cultural awareness for 

Women. 

12/31/2021 

08/2021 9/30/2022 

06/01/2021 

Develop partnerships with colleges, 

and universities that have a high 

percentage of women in the DTRA 

mission critical skillsets 

09/30/2023 

03/30/2022 

09/2021 

7/15/2021

Target recruitment efforts toward 

women from diverse backgrounds 

(including veterans) through 

networking/partnerships with 

Women and Veteran organizations.

12/31/2022 

03/30/2022 

09/2021

09/30/2021 

Adopt and tailor OPM Recruitment, 

Engagement, Diversity and Inclusion 

Program (REDI) roadmap for ideas. 

12/31/2022 

02/28/2022 

10/01/2021 

Examine the Applicant Flow Data to 

determine whether Women are 

applying and/or being selected. 

03/30/2023 

09/30/2021 

12/15/2021 

Review the Career Development 

workforce data to determine if there 

are any barriers in women applying 

and being selected for opportunities. 

09/30/2023 

03/30/2022 
101

12/30/2021 

Conduct an analysis to determine 

retention issues within the Agency 

(i.e., exit survey, OPM Employee 

Viewpoint Survey). 

12/31/2023 

06/30/2022 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 

The Women’s ERG 

• Established DTRA’s LeanIN Circle to connect individuals that are interested in 

empowering women at work and created outreach and fellowship. 

• Facilitated bringing back the Women in Leadership Agency Course. 

• Hosted guest speaker, Women in Finance Training session (informational only)." 

• Held Women’s History events highlighting significant contributions that women 

have made in DTRA and the nation. 

 Hosted a DTRA talk for Women’s History month. 

 Attended The Conference Board Organization’s Diversity, Equity and 

Inclusion (DEI) Virtual Global Event. 

 Performed a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) 

analysis to review the past year and prepare for the year to come. 

 Hosted an art exhibit at DTRA HQs to celebrate National Women’s 

Appreciation day. 

 Hosted a DTRA Leadership "in Person" Mentoring Brown Bag. Best practices 

feedback sent to EI Office and Council leadership. 

 Women’s ERG/Leadership Development Initiative was implemented: 

Monthly a Senior Leader was invited to the ERG Meeting and provided an

opening comments/brief for the meeting. 

 COL Christine Enriquez, Director, Human Resources provided the Human 

Capital Plan Goals Overview

Additionally, the Women’s ERG initiated a review of workforce data to identify 

potential triggers and barriers for Women in the DTRA workforce. 

2021 

EI continued to engage with HR on recruitment and outreach efforts; EI developed 

a Recruitment and Outreach Plan to address the deficiencies. 

 

A Women’s ERG member attended The Conference Board Organization’s Diversity, 

Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Virtual Global Event which was a platform of global 

Senior Leadership speakers/panel participants with discussions of the current DEI 

challenges of incorporating DEI in the workforce from the top down; Shared with 

the Council and ERGs. 

Women ERG performed a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats 

(SWOT) analysis that reviewed the past year and preparing for the year to come. 
102

The Women’s ERG displayed an art exhibit at DTRA HQs to celebrate National 

Women’s Appreciation day. 

A Women’s ERG member attended The Conference Board Organization’s 

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). 

The Women’s ERG participated in TAP & Outreach events such supporting Women 

ERG members and attending the DAF Women’s Air and Space Power Symposium, 

a professional development series. 

The Women’s ERG requested DTRA HR to include D&I Council/ERG 

SharePoint link on the Agency In-processing checklist. 

The ERG hosted a Women’s Equality Day Canvas project, Brown Bags, guest lectures, 

internal women’s panels. 

They collaborated with the other ERGs to conduct a Recruitment Job Fair in the 

Headquarters Lobby January 2022 TBD. 

The ERG solicited for new members’ by sharing information on the DTRA 1 Carousel. 

 

They reviewed the MD-715 to identify retention issues for Women. 

Develop partnerships and collaborative relationships with professional organizations to 

promote DTRA’s mission and hiring needs. 

 Explore the opportunity to start a Federal Employed Women (FEW) chapter 

at DTRA (stretch goal) 

 Explore the option of DTRA becoming a sponsor during FEW conferences. 

Team with existing Chapters 

 Win an Award (stretch goal) 

C Collaborate with the HR Talent Acquisition Program (TAP) team to assess how to 

find, engage, and target Women candidates. 

 Explore outreach to women’s colleges such as: Spelman, Bennett, Barnard, 

Wellesley, Smith, etc. 

 Teaming with AAERG as two are HBCUs 

The ERG plans to meet in person to provide LeanIn/Group fellowship support groups.
103

2020 

Recruitment and Outreach Plan: EI continued to engage with HR on recruitment and 

outreach efforts: EI developed a Recruitment and Outreach Plan to address the 

deficiencies from the MD-715, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Plan (FEORP) 

and Disadvantaged Veterans Affirmative Action Plan (DVAAP) Report and to support 

recruitment efforts for women including schools and universities 

(Undergraduate and Graduate), summer internships, institutions and associations. 

Strategic Recruitment Discussion: The EI Office began participating in strategic 

conversations with HR and hiring Managers to educate and provide awareness on 

achieving Diversity in recruitment, hiring and the interviewing process. These 

conversations assist in increasing hiring Manager’s awareness of various special hiring 

authorities, Diversity recruitment strategies and establishing a diverse hiring panel, 

beyond demographics. 

Agency Established a Women’s ERG: In FY20, DTRA established an Agency wide 

Diversity and Inclusion Council, to include six ERGs (African American, AAPI, 

Hispanic, PWD, LGBTQIA and Women). The newly established Women’s ERG 

included 20 volunteers from across the Agency. The group immediately developed its 

Action Plan and focused efforts on: 

• Analysis and Reporting 

• Policy and Oversight 

• Force and Talent Management 

• Strategic Communications and Events 

While individual initiatives are still under development, the formation of this ERG 

represents deliberate commitment to issues of Diversity and inclusion with the Agency. 

Women’s Pay Equity Study – In FY20, a pay study was conducted to determine 

triggers in regards to Women in the DTRA workforce. We examined pay grades for 

GS-3 to SES and the study revealed that 96% of DTRA personnel are between the GS11 to GS-15 grade levels. On average, women compare with men in pay. A member of 

the ORSA team briefed the D&I Council and ERGs and will collaborate with the ERGs 

to conduct further analysis. 

The Agency Women’s ERG hosted a Women’s History Month Panel event. There were 

3 Female panelists: Dr. Ada Bacetty, Navy CPO Diana Angstadt, and Dr. Jennifer 

Sparks. Ms. Amanda Andersen moderated the event. The theme of the event centered 

on Leadership, followership, and championship in work and life endeavors. The 

discussion topics included mentorship, barriers in the workplace, work/life balance, and 

overcoming adversity. The three panelists answered questions and offered different 

perspectives based on career fields, personal and professional experience, and 

individual drivers. The event helped to share perspectives on overcoming barriers to 

ensure women at DTRA have the support they need to grow and succeed in the DTRA 

workforce. There were over 150 attendees. 
104

MD-715 – Part I #2

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier 

DTRA HISPANIC WORKFORCE

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 

Hispanic 

Workforce 

Table A1, 

A8 and A16 

DTRA’s Total workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,361 individuals a 

decrease of 119 (8.04%) workforce members in comparison with FY21. 

The Hispanic workforce consisted of 67 (4.92%) Males, an increase of 

0.12% in comparison with FY21. The Hispanic workforce consisted of 33 

(2.42%) Females, an increase of 0.06% in comparison with FY21. The 

representation of Hispanic Males and Females is significantly lower than 

their respective CLFs of (6.82%; 6.16%).

Permanent workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,335 individuals, an 

8.18% decrease in comparison with FY21. The Hispanic workforce 

consisted of 65 (4.87%) Males, a decline of 0.01% in comparison with 

FY21. The Hispanic workforce consisted of 32 (2.40%) Females, an 

increase of 0.06% in comparison with FY21. The representation of 

Hispanic Males and Females is significantly lower than their respective 

CLFs of (6.82%; 6.16%). 

The Permanent workforce Hispanic Males participation rate 4.87% is 

broken down as follows: 

 Executives 3.05%); 

 Managers 6.06%; 

 Supervisors 0.00%; 

 Professionals 4.78%; 

 Technicians 15.38%; and 

 Administrative Workers 16.67%. 

The Permanent workforce Hispanic Women’s participation rate 2.40% 

is broken down as follows: 

 Executives 3.82%; 

 Managers 1.52%; 

 Supervisors 0.00%; 

 Professionals 2.39%; 

 Technicians 0.00%; and 

 Administrative Workers 0.00%. 
105

The participation rate of Hispanic Male New Hires in the Total 

workforce was 3.11% in FY22, a decrease of 3.52% in comparison with 

FY21. 

The participation rate of Hispanic Female New Hires in the Total 

workforce was 2.67% in FY22, a decrease of 0.05% in comparison with 

FY21. 

The Separation rate for Hispanic Males in the Total workforce was five 

(5) (2.63%) in FY22, a decrease of 2.06% in comparison with FY21. 

The Separation rate for Hispanic Females in the Total workforce was 

four (4) (2.11%) a decrease of 4.14% in comparison with FY21. 

Analysis of the Time-Off Award data revealed that Hispanic Males 

received Time-Off Awards in all categories. 

Analysis of the Time-Off Award data revealed that Hispanic Females 

received Time-Off Awards in all categories. 

Analysis of the Cash Award data revealed that Hispanic Males and 

Females received Cash Awards in all categories. 

Analysis of the Quality Step Increases (QSI) data indicates that the 

participation rate for Hispanic Females was 0.00% a decrease of 1.35% in 

comparison with FY21. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.
106

Senior 

Executive 

Service 

Table A-4 

The Agency has 13 individuals in SES positions. The Hispanic Male SES 

population was one (1) (7.69%) compared to the permanent workforce of 

65 (4.87%). There was no Hispanic Female representation among the 

SES. 

Senior-grade level Hispanic participation rates were as follows: 

 Male 

• GS-14, 13 (3.47%) a decrease of 0.29% in 

comparison with FY21. 

• GS-15, three (3) (1.62%), an increase of 0.07% in 

comparison with FY21. 

• SES, 1 (7.69%), an increase of 0.55% in 

comparison with FY21. 

 

 Female 

• GS-14, four (4) (1.07%) a decrease of 0.18% in 

comparison with FY21. 

• GS-15, seven (7) (3.78%) an increase of 1.19% in 

comparison with FY21. 

• SES, there is no Hispanic Female representation in 

the SES workforce. 

Analysis of the Hispanic Male workforce reveals there is no Hispanic 

Male in GS-09 to GS-10 positions. 

Analysis of the Hispanic Female workforce reveals there is no Hispanic 

Female representation in GS-09 to GS-10, or SES positions. 

The majority of Hispanic Males 41 (63.07%) of the 65 permanent 

Hispanic Males were in the GS-13 to GS-15 pay grades, placing them in 

the SES pipeline. During FY22 there was a 6.74% increase in Hispanic 

Male representation within GS-13 to GS-15 positions. 

The majority of Hispanic Female 24 (75%) of the 32 permanent Hispanic 

Female were in the GS-13 and GS-15 pay grades, placing them in the SES 

pipeline. During FY22 there was an 1% increase in 

Hispanic Female representation within GS-13 to GS-15 positions 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA. 

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

Hispanic Workforce

Barrier Analysis Process 
107

Sources of Data 

Source Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables YES Analysis of Hispanic workforce utilizing 

ADVANA Data. 

Complaint Data (Trends) NO

Grievance Data (Trends) NO 

Findings from Decisions 

(e.g., EEO, Grievance, 

MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

 

NO 

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., 

FEVS) 

 

NO 

Exit Interview Data NO 

Focus Groups NO 

Interviews NO 

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM) NO 

Other (Please Describe) NO 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No) 

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No) 

NO YES 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

The Agency continued to work on the low participation rates of Hispanics. In FY22, the EI Office with 

the support of HR continued their work to identify and minimize potential barriers to improve the 

representation of Hispanics at DTRA. 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective 

Date 

Initiated Target 

Date 

 Sufficient

Funding

&

Staffing?

Modified 

Date 

Date 

Completed 
108

Identify and address 

potential barriers within 

DTRA’s

Hispanic workforce. 

12/04/2018 12/15/2021 YES 

 

12/31/2022 

6/30/2022

Enhance Hispanic cultural 

awareness through 

engaging the Hispanic 

ERG. 

01/01/2020

 

Ongoing YES 10/31/2021 9/30/2022 

Develop an outreach and 

recruitment plan that 

identifies R/O strategies and 

highlights Hispanic Serving 

Institutions (HSIs). 

06/01/2020 10/31/2020 YES 

 

12/31/2022

10/31/2021 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office Willisa Donald YES 

Director, Human Resource 

Directorate Christine Enriquez, Colonel YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date Planned Activities Modified Date Completion Date 

03/05/2019 Re-establish a Hispanic Working Group 06/30/2019 

03/31/2020 

Conduct a Climate Survey of the DTRA 

Albuquerque facility. 04/30/2020 

04/29/2020 

Develop and provide workshops, brown 

bags and seminars to promote cultural 

awareness in working with Hispanics. 

12/31/2022 

09/2021 

04/30/2020 

Develop a Recruitment and Outreach 

Plan for Hispanics. Provide a list of 

Universities and Institutions for specific 

mission skillsets. 

08/15/2020 

07/30/2020 Select a list of Summer Programs for 

Hispanics and proved to HR. 

08/15/2020 
109

08/05/2020 

Finalize the ERG Charter and guidance 

to establish new working group to 

examine perceived barriers. 

09/30/2020 

08/15/2020 Select a Lead and Co-Lead who will play 

an active role within the Hispanic ERG. 

09/30/2020 

08/15/2020 

Hold Hispanic ERG meetings monthly to 

collaborate on targeted outreach 

strategies and Diversity related matters. 

08/31/2020 

01/15/2021 

Conduct Awareness Sessions for Agency 

Employees and discuss ways to enhance 

opportunities for Hispanics. 

 

6/30/2023 

09/30/2022 

 

07/30/2021 

Conduct in-depth barrier analysis in 

collaboration with Hispanic ERG to 

identify policies and practices that may 

prevent advancement in the 

representation of Hispanics at DTRA. 

12/31/2022 

03/30/2022 

10/2021 

 

08/30/2021 

Conduct Federal Agency research of 

Best Practices for Hispanic recruitment, 

retention, and fostering professional 

development opportunities targeting the 

Hispanic workforce and develop a report 

regarding findings. 

 

06/30/2023 

06/30/2022 

10/15/2021 

Reviewing hiring, promotion, and career 

development programs from other 

Federal Agencies and private sector 

companies to benchmark best practices. 

3/30/2023 

06/30/2022 

11/15/2021 

Review the Career Development 

workforce data to determine if there are 

any barriers in Hispanics apply and being 

selected for opportunities. 

12/31/2022 

 09/30/2022 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

2022

Hispanic, The EI Director met with the Hispanic ERG providing advice and 

assistance regarding their initiatives. 

 Participated in Outreach events with local STEM High School (Oxon Hill 

Senior High School), and STEM Career Discussion Panel.
110

 Collaborated with the Women’s ERG for information sharing on Women Firsts, 

within DoD – U.S. Navy Submarine Service - First Female Submarine “Chief of 

the Boat” (Command Senior Enlisted Advisor).

 Participated in Inter-Government mentoring, with other agencies as they stood 

up their Hispanic ERG.

 Hosted a Cinco De Mayo educational display.

 Commemorated Hispanic Heritage Month through a series of displays.

2021

H Hispanic, The EI Director met with the Hispanic ERG providing advice and 

assistance regarding their initiatives. 

 Participated in the TAP & Outreach events for the West New Mexico 

University Career Fair;

 Hosted a lecture series;

• The Mayaguez Incident – 12 to 15 May 1975

• Morinqueneers – 65th Infantry Regiment, 1899 to Presentation of 

Congressional Gold Medal

 Hosted lunchtime brown bag – Music/Culture series to create cultural 

awareness;

 Salsa, Merengue, Mambo, and Bomba-Plena

 Ranchera, Mariachi, Cumbia, and Tango

 Collaborated with the Women’s ERG for information sharing on several 

Women Firsts, within DoD (First female to Lead a Service, First Female Coast 

Guard Commandant);

 Participated in Inter-Government mentoring, with other agencies as they stood 

up their Hispanic ERG;

 Hosted a Cinco De Mayo educational display; and

 Commemorated Hispanic Heritage Month through a series of displays. 

2020 

Hispanic Recruitment and Outreach: DTRA continues to focus, review and modify 

recruitment strategies to ensure these efforts result in a diverse applicant pool that 

includes Hispanics. Ongoing recruiting efforts include outreach at virtual and 

community events and informational briefs at local schools and colleges/ universities 

with large Hispanic populations such as the University of New Mexico, New Mexico 

State University, Central New Mexico Community College and the Society of 

Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE) Regional Leadership Development 

Conference Region 3, the nation’s largest association dedicated to fostering Hispanic 

Leadership in the STEM field. In addition, the recruitment team was established for 

engineering and scientist positions specifically targeted to Hispanic/Latino Americans 

seeking employment, as well as increased collaboration with professional Hispanic 

affinity organizations. DTRA attended one outreach event that engaged over 150 

prospective candidates. The Agency had two additional Hispanic focused events 

cancelled due to COVID-19. 

Hispanic Working Group and Climate Assessment: The Hispanic Working 

Group engaged Hispanic Employees and discussed the Agency's efforts such as the 

Hispanic Working Group action plan report and next steps for outreach into the 

community. The Working Group conducted a climate assessment for the ABQ 
111

workforce. Fifty-two percent (52%) of the ABQ workforce took the assessment. The 

results indicated there is a need for improvement in Employee recognition and 

promotion, career development and Senior Leadership. There were positive 

outcomes for ABQ’s first line Supervisor, mission and accountability. 

Hispanic Employee Resource Group (H/ERG): In FY20, the Agency established 

the H/ERG with 18 volunteers to assist with identifying and addressing barriers 

causing a low participation rate. The group developed a draft action plan and selected 

team leads to support the following teams: 

• Data and Barrier Analysis 

• Recruitment and Outreach 

• Employee/Workforce Engagement 

• Training and Cultural Awareness

MD-715 – Part I #3

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier 

White Females

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 

White 

Female

Workforce 

Table A1, 

A8 and A16 

DTRA’s Total workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,361 individuals a 

decrease of 119 (8.04%) workforce members in comparison with FY21. 

The White Female workforce consisted of 262 (19.25%) a decrease of 

1.16% in comparison with FY21 remaining significantly lower than the 

31.82% CLF. 

Permanent workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,335 individuals, an 

8.18% decrease in comparison with FY21. The White Female workforce 

consisted of 257 (19.25%) a decrease of 1.11% in comparison with FY21 

remaining significantly lower than the 31.82% CLF. 

The Permanent workforce White Female participation rate 19.25% is 

broken down as follows: 

 Executives 17.56%; 

 Managers 10.61%; 

 Supervisors 0.00%; 

 Professionals 20.24%; 

 Technicians 0.00%; and 

 Administrative Workers 66.67%. 

The participation rate of White Female New Hires in the Total workforce 

was 20% in FY22, a decrease of 6.02% in comparison with FY21. 
112

The Separation rate for White Females in the Total workforce was 50 

(26.32%) in increase of 6.01% in comparison with FY21. 

Analysis of the Time-Off Award data revealed that White Females 

received Time-Off Awards in all categories. 

Analysis of the Cash Award data revealed that White Females received 

Cash Awards in all categories. 

Analysis of the Quality Step Increases (QSI) data indicates that the 

participation rate for White Females was 21 (29.58%) an increase of 3.9% 

in comparison with FY21. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.

Senior 

Executive 

Service 

Table A-4 

The Agency has 13 individuals in SES positions. The Female workforce 

representation is as follows: 

 Female SES population was two (2) (15.38%) both of whom were 

White Females. 

 

Senior-grade level White Female participation rates were as follows: 

  GS-14, 77 (20.53), 

  GS-15, 34 (18.38%), and 

  SES, two (2) (15.38%). 

 

The majority of White Females196 (76.26%) of the 257 permanent White 

Females were in the GS-13 to GS-15 pay grades, placing them in the SES 

pipeline. 

 NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

White Females 

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data 

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) 

Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables YES Analysis of White Female workforce utilizing 

ADVANA Data.

 Complaint Data (Trends) NO 
113

 Grievance Data (Trends) NO 

 Exit Interview Data NO 

 Focus Groups NO 

 Other (Please Describe) NO 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No) 

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No) 

YES YES 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

In FY22 the Agency workforce analysis identified a lower than anticipated participation rate of White Females 

in the DTRA workforce. 

 

DTRA will need to determine the following: 

 Why do White Females have a low participation rate in DTRA’s permanent workforce? 

 Why is there no White Female representation in the SES workforce? 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

 

 

Objective 

 

Date 

Initiated 

 

Target 

Date 

 Sufficient 

Funding 

& 

Staffing? 

Modified 

Date 

 

Date 

Completed 

Identify and address potential 

barriers within 

DTRA’s White Female workforce.

11/15/2020 06/30/2022 

YES 

12/31/2022 

Enhance contributions of the White 

Female workforce through an 

awareness campaign.

12/15/2021 09/30/2022

YES

03/30/2023

Develop an outreach and 

recruitment plan that identifies R/O 

Strategies and highlights Women’s 

Institutions. 

1/05/2022 08/15/2022 

YES

 

12/31/2022 

Responsible Official(s) 
114

Title Name 

Performance

Standards Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office Willisa Donald YES 

Director, Human Resource 

Directorate Christine Enriquez, Colonel YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date Planned Activities Modified Date 

Completion 

Date 

12/31/2021 

Select a list of Summer Programs for High 

School and College age Females and 

provide to HR. 

12/31/2022 

04/30/2022 

Develop and provide workshops, brown 

bags and seminars to promote the 

accomplishments of White Women in 

History and in the DTRA Workforce. 

9/30/2022 

06/30/2022 

Review hiring, promotion, and career 

development programs from other Federal 

Agencies and private sector companies to 

benchmark best practices. 

12/31/2022 

06/30/2022 

Review the Career Development workforce 

data to determine if there are any barriers in 

White Women applying for and being 

selected for Career Development 

opportunities. 

03/30/2023 

09/30/2022 

Conduct in-depth barrier analysis in 

collaboration with the Women’s ERG to 

identify policies and practices that may 

prevent advancement in the representation 

of White Women at DTRA. 

12/31/2023 

09/30/2022 

Conduct Federal Agency research of Best 

Practices for White Women regarding 

recruitment, retention, and fostering 

professional development opportunities. 

06/30/2023 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

2022 The Women’s ERG 
115

 Established DTRA’s LeanIN Circle to connect individuals that are interested in 

empowering women at work and created outreach and fellowship. 

 Facilitated re-establishing the Women in Leadership Agency Course. 

 Hosted guest speaker, Women in Finance Training session. 

 Held Women’s History events highlighting significant contributions that 

women made in DTRA and the nation. 

 Hosted a DTRA talk for Women’s History month. 

 Attended The Conference Board Organization’s Diversity, Equity and 

Inclusion (DEI) Virtual Global Event. 

 Performed a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) 

analysis to review the past year and prepare for the year to come. 

 Hosted an art exhibit at DTRA HQs to celebrate National Women’s 

Appreciation day. 

 Hosted a DTRA Leadership "in Person" Mentoring Brown Bag. 

 Women’s ERG/Leadership Development Initiative Implemented inviting a 

Senior Leader to the ERG Monthly Meetings to provide an overview brief as 

well as opening comments. 

COL Christine Enriquez, Director, Human Resources provided the Human Capital 

Plan Goals Overview, for the Women’s ERG.

2021 

The Women’s ERG performed a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats 

(SWOT) analysis that reviewed the past year and preparing for the year to come. 

The Women’s ERG displayed an art exhibit at DTRA HQs to celebrate National 

Women’s Appreciation day. 

 

A Women’s ERG member attended The Conference Board Organization’s Diversity, 

Equity and Inclusion (DEI). 

 

The Women’s ERG participated in TAP & Outreach events such supporting Women 

ERG members and attending the DAF Women’s Air and Space Power Symposium, a 

professional development series. 

 

The Women’s ERG requested DTRA HR to include D&I Council/ERG SharePoint

link on the Agency In-processing checklist. 

 

The ERG hosted a Women’s Equality Day Canvas project, Brown Bags, guest 

lectures, internal women’s panels. 

 

They collaborated with the other ERGs to conduct a Recruitment Job Fair in the 

Headquarters Lobby January 2022 TBD. 

The ERG solicited for new members’ by sharing information on the DTRA 1 

Carousel. 

 

They reviewed the MD-715 to identify retention issues for Women. 
116

Develop partnerships and collaborative relationships with professional organizations 

to promote DTRA’s mission and hiring needs. 

 Explore the opportunity to start a Federal Employed Women (FEW) chapter 

at DTRA (stretch goal) 

 Explore the option of DTRA becoming a sponsor during FEW conferences. 

Team with existing Chapters 

 Win an Award (stretch goal) 

 

Collaborate with the HR Talent Acquisition Program (TAP) team to assess how to 

find, engage, and target Women candidates. 

 Explore outreach to women’s colleges such as: Spelman, Bennett, Barnard, 

Wellesley, Smith, etc... 

 Teaming with AAERG as two are HBCUs 

The ERG plans to meet in person to provide LeanIn/Group fellowship support 

groups.

MD-715 – Part I #4

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier

DTRA AMERICAN INDIAN ALASKAN NATIVE (AIAN) FEMALE WORKFORCE 

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 
117

DTRA 

AIAN 

Female 

Workforce 

Table A1, 

A8 and A16 

DTRA’s Total workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,361 individuals a 

decrease of 119 (8.04%) workforce members in comparison with FY21. 

The AIAN Female workforce consisted of three (3) (0.22%) an increase 

of 0.08% in comparison with FY21. The representation of AIAN Females 

is significantly lower than the CLF of 0.31%.

Permanent workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,335 individuals, an 

8.18% decrease in comparison with FY21. The AIAN Female workforce 

consisted of three (3) (0.22%) an increase of 0.08% in comparison with 

FY21. 

The Permanent workforce AIAN Female participation 0.22% is broken

down as follows: 

 Executives 0.76%; 

 Managers 0.00%; 

 Supervisors 0.00%; 

 Professionals 0.18% 

 Technicians 0.00%; and 

 Administrative Workers 0.00%. 

The participation rate of AIAN Female New Hires in the Total workforce 

was 3.11% in FY22, an increase of 2.6% in comparison with FY21. 

No AIAN Females separated from the Agency in FY21. 

Analysis of the Award data revealed that the three (3) AIAN Females in 

the DTRA workforce Awards as follows: 

 One Time-Off Award of 31-40 Hours. 

 One Cash Award of $5000-$5999. 

Analysis of the Quality Step Increases (QSI) data indicates that the 

participation rate for AIAN Females was 0.00%. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA. 
118

Senior 

Executive 

Service 

Table A-4 

The Agency has 13 individuals in SES positions. There was no AIAN 

Female representation among the SES. 

Senior-grade level AIAN Female representation is as follows: 

 GS-14, no AIAN Female representation. 

 GS-15, one (1) (0.54%). 

 SES, no AIAN Female representation. 

Analysis of the AIAN Female workforce reveals there is no AIAN 

Female representation in GS-10, GS-11 to GS-14, nor SES. 

 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA. 

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data 

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) 

Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables YES Analysis of AIAN Female workforce utilizing 

ADVANA Data. 

 Complaint Data (Trends) NO 

 Grievance Data (Trends) NO 

 Exit Interview Data NO 

 Focus Groups NO 

Other (Please Describe) NO 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No) 

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No) 

NO YES 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

In FY22 the Agency workforce analysis identified a lower than anticipated participation rate of AIAN Females 

in the DTRA workforce. 

 

DTRA will need to determine the following: 

 Why do AIAN Females have a low participation rate in DTRA’s permanent workforce? 

 Why is there no AIAN Female representation in the SES workforce? 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 
119

 

Objective 

 

Date 

Initiated 

 

Target 

Date 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

 

Date 

Completed 

Identify and address potential 

barriers within 

DTRA’s AIAN Female 

workforce. 

10/31/2021 04/30/2022 

YES 12/31/2022 

Enhance AIAN Female cultural 

awareness through partnering 

with the Women’s ERG to 

showcase AIAN history, 

culture, and accomplishments. 

10/31/2021 06/30/2022 

YES 3/30/2023 

Partner with the Women’s ERG 

to conduct Barrier Analysis.

11/15/2021 03/30/2022 YES 12/31/2023 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance

Standards Address the Plan?

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office Willisa Donald YES 

Director, Human Resource 

Directorate Christine Enriquez, Colonel YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date Planned Activities Modified Date Completion Date 

12/31/2021 

Identify Institutions with AIAN 

Cultural groups for recruitment 

opportunities and provide to HR. 

 10/31/2022 

01/31/2021 

Develop and provide workshops, brown 

bags and seminars to promote cultural 

awareness in working with AIAN 

Females. 

10/31/2022 
120

03/30/2021 

Conduct in-depth barrier analysis in 

collaboration with the Women’s ERG 

to identify policies and practices that 

may prevent advancement in the 

representation of AIAN Females at 

DTRA. 

 

12/31/2022 

 

 

 

 

05/31/2021 

Conduct Federal Agency research of 

Best Practices for AIAN Female 

recruitment, retention, and fostering 

professional development opportunities 

targeting the AIAN Female workforce 

and develop a report regarding 

findings. 

 

 

12/31/2022 

12/31/2021 

Review hiring, promotion, and career 

development programs from other 

Federal Agencies and private sector 

companies to benchmark best practices. 

3/30/2023 

04/30/2022 

Develop a Recruitment and Outreach 

Plan for AIAN Females. 

1/31/2023 

 

09/30/2022 

Review the Career Development 

workforce data to determine if there are 

any barriers in AIAN Females applying 

and being selected for opportunities. 

3/30/2023 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

2021 Workforce Analysis was initiated and identified a gap in AIAN representation 

limiting opportunities for advancement.

2022 

The AIAN Female workforce increased during FY22, as did the number of AIAN 

Females receiving awards. 

The Women’s ERG initiated barrier analysis which includes an analysis of all 

Female participation in the DTRA workforce. 

MD-715 – Part I #5

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier

DTRA NATIVE HAWAIIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHPI) MALE WORKFORCE 
121

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 

DTRA 

NHPI Male

Workforce 

Table A1, 

A8 and A16 

DTRA’s Total workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,361 individuals a 

decrease of 119 (8.04%) workforce members in comparison with FY21. 

The NHPI Male workforce consisted of one (1) (0.07%), no change in 

representation is noted in comparison with FY21. The representation of 

NHPI Males and slightly lower than the NHPI Male CLF (0.08%). 

Permanent workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,335 individuals, an 8.18% 

decrease in comparison with FY21. The NHPI Male workforce consisted 

of one (1) (0.07%), no change in representation is noted in comparison 

with FY21. NHPI Males remain slightly lower than the CLF of 0.08%.

The Permanent workforce NHPI Male participation rate (0.07%) is 

broken down as follows: 

 Executive 0.00%; 

 Manager 0.00%; 

 Supervisor 0.00%; 

 Professionals 0.09%; 

 Technicians 0.00%; 

 Administrative Workers 0.00%. 

The participation rate of NHPI Male New Hires in the Total workforce 

was 0.00% in FY22, with no change noted in the New Hire participation 

rate in comparison with FY21. 

 

There were no Separations of NHPI Males in the Total workforce for 

FY22. 

Analysis of the Time-Off Award data revealed that NHPI Males received 

Time-Off Awards as follows: 

 One NHPI Male received a Time-Off Award of 31-40 Hours. 

Analysis of the Cash Award data revealed that NHPI Males received Cash 

Awards as follows: 

 One NHPI Male received a Cash Award of $501-$999. 

Analysis of the Quality Step Increases (QSI) data indicates that no NHPI 

Males received a QSI in FY22. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.
122

Senior 

Executive 

Service 

Table A-4 

The NHPI Male participation rate within the Permanent workforce was 

one (1) (0.07%) The following are areas of concern: 

Senior-grade level NHPI Male representation is as follows: 

 GS-14, no NHPI Male representation. 

 GS-15, no NHPI Male representation. 

 SES, no NHPI Male representation. 

 

The GS-13 NHPI Male participation rate was one (1) (0.22%). 

 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data 

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) 

Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables YES Analysis of NHPI Male workforce utilizing ADVANA 

Data. 

 Complaint Data (Trends) NO 

 Grievance Data (Trends) NO 

 Exit Interview Data NO 

 Focus Groups NO 

Other (Please Describe) NO 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No) 

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No) 

NO YES 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

In FY22 the Agency workforce analysis identified a lower than anticipated participation rate of NHPI Males 

in the DTRA workforce. 

 

DTRA will need to determine the following: 

 Why do NHPI Males have a low participation rate in DTRA’s permanent workforce? 

 Why is there no NHPI Male representation in the GS-01 to GS-12 grades? 

 Why is there no NHPI Male representation in the GS-14 to SES workforce? 
123

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

 

 

Objective 

 

Date 

Initiated 

 

Target 

Date 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Date

Completed 

 (mm/dd/yyyy) 

Identify and address potential 

barriers within 

DTRA’s NHPI Male workforce. 11/15/2021 04/30/2022 

YES 

12/31/2022 

Develop an outreach and 

recruitment plan that identifies 

R/O Strategies and highlights 

institutions reaching the NHPI 

community. 

12/01/2021 

 

 

06/30/2022 

YES 

3/30/2023 

Enhance NHPI cultural 

awareness through engaging the 

AAPI ERG. 

12/01/2021 06/30/2022 

YES 

6/30/2022 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office Willisa Donald YES 

Director, Human Resource 

Directorate Christine Enriquez, Colonel YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date Planned Activities Modified Date Completion Date 

 

03/15/2022 

Conduct in-depth barrier analysis in 

collaboration with the AAPI ERG to 

identify policies and practices that may 

prevent advancement in the 

representation of NHPIs at DTRA. 

12/31/2022 

05/15/2022 

Develop a list of Universities and

Institutions for specific mission skillsets 

reaching the NHPI community. 

11/30/2022 
124

06/30/2022 

Develop a Recruitment and Outreach 

Plan for NHPI. 

3/30/2023 

 

06/30/2022 

Conduct Federal Agency research of 

Best Practices for NHPI recruitment, 

retention, and fostering professional 

development opportunities targeting the 

NHPI workforce and develop a report 

regarding findings. 

6/30/2023 

06/30/2022 

Review hiring, promotion, and career 

development programs from other 

Federal Agencies and private sector 

companies to benchmark best practices. 

4/30/2023 

08/15/2022 

Develop and provide workshops, brown 

bags and seminars to promote cultural 

awareness of NHPI cultures. 

6/30/2023 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

2022 

Messaged DTRA's mission to junior officers and DoD Civilians worldwide. 

Provided insight into DTRA's mission, shared accomplishments of the DTRA D&I 

Council and ERGs as best practices to cadets from the United States Military Academy 

at West Point; US Naval Academy, and US Air Force Academy. During these 

mentoring sessions, provided advice to our next generation of diverse junior leaders, 

so they may positively impact the command climate in their organizations.

Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI); 

 Created a Lunar New Year video and blog that were uploaded the ERG page 

that described how certain Asian countries celebrate this holiday. 

 AAPI Heritage month celebrations included; a Senior Leader Round table, 

video/webcast of “Why Mannerisms Matter to our Success,” and an AAPI 

Awards Ceremony for the “Spirit of the 442nd Infantry Regiment Military 

Awards” and “Senator Daniel K. Inouye Outstanding Civilian Awards.” o 

Including D&I Co-Chair COL Christine Enriquez as guest speaker for the 

AAPI Heritage Month for the Military District of Washing Equal 

Opportunity Team at Fort Belvoir. 

 Designed a collaborative art piece for the Women’s ERG “Women’s Equality 

Day” Art Gallery. 

 Participated in the DTRA EI “ERG Diversity Training Symposium” 
125

 Attended in the Asian American Government Executive Network Leadership 

Workshop 

2021 

Asian American and Pacific Islander Employee Resource Group (AAPI): In 

FY21, the group hosted events, distributed Agency wide information, and created 

awards. AAPI ERG celebrated Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, 

Filipino American Heritage Month, and also posted a blog on the DTRA1 site about 

Lunar New Year. The AAPI ERG came together and created a Heritage Cookbook, 

as well as, having a cooking demonstration for AAPI Heritage Month that had 

recipes from different Asian cultures that were AAPI staples or well-known foods. 

 

Some of their May Heritage Month events included: 

 Senior Leader Round Table 

 Cultural display 

 Virtual cooking demonstrations 

 Published a cookbook 

 Combatting Anti-Asian Violence talk 

 Hosted the first ever AAPI Heroes and Award Ceremony 

 

The ERG instituted annual DTRA AAPI Recognition Awards with the Spirit of the

442nd Infantry Regiment Award and the Senator Daniel K. Inouye Outstanding 

Civilian Award. The AAPI ERG reviewed Agency data to establish a base line for 

workforce demographics and participated in DTRA Talent Acquisition Program 

(TAP) & Outreach events at the Stanford University Job Fair, West Point, and Women 

in Tech Symposium. 

 

The former AAPI ERG lead joined the Pan Pacific American Leaders & Mentors 

(PPALM) - established in March 2006, as an outreach mentoring endeavor. 

MD-715 – Part I #6

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier

DTRA TWO OR MORE RACES WORKFORCE

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 

DTRA’s Total workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,361 individuals a 

decrease of 119 (8.04%) workforce members in comparison with FY21. 

The Two or More Races workforce consisted of eight (8) (0.59%) Males 

and four (4) (0.29%) Females. The Two or More Races Female workforce 

representation increased by 0.18% in comparison with FY21. The Two or 

More Races Male workforce representation increased by 0.09% in 

comparison with FY21. The representation of Two or More Races Males 

and Females is significantly lower than the Two or More Races Male CLF 

of 1.05% and the Two or More Races Female CLF of 1.05%.
126

Two or 

More Races

Workforce 

Table A1, 

A8 and A16 

Permanent workforce for FY22 consisted of 1,335 individuals, a 

8.18% decrease in comparison with FY21. The Two or More Races Male 

workforce consisted of eight (8) (0.60%) an increase of 0.26% in 

comparison with FY21. The Two or More Races Female workforce 

consisted of four (4) (0.09%) an increase of 0.09% in comparison with 

FY21. The representation of Two or More Races Males and Females was 

significantly lower than the CLF of 1.05%. 

The Permanent workforce Two or More Races Male participation rate 

0.60% is broken down as follows: 

 Executives 0.76%; 

 Managers 0.00%; 

 Supervisors 0.00%; 

 Professionals 0.55%; 

 Technicians 0.00%; and 

 Administrative Workers 0.00%. 

The Permanent workforce Two or More Races Female participation rate 

0.30% is broken down as follows: 

 Executives 0.00%; 

 Managers 1.52%; 

 Supervisors 0.00%; 

 Professionals 0.28%; 

 Technicians 0.00%; and 

 Administrative Workers 0.00%. 

Senior-grade level Two or More Races Male participation rates were as 

follows: 

 GS-14, two (2) (0.53) a decrease of 0.22% in comparison with 

FY21. 

 GS-15, two (2) (1.08%) an increase of 0.56% in comparison with 

FY21. 

 SES, no Two or More Races Male representation. 

Senior-grade level Two or More Races Female participation rates were 

as follows: 

 GS-14, one (1) (0.27%) an increase of 0.02% in comparison with 

FY21. 

 GS-15, one (1) (0.54%), an increase of 0.54% in comparison 

 with FY21. 

 SES, no Two or More Races Female representation. 

The participation rate of Two or More Races Male New Hires in the Total 

workforce was 1.78% in FY22, an increase of 1.27% in comparison with 

FY21. 
127

The participation rate of Two or More Races Female New Hires in the 

Total workforce was 0.00% in FY22, no change in representation among 

New Hires is noted in comparison with FY21. 

The Separation rate for Two or More Races Males in the Total workforce 

was one (1) (0.53%) in comparison with 0.00% in FY21. 

The Separation rate for Two or More Races Female in the Total 

workforce was zero (0.00%) for FY22. 

Analysis of the Time-Off Award data revealed that Two or More Races 

Male received Time-Off Awards in all categories except as noted. 

 No Two or More Races Males received a Time-Off award of 110 

hours. 

 No Two or More Races Males received a Time-Off award of 

1120 hours. 

Analysis of the Time-Off Award data revealed that Two or More Races 

Females received Time-Off Awards in all categories except as noted. 

 No Two or More Races Females received a Time-Off award of

11-20 hours. 

 No Two or More Races Females received a Time-Off award of

21-30 hours. 

Analysis of the Cash Award data revealed that Two or More Races Males 

received Cash Awards in all categories. 

Analysis of the Cash Award data revealed that Two or More Races 

Females received Cash Awards in all categories except as noted. 

 No Two or More Races Female received Cash Awards $2000-

$2999. 

 No Two or More Races Female received Cash Awards $4000-

$4999. 

Analysis of the Quality Step Increases (QSI) data indicates that no Two 

or More Races Males were recipients of Quality Step Increases in FY22. 

Further analysis of the Quality Step Increases data indicates that no Two 

or More Races Female were recipients of Quality Step Increases in FY22.

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.
128

Two or 

More Races 

Senior 

Executive 

Service 

Table A-4

The Agency has 13 individuals in SES positions. There was no 

representation in SES positions for Two or More Races Males or Two or 

More Races Females. 

 

The Permanent workforce Two or More Races Male participation rate 

eight (8) (0.60%) is broken down as follows: 

 Executives 0.76%. 

 Managers 0.00%. 

 Supervisors 0.00%. 

 Professionals 0.55%. 

 Technicians 0.00%. 

 Administrative Workers 0.00%. 

 

The Permanent workforce Two or More Races Female participation 

rate four (4) (0.30%) is broken down as follows: 

 Executives 0.00%. 

 Managers 1.52%. 

 Supervisors 0.00%. 

 Professionals 0.28%. 

 Technicians 0.00%. 

 Administrative Workers 0.00%. 

Analysis of the Two or More Races Male workforce reveals there is no 

Two or More Races Male representation in GS-10 to GS-12. 

Additionally, there is no SES representation. 

 

Analysis of the Two or More Races Female workforce reveals there is no 

Two or More Races Female representation in GS-9 to GS-11. 

Additionally, there is no SES representation. 

The majority of Two or More Races Males seven (7) (87.5%) of the eight 

(8) permanent Two or More Races Males were in the GS-13 to GS-15 

positions, placing them in the SES pipeline. 

The majority of Two or More Races Females four (4) (100%) of the four 

(4) permanent Two or More Races Females were in the GS12 to GS-15 

positions, placing them in the SES pipeline. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by 

ADVANA.

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

DTRA TWO OR MORE RACES WORKFORCE 

Barrier Analysis Process
129

Sources of Data 

Source Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables YES Analysis of Two or More Races workforce utilizing 

ADVANA Data. 

Complaint Data (Trends) NO 

Grievance Data (Trends) NO 

Findings from Decisions (e.g., 

EEO, Grievance, 

MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

 

NO 

 

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., 

FEVS) 

 

NO 

Exit Interview Data NO 

Focus Groups NO 

Interviews NO 

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, 

OPM) 

NO 

Other (Please Describe) NO 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No) 

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No) 

NO YES 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

In FY22 the Agency workforce analysis identified a lower than anticipated participation rate of Two or 

More Races Males and Females in the DTRA workforce. 

 

DTRA will need to determine the following: 

 Why do Two or More Races Males and Females have a low participation rate in DTRA’s permanent 

workforce? 

 Why is there no Two or More Races Male representation in the GS-01 to GS-08 and GS10 to GS-13 

pay grades? 

 Why is there no Two or More Races Female representation in the GS-01 to GS-11 pay grades? 

 Is underrepresentation related to underreporting?
130

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective 

Date 

Initiated Target 

Date 

 Sufficient

Funding

&

Staffing?

Modified 

Date 

Date 

Completed 

Identify and address 

potential barriers within 

DTRA’s Two or More 

Races workforce. 

10/31/2021 05/31/2022

YES 

 

12/31/2022 

Enhance Two or More 

Races cultural awareness 

through Special Emphasis 

Events celebrating multiple 

cultures. 

11/15/2021 03/30/2022 YES 11/30/2022 

Initiate a re-survey campaign 

encouraging the workforce 

to self-identify. 

12/15/2021 06/30/2022 YES 04/30/2023 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion Office Willisa Donald YES 

Director, Human Resource 

Directorate Christine Enriquez, Colonel YES 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date Planned Activities Modified Date Completion Date 

02/15/2022 

Develop and provide workshops, brown 

bags and seminars to promote cultural 

awareness of Two or More Races in the 

workplace.

1/31/2023 
131

 

04/30/2022

Conduct Federal Agency research of 

Best Practices for Two or More Races 

recruitment, retention, and fostering 

professional development opportunities 

targeting the Two or More Races 

workforce and develop a report 

regarding findings.

 

4/30/2023

05/30/2022 Develop a Recruitment and Outreach 

Plan for Two or More Races. 

5/30/2023 

 

06/30/2022 

Conduct in-depth barrier analysis to 

identify policies and practices that may 

prevent advancement in the 

representation of Two or More Races at 

DTRA. 

06/30/2023 

 

06/30/2022

Review the Career Development 

workforce data to determine if there are 

any barriers in Two or More Races 

applying and being selected for 

opportunities. 

 

06/30/2023 

07/30/2022 

Reviewing hiring, promotion, and career 

development programs from other 

Federal Agencies and private sector 

companies to benchmark best practices. 

07/30/2023 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

2022 

The Women’s ERG initiated barrier analysis which includes an analysis of all Female 

participation in the DTRA workforce, including Two or More Races. 

 

The representation of Two or More Races Males and Females increased during FY22. 

2021 Workforce Analysis was initiated and identified a gap in Two or More Races 

representation limiting opportunities for advancement. 
132
133

MD-715 – Part J 

Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and 

Retention of Persons with Disabilities 

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals 

EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7)) require agencies to establish specific numerical 

goals for increasing the participation of persons with reportable and targeted disabilities in the 

federal government. 

1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD by 

grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Yes X No 0 

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Yes 0 No X 

The GS-1 to GS-10 Cluster decreased in representation of PWD during FY22 (0.22) in 

comparison with FY21 (0.42%). The analysis also noted that representation of employees in 

Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 decreased in from 29 employees in FY21 to 14 employees in FY22. 

2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD by 

grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) Yes 0 No X 

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Yes 0 No X 

 

3. Describe how the Agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring Managers and/or 

recruiters. 

Information regarding the numerical goals is shared with hiring officials and Managers during the 

Strategic Recruitment Discussions (SRDs) to improve the incorporation of information regarding 

special hiring authorities for veterans, disabled veterans and 30% or more disabled veterans, 

PWDs and PWTDs. 

Section II: Model Disability Program 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(1), agencies must ensure sufficient staff, training and resources to 

recruit and hire persons with disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities, administer the 

reasonable accommodation program and special emphasis program, and oversee any other disability 

hiring and advancement program the Agency has in place. 
134

A. Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability Program 

1. Has the Agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its disability program 

during the reporting period? If “no”, describe the Agency’s plan to improve the staffing for the 

upcoming year. 

Yes X No 0 

2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the Agency’s disability employment program 

by the office, staff employment status, and responsible official. 

Disability Program 

Task 

# of FTE Staff by 

Employment 

Status 

Responsible Official (Name, 

Title, Office, Email) 

Full 

Time 

Part 

Time 

Collateral 

Duty 

Processing 

applications from 

PWD and PWTD 

1 0 0 Jacqueline Preliou-Holland Human 

Resource Specialist, 

jacqueline.s.preliouholland.civ@mail.mil 

Answering questions 

from the public 

about hiring 

authorities that take 

disability into 

account 

1 0 0 Cheryl B. Williams-Payton 

SEPM Program Manager 

Cheryl.b.williamspayton.civ@mail.mil 

Processing 

reasonable 

accommodation 

requests from

applicants and 

Employees 

1 0 0 Sherry Parker 

Supervisory HR Specialist 

sherry.d.parker6.civ@mail.mil 

Section 508 

Compliance 

1 0 0 James Taylor 

508 Coordinator 

James.o.taylor52.civ@mail.mil 

Architectural 

Barriers Act 

Compliance 

1 0 0 Eric Reed, Facilities Plans and 

Space Management, AL-ELF 

Eric.c.reed8.civ@mail.mil 
135

Special Emphasis 

Program for PWD 

and PWTD 

0 Cheryl B. Williams-Payton 

SEPM Program Manager 

Cheryl.b.williamspayton.civ@mail.mil 

3. Has the Agency provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry out their 

responsibilities during the reporting period? If “yes”, describe the training that disability program 

staff have received. If “no”, describe the training planned for the upcoming year. 

 Yes X No 0 

 

In FY22, the Disability Program Manager received one-on-one training designed to increase the 

knowledge and skills related to preparation of the MD-715 Part J and Applicant Flow Data. 

B. Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program 

Has the Agency provided sufficient funding and other resources to successfully implement the 

disability program during the reporting period? If “no”, describe the Agency’s plan to ensure all 

aspects of the disability program have sufficient funding and other resources. 

 Yes X No 0 

 

Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(1)(i) and (ii), agencies must establish a plan to increase the 

recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities. The questions below are designed to identify 

outcomes of the Agency’s recruitment program plan for PWD and PWTD. 

 

A. Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities 

1. Describe the programs and resources the Agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities, 

including individuals with targeted disabilities. 

DTRA Outreach Team partnered with the Department of Defense’s Operation Warfighter 

(OWF) Program. In FY22, DTRA participated in four Employment and Education Initiatives 

(E2I) & Operation Warfighter (OWF) Programs, the inaugural virtual event, two additional 

virtual and one in-person event, with a total of 455 OWF Internship candidates receiving positive 

DTRA brand-messaging and exposure of potential next generation workforce. At the career fairs, 

Persons with Disabilities (PWD) were able to provide their resumes and Schedule A letter to the 

Agency’s Disability Program Manager. DTRA Outreach participated in several successful 

Diversity, disabled, veteran, and STEM outreach engagements, resulting with over 7,000 

participants introduced to the DTRA, DoD and Federal employment, Diversity, inclusion, culture 

and opportunities. Outreach collaboration with Handshake rendered over 80 various nation-wide 

collegiate events with over 5,000 students, alumni and facilities whom attended DTRA 

presentations of Agency Overview, Question & Answer sessions, navigation and exploration of 

www.USAJOBS.gov. Utilizing the Agency Strategic Plan along with the Equity, Diversity and 
136

Inclusion Office Diversity Hiring Guidance, DTRA Outreach ensured, facilitated and created 

open-dialogue for DTRA leaders, key stakeholders, hiring Managers and Employee Resources 

Groups (ERGs) to reach academia, corporate industry, infinity groups, communities and underrepresented groups through outreach efforts. 

The Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPCC) coordinated with hiring Managers to 

consider hiring noncompetitive applicants before announcing the job on USAJobs.gov. 

DTRA Outreach Team and EI Offices met bi-weekly to discuss the various virtual outreach 

opportunities. 

2. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(3), describe the Agency’s use of hiring authorities that 

take disability into account (e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for positions in the 

permanent workforce. 

During FY22 the Agency used the following authorities to hire persons with disabilities: 

1. Schedule A for PWD and PWTD 

2. Pathways 

3. Veterans with a 30% or greater disability rating 

4. Workforce Recruitment Program 

5. Operation Warfighter 

6. Veterans’ Recruitment Appointment (VRA) 

3. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account 

(e.g., Schedule A), explain how the Agency (1) determines if the individual is eligible for 

appointment under such authority and (2) forwards the individual's application to the relevant hiring 

officials with an explanation of how and when the individual may be appointed. 

The Agency USAJobs announcements included language informing applicants they can be 

considered under Schedule A. In the USAJobs announcements, we defined the position 

requirements and the required supporting documentation for Schedule A eligibility. Schedule A 

applicants must meet the specialized experience and best qualified category. 

To ensure eligibility, the applicant must provide a signed Schedule A letter or other 

documentation that indicates 30 percent or more disabled. The Special Emphasis Program 

Manager/DPM provided the Schedule A Applicant’s resume to the HR Staffing Team, which is 

forwarded to a Hiring Official. This process was done outside of the USAJobs competitive all 

interested Schedule A Applicants have an immediate opportunity to be hired.

4. Has the Agency provided training to all hiring Managers on the use of hiring authorities that take 

disability into account (e.g., Schedule A)? If “yes”, describe the type(s) of training and frequency. If 

“no”, describe the Agency’s plan to provide this training. 

 Yes X No 0 N/A 0 

 
137

The HR Staffing Team incorporated information regarding special hiring authorities to recruit 

PWD and PWTD into the strategic recruitment discussions with hiring Managers. Strategic 

recruitment discussions occurred at the beginning of each hiring request. The Disability Program 

Manager provided disability-related training for Supervisors and hiring Managers that covered 

the hiring goals and special hiring authorities. 

B. Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations 

Describe the Agency’s efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist 

PWD, including PWTD, in securing and maintaining employment. 

DTRA maintained partnerships with PWD/PWTD organizations (i.e., WRP, Operations 

Warfighter and other organizations that serve disabled Veterans). DTRA also utilized the 

Pathways program to recruit and fill positions within the Agency. 

C. Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring) 

1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers exist for PWD 

and/or PWTD among the new hires in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, please describe the triggers 

below. 

a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

 

2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among 

the new hires for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers 

below. 

a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD)Yes X No 0
138

Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark triggers were identified among PWD and 

PWTD new hires for the following MCO series.

• Security Administration 0800; PWD 6.02%

• International Relations 0131; PWD 5.73%, PWTD 1.27%

• Intelligence 0132; PWD 7.29%

• Human Resources Management 0201; PWD 5.67%, PWTD 1.70%

• Telecommunications 0391; PWD 10.00%, PWTD 0.00%

• Financial Administration 0501; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00%

• Accounting 0510; PWTD 0.00%

• Budget Analysis 0560; PWD 2.76%, PWD 0.55%

• Contracting 1102; PWD 6.98%

• Computer Science 1550; PWD 8.82%

• General Education Training 1701; PWD 10%, 

• Training Instruction 1712; PWD 7.69%, 

• Information Technology Management 2210; PWD 5.54%

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by USAStaffing.

3. Using the relevant applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among 

the qualified internal applicants for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please 

describe the triggers below.

a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark triggers were identified among PWD and 

PWTD qualified internal applicants for the following MCO series.

• Security Administration 0800; PWD 7.76%

• International Relations 0131; PWD 6.67%

• Intelligence 0132; PWD 7.73%

• Human Resources Management 0201; PWD 6.83%

• Logistics Management 0346; PWTD 0.00%

• Financial Administration 0501; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00%

• General Education Training 1701; PWD 10%, PWTD 0.00%

• Training Instruction 1712; PWD 11.11%

• Inventory Management 2010; PWD 9.09%, PWTD 0.00%

• Information Technology Management 2210; PWD 9.92%

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by USAStaffing.

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among 

Employees promoted to any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the 

triggers below.

a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Yes X No 0
139

b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark triggers were identified among PWD and 

PWTD internal competitive promotions for the following MCO series. 

• Security Administration 0800; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• International Relations 0131; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• Intelligence 0132; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• Logistics Management 0346; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• Telecommunications 0391; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• Financial Administration 0510; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• General Education Training 1701; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• Training Instruction 1712; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• Inventory Management 2010; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• Traffic Management 2130; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

• Information Technology Management 2210; PWD 0.00%, PWTD 0.00% 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by USAStaffing.

Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees 

with Disabilities 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R §1614.203(d)(1)(iii), agencies are required to provide sufficient advancement 

opportunities for Employees with disabilities. Such activities might include specialized training and 

mentoring programs, career development opportunities, awards programs, promotions, and similar 

programs that address advancement. In this section, agencies should identify, and provide data on 

programs designed to ensure advancement opportunities for Employees with disabilities. 

A. Advancement Program Plan

Describe the Agency’s plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities for 

advancement.

The Agency provided training for Managers and Supervisors with the goal of increasing their 

knowledge and equipping them with the tools and resources available for effectively managing 

PWD and PWTD Employees. Managers and Supervisors were encouraged to promote the 

career development of all Employees, including PWDs and PWTDs. The Disability Program 

Manager shared career development and advancement program information with PWD and 

PWTD Employees. The Disability Program Manager encouraged them to participate in the 

available career development and advancement programs. 

B. Career Development Opportunities

1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the Agency provides to its Employees. 
140

DTRA offered training opportunities for Employees via the DTRA Learning Management 

System (LMS) online portal and via various DTRA Training and Development SharePoint online 

portals. DTRA ensured announcements for the Competitive Academic Program, and Competitive 

Leadership Programs as well as Agency Group Training announcements are sent to all 

Employees to include PWDs and PWTDs. Other training and development opportunities are 

available at will be all employees via various DTRA Training and Development SharePoint 

online portals. 

DTRA had two (2) PWDs whom participated in Competitive Academic Program(s), one (1) 

PWD who participated in a Competitive Leadership Development Program, and two (2) PWDs 

participated in Career Broadening Program(s). Additionally, six (6) PWDs and 2 PWTDs 

participated in DTRAs mentoring program. 

2. In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that require 

competition and/or Supervisory recommendation/approval to participate. [Collection begins with the 

FY 2018 MD-715 report, which is due on February 28, 2019.] 

Career Development 

Opportunities 

Total Participants PWD PWTD

Applican

ts (#)

Selectees 

(#)

Applican

ts (%)

Selectees 

(%)

Applican

ts (%)

Selectees 

(%)

Internship Programs

Fellowship Programs

Mentoring Programs 72 72 8.33% 8.33% 2.77% 2.77%

Coaching Programs

Training Programs

Detail Programs

Other Career 

Development Programs

Career Broadening 35 19 8.57% 15.78% 0.00% 0.00%

Competitive Leadership 23 13 8.69% 15.38% 0.00% 0.00%

Competitive Academic 8 8 25% 25% 0.00% 0.00%

3. Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development 

programs? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and the 

applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0
141

Analysis of the available data indicated that there is a trigger in all career development 

programs for applicants and selections of PWDs. 

NOTE: Analysis was conducted based on data provided by the Office of Human Resources. 

4. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development 

programs identified? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for applicants and the 

applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Analysis of the available data indicated that there is a trigger in all career development 

programs for applicants and selections of PWTDs. 

NOTE: Analysis was conducted based on data provide by the Office of Human Resources. 

C. Awards

1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD and/or 

PWTD for any level of the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If “yes”, please describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Yes X No 0
142

The Agency identified triggers involving the percentage of PWDs and PWTDs who received 

Time Off Awards hours using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, as follows:

• PWTD whom received a Time Off Award of 1-10 hours 

• PWD whom received a Time Off Award of 11-20 hours 

• PWTD whom received a Time Off Award of 11-20 hours 

• PWD whom received a Time Off Award of 31-40 hours 

• PWTD whom received a Time Off Award of 31-40 hours 

The Agency identified triggers involving the percentage of PWD and PWTD who received Cash 

Awards using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, as follows:

• PWD whom received a Cash Award $500-$999

• PWD whom received a Cash Award $2,000-$2,999

• PWTD whom received a Cash Award $2,000-$2,999

• PWTD whom received a Cash Award $3,000-$3,999

• PWD whom received a Cash Award $4,000-$4999 

• PWTD whom received a Cash Award $4,000-$4,999

• PWD whom received a Cash Award $5,000 or more

• PWTD whom received a Cash Award $5,000 or more

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA.

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD and/or 

PWTD for quality step increases or performance-based pay increases? If “yes”, please describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Pay Increases (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes X No 0

A total of 71 Quality Step Increases were awarded. The Agency identified triggers regarding 

PWD and PWTD.

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA.

3. If the Agency has other types of Employee recognition programs, are PWD and/or PWTD 

recognized disproportionately less than Employees without disabilities? (The appropriate benchmark is 

the inclusion rate.) If “yes”, describe the Employee recognition program and relevant data in the text 

box.

a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X

b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD)Yes 0 No 0 N/A X
143

D. Promotions

1. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant 

applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For nonGS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text 

box. 

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Grade GS-15 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

c. Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

d. Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

The Agency identified a potential trigger for PWD qualified internal applicants for internal 

competitive promotions based the fact that the required benchmarks are not available in order 

to complete the analysis. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA and the Office 

of Human Capital. 
144

2. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant 

applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For nonGS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text 

box.

a. SES

iii. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

iv. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Grade GS-15

v. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

vi. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

c. Grade GS-14 

vii. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

viii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

d. Grade GS-13

ix. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

x. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

The Agency identified a potential trigger for PWTD qualified internal applicants for internal 

competitive promotions based the fact that the required benchmarks are not available in order 

to complete the analysis. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA and the Office 

of Human Capital.

3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving 

PWD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the 

approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Yes X No 0

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Yes X No 0

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Yes X No 0

The Agency identified a potential trigger for PWD New Hires based the fact that the required 

benchmarks are not available in order to complete the analysis. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA and the Office of 

Human Capital.
145

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving 

PWTD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the 

approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

e. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Yes X No 0

f. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) Yes X No 0

g. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) Yes X No 0

h. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Yes X No 0 

 

The Agency identified a potential trigger for PWTD New Hires based the fact that the required 

benchmarks are not available in order to complete the analysis. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA and the Office of 

Human Capital.

5. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to Supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant 

applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

The Agency identified a potential trigger for PWD Qualified Internal Applicants/Selectees 

based the fact that the required benchmarks are not available in order to complete the analysis. 

The Agency has no employees whom are coded as Managers. During FY22, there were no 

Executive internal promotions. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA and the Office of 

Human Capital.
146

6. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to Supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant 

applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

c. Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

The Agency identified a potential trigger for PWTD Qualified Internal Applicants/Selectees 

based the fact that the required benchmarks are not available in order to complete the analysis. 

The Agency has no employees whom are coded as Managers. During FY22, there were no 

Executive internal promotions. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA and the Office of 

Human Capital.

7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving 

PWD among the selectees for new hires to Supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the 

text box.

a. New Hires for Executives (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Yes X No 0

The Agency identified a potential trigger for PWD New Hires due to the fact that the required 

benchmarks are not available in order to complete the analysis. 

The Agency has no employees whom are coded as Managers. During FY22, there were no 

Executive New Hires. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA and the Office of 

Human Capital.
147

8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving 

PWTD among the selectees for new hires to Supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in 

the text box. 

a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Yes X No 0 

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities

To be a model employer for persons with disabilities, agencies must have policies and programs in 

place to retain Employees with disabilities. In this section, agencies should: (1) analyze workforce 

separation data to identify barriers retaining Employees with disabilities; (2) describe efforts to ensure 

accessibility of technology and facilities; and (3) provide information on the reasonable 

accommodation program and workplace personal assistance services.

A. Voluntary and Involuntary Separations 

1. In this reporting period, did the Agency convert all eligible Schedule A Employees with a disability 

into the competitive service after two years of satisfactory service (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)(6)(i))? If 

“no”, please explain why the Agency did not convert all eligible Schedule A Employees. 

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among voluntary and 

involuntary separations exceed that of persons without disabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger below. 

a. Voluntary Separations (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes X No 0 

The Agency identified a trigger regarding Voluntary Separations PWD (16.42%).

Additionally, the Agency identified a trigger regarding Involuntary Separations PWD (0.50%). 

The Agency identified a potential trigger for PWD New Hires due to the fact that the 

required benchmarks are not available in order to complete the analysis. 

The Agency has no employees whom are coded as Managers. During FY22, there were no 

Executive New Hires. 

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided by ADVANA and the Office 

of Human Capital.
148

NOTE: The analysis was conducted based on the data provided in the EEOC MD-715 table.

3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among voluntary and 

involuntary separations exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If “yes”, describe the 

trigger below. 

a. Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

The Agency identified a trigger regarding Voluntary Separations PWTD (14%).

4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of PWD and/or PWTD, please explain why they left 

the Agency using exit interview results and other data sources. 

The available Agency exit interview results does not contain information regarding why PWDs 

or PWTDs separated from the Agency during FY22. 

B. Accessibility of Technology and Facilities 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform applicants and 

Employees of their rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(b), 

concerning the accessibility of Agency technology, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. § 4151-4157), concerning the accessibility of Agency facilities. In addition, agencies are 

required to inform individuals where to file complaints if other agencies are responsible for a violation. 

1. Please provide the internet address on the Agency’s public website for its notice explaining 

Employees’ and applicants’ rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a description 

of how to file a complaint. 

https://www.DTRA.mil/Mission/Equity-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Office/

2. Please provide the internet address on the Agency’s public website for its notice explaining 

Employees’ and applicants’ rights under the Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of how 

to file a complaint.

https://www.DTRA.mil/Mission/Equity-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Office/Accessibility/
149

3. Describe any programs, policies, or practices that the Agency has undertaken, or plans on 

undertaking over the next fiscal year, designed to improve accessibility of Agency facilities and/or 

technology. 

The Executive Order 13583 established a coordinated, Government-wide initiative to promote 

Diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce. During FY22, the Diversity and Inclusion 

(D&I) Council and the Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) continued working to build an 

inclusive workforce. 

All six of the ERGs established action plan which included steps toward improving the culture 

and educating the DTRA workforce regarding their perspective focus group. During FY22 the 

ERGs began to receive barrier analysis training from the Office of Equity, Diversity and 

Inclusion. The ERGs were provided data and tasked with initiating trigger analysis. The 

Women’s ERG identified four (4) triggers related to women in the DTRA workforce. 

Currently they are preparing to initiate barrier analysis into two (2) of the identified triggers. 

C. Reasonable Accommodation Program

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), agencies must adopt, post on their public website, and make 

available to all job applicants and Employees, reasonable accommodation procedures. 

1. Please provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable accommodations 

during the reporting period. (Please do not include previously approved requests with repetitive 

accommodations, such as interpreting services.) 

The average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable accommodations during 

the reporting period was 30 calendar days. 

2. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the Agency’s 

reasonable accommodation program. Some examples of an effective program include timely 

processing requests, timely providing approved accommodations, conducting training for Managers and 

Supervisors, and monitoring accommodation requests for trends. 

DTRA’s Reasonable Accommodation Program (RA) provided requestors an approval within 

30 calendar days. In August 2022, HR revised its Reasonable Accommodation Handbook in 

accordance with guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

The revised procedures are posted on DTRA's external website,

https://www.DTRA.mil/Work-With-Us/Pay-and-Benefits/. 

The Agency processed 6 RA requests, which included a combination of assistive technologies, 

sit/stand workstations, ergonomic chairs, extra laptop and dragon software. The RA 

coordinator worked closely with the Information Management and Technology Directorate 

and the Acquisition and Logistics Directorate to provide approved accommodations for 

individuals, such as sit/stand workstations, ergonomic chairs; extra laptop, dragon software 

and coordinated with the Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health Office (ES) to 

ensure ergonomic assessments were conducted upon request. The Agency provided Sign 
150

Language Interpreter (SLI) services for workplace meetings, conferences, training, and special 

events. The Agency maintained an SLI log which tracked expenditures for all events and 

requirements, facilitating participation in over 728 events during FY22. 

D. Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the 

Workplace 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative action, are 

required to provide personal assistance services (PAS) to Employees who need them because of a 

targeted disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the Agency. 

Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the PAS requirement. 

Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests for PAS, timely providing 

approved services, conducting training for Managers and Supervisors, and monitoring PAS requests for 

trends. 

DTRA did not receive any requests for PAS during FY22. 

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data

A. EEO Complaint data involving Harassment 

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging 

harassment, as compared to the government-wide average? 

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on disability status result in 

a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

3. If the Agency had one or more findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability 

status during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the Agency.

During FY22 there were no complaints alleging harassment based on disability status that 

resulted in a finding of discrimination or settlement agreement. 

B. EEO Complaint Data involving Reasonable Accommodation 

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging 

failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, as compared to the government-wide average? 

Yes 0 No X N/A 0
151

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation 

result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

3. If the Agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a 

reasonable accommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by 

the Agency.

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers

Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger suggests that a 

policy, procedure, or practice may be impeding the employment opportunities of a protected EEO 

group.

1. Has the Agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices) that affect 

employment opportunities for PWD and/or PWTD? 

Yes X No 0

2. Has the Agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD and/or PWTD? 

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

3. Identify each trigger and plan to remove the barrier(s), including the identified barrier(s), 

objective(s), responsible official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, accomplishments. 

Trigger 1 The lower than anticipated participation of New Hire PWDs 3 (0.42%) in the 

GS-1 to GS-10 Cluster.

Trigger 2 The lower than anticipated participation of PWD and PWTD in regard to new 

hires in Mission Critical Occupations (MCO). 

Trigger 3 The lower than anticipated participation of PWD and PWTD as qualified 

internal applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions among MCOs.

Trigger 4

There is a potential trigger regarding PWD and PWTD selectees for Internal 

Applicants/Selectees for Promotions to the senior grade levels, as not all of the 

data required for the analysis is available.

Trigger 5 There is a potential trigger regarding New Hires of PWD and PWTD to Senior 

grade levels, as not all of the required data is available to conduct the analysis.

Trigger 6

There is a potential trigger regarding promotions of PWD and PWTD to 

Supervisory positions, as not all of the required data is available to conduct the 

analysis.

Trigger 7 

There is a potential trigger regarding PWD and PWTD New Hires to 

Supervisory positions, as not all of the required data is available to conduct the 

analysis. 
152

Barrier(s)

Required data is unavailable to conduct required analysis.

No barrier has been identified at this time in regard to the lower than anticipated 

representation. 

Objective(s)

Obtain the required data to conduct the analysis and identify specific triggers, 

barriers and resolutions.

Conduct barrier analysis to identify barriers related to the lower than anticipated 

representation. 

Responsible Official(s)

Performance Standards Address the 

Plan?

(Yes or No)

Willisa Donald

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office (EI)

NO

Christine Enriquez, Colonel, United States Army

Director, Human Resource Directorate

NO

Mary Lynn Dickson

Affirmative Employment Program Manager

YES

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

NO NO

Sources of Data

Sources 

Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables YES

Analysis of the Disability workforce 

utilizing ADVANA Data, USA Staffing 

Data and EEOC MD-715 Tables.

Complaint Data (Trends) NO

Grievance Data (Trends) NO

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, 

Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

NO

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., 

FEVS) NO

Exit Interview Data YES
153

Focus Groups NO

Interviews NO

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, 

MSPB, GAO, OPM) NO

Other (Please Describe) NO

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing 

& 

Funding

(Yes or 

No)

Modified 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

03/30/2022 Meet with Human Resources to 

define specific data needs. 

YES 12/31/2022

06/30/2022 Coordinate with Human Resources 

for development of specified data 

reports.

YES 6/30/2023

09/30/2022 Spot check data reports by 

conducting MD-715 analysis to 

identify additional needs. 

YES 12/31/2022

10/15/2022 Receive all required data to 

complete the MD-715 required 

analysis.

YES 9/30/2023

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 During FY22, additional data became available via USAStaffing for the 

preparation of the MD-715 and for barrier analysis. USAStaffing data for FY22 

included Mission Critical Occupations with distribution by RNO and Disability. 

The EI Office participated in discussions with HR and demonstrations of 

potential Data Dashboards during FY22, and met with the individual whom is 

creating the Data Dashboards to provide additional input. 

2021 Created Disability Etiquette in the Workplace Toolkit 

Created Quick Guide for Assisting PWDs in an Emergency

Finalized the Disability Strategic Plan and developed the FY2021 Disability 

Implementation Plan.

Developed a Disability Employment Program Training for Supervisors and 

Hiring Managers
154

Facilitated the Department of Labor Hiring Authorities training 

Developed Veterans Toolkit for Supervisors and Hiring Managers 

Created a Special Emphasis Program Overview Guide

Hired two Workforce Recruitment Program Interns during COVID.

Conducted two Disability Brown Bag sessions to inform Supervisors of the 

program and how to hire a student/PWDs.

Utilized the OPM Feds Hire Vets website for ideas on how to reach Veterans 

and disabled Veterans.

Analysis of Table B1 demonstrates that the Disability Workforce increased in 

representation from 24 PWTD (1.87%) in FY20 to PWTD 51 (3.45%) in FY21. 

Thus there was no trigger as it relates to the PWTD permanent workforce for 

FY21. 

Analysis of Table B1 Separation data utilizing the inclusion rate as the 

benchmark indicates that DTRA there was no trigger related to separations of 

PWD and PWTDs for FY21. 

All triggers were resolved during FY21 with the data analysis indicating that the 

Agency met the benchmarks affiliated with each previously identified trigger. 

Additionally the ERGs will continue to assist with trend analysis for MCO new 

hires and qualified internal applicants for PWDs and PWTDs.

2020 In FY20, the EI Office continued to manage the WRP. Three college students 

were hired for temporary summer employment and placed in various 

Directorates utilizing their skills to support the mission. Two WRP interns were 

permanently hired into government positions. 

The Agency partnered with the Department of the Blind and Vision Impairment 

(DBVI) and the Department for Aging and Rehabilitation Services (DARS) to 

host a virtual training for the workforce. 

The EI Office hosted a Disability Awareness and Etiquette Training to educate 

the workforce on the Disability laws that support PWDs from being 

discriminated against, different hiring authorities for PWDs, reasonable 

accommodations, and areas that are required by law, and the proper ways to 

interact with PWDs. 

The EI Office hosted a Veterans Day Celebration to honor Veterans in the 

Agency for their service. The theme was, “Honoring Those Who Served.” 

Sgt.Maj. Michael Mack, guest speaker, shared stories of his success and 

determination with thought provoking topics on Teamwork, Peace, Joy and 
155

Purpose. A video was created to celebrate the accomplishments of Veterans and 

to reflect on the services they provided. 

The EI Office created two toolkits (Veterans Employment and Workforce 

Recruitment Program (WRP)) for Supervisors and Managers to assist in 

understanding the special hiring authorities, bring awareness of the programs 

and the benefits to the interns in the Agency. The WRP toolkit was provided to 

PWD ERG to utilize when conversing with Managers and Supervisors. 

The EI Office developed a Recruitment and Outreach Plan. The plan includes 

information for PWDs to include schools, universities and institutions for 

partnership and recruitment of PWDs/PWTDs. 

The EI Office provided information to Schedule A applicants regarding the 

hiring process and provide them with a Schedule A fact sheet. Also, the Special 

Emphasis Program Manager held telephone conversations with Schedule A 

applicants to discuss the Schedule A hiring process. 

1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the Agency from timely completing any of the 

planned activities.

Although, many steps were taken in FY22 that granted the EI Office access to data software systems, 

and the data provided by the Office of Human Capital (OHC), all of the required data for completion 

of the MD-715 was available. 

2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those 

activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

3. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how the 

Agency intends to improve the plan for the next fiscal year. 

Trigger 8

Lower than anticipated participation of PWD and PWTD as follows: PWTD 

Time-Off Awards of 1-10 Hours; PWD/PWTD Time-Off Awards 11-20; and 

PWD/PWTD Time-Off Award 31-40 hours.
156

Trigger 9

Lower than anticipated participation in receipt of Cash Awards: PWD $500-

$999; PWD $2000-$2999; PWTD $3000-$3999, PWD/PWTD $4000-$4999; 

and PWD/PWTD $5000-$5999.

Trigger 10 Lower than anticipated participation of PWD and PWTD receiving Quality Step 

Increases.

Barrier(s) No barrier has been identified at this time.

Objective(s) Identify specific barriers and resolutions.

Responsible Official(s)

Performance Standards Address the 

Plan?

(Yes or No)

Willisa Donald

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office (EI)

NO

Christine Enriquez, Colonel, United States Army

Director, Human Resource Directorate

NO

Mary Lynn Dickson

Affirmative Employment Program Manager

YES

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

NO NO

Sources of Data

Sources 

Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables YES

Analysis of the Disability workforce 

utilizing EEOC MD-715 B Tables and

ADVANA Data.

Complaint Data (Trends) NO

Grievance Data (Trends) NO

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, 

Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

NO

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., 

FEVS) NO

Exit Interview Data NO
157

Focus Groups NO

Interviews NO

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, 

MSPB, GAO, OPM) NO

Other (Please Describe) NO

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or 

No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

03/30/2021 Conduct analysis of workforce data 

by Directorate to identify trends.

YES 06/01/2023

04/30/2021 Engage with Human Resources to 

review Supervisor and Manager 

Awards Training.

YES 07/01/2023

05/30/2021 Engage with Disability Program 

Manager to ensure that Disability 

Training for Supervisors and 

Managers addresses the provision of 

Awards. 

YES 07/01/2023

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 The Directorate and ERG workforce briefs were initiated and are in the process 

of being completed. The EI Office met with the ERGs and provided their leaders 

with Barrier Analysis instruction, the MD-715 A & B tables, and the EEOC 

Trigger Tables. The ERGs have begun a review of this data to identify potential 

triggers for further analysis. 

1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the Agency from timely completing any of the 

planned activities.

Although, the EI Office was provided access to various data systems during FY22 not all required 

data was available with which to complete our action plans. 

2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those 

activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).
158

3. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how the 

Agency intends to improve the plan for the next fiscal year. 

Trigger 11 The lower than anticipated participation of PWD and PWTD applicants and 

selectees in Career Development Programs.

Barrier(s) To date no barrier has been identified.

Objective(s) Identify barriers and resolutions for PWD and PWTD participation in Career 

Development Programs. 

Responsible Official(s)

Performance Standards Address the 

Plan?

(Yes or No)

Willisa Donald

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office (EI)

No

Christine Enriquez, Colonel, United States Army

Director, Human Resource Directorate

No

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

No No

Sources of Data

Sources 

Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables YES Workforce Career Development data 

provided by Office of Human Resources.

Complaint Data (Trends) NO

Grievance Data (Trends) NO
159

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, 

Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) NO

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., 

FEVS)

NO

Exit Interview Data NO

Focus Groups NO

Interviews NO

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, 

MSPB, GAO, OPM) NO

Other (Please Describe) NO

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or 

No)

Modified 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

12/31/2021 Facilitate a meeting with HR to 

ensure all career development 

announcements contain information 

for PWD/PWTDs in need of 

accommodations. 

YES 12/15/2022

03/30/2022 Conduct analysis of workforce data 

by Career Development Program to 

identify trends.

YES 11/30/2022

06/30/2022 Conduct analysis of workforce data 

by Directorate to identify trends.

YES 05/30/2023

07/30/2022 Engage with Disability Program 

Manager to ensure that Disability 

Training for Supervisors and 

Managers address the participation 

of PWD/PWTDs in Career 

Development Programs. 

YES 01/31/2023

09/30/2022 Conduct benchmarking with other 

Federal agencies regarding Career 

Development Programs specifically 

designed for PWD and PWTDs. 

YES 06/30/2023
160

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2022 Analysis of Career Development data for the workforce and ERGs was initiated 

during FY22, and is ongoing as requested data is received. 

1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the Agency from timely completing any of the 

planned activities.

Although, the EI Office was provided access to various data systems during FY22 not all required 

data was available with which to complete our action plans.

2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those 

activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

3. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how the 

Agency intends to improve the plan for the next fiscal year. 

Trigger 12 The higher than anticipated percentage of voluntary and involuntary separations 

for PWD and PWTD.

Barrier(s) To date no barrier has been identified.

Objective(s) Identify barriers and resolutions for PWD and PWTD related to voluntary and 

involuntary separations. 

Responsible Official(s)

Performance Standards Address the 

Plan?

(Yes or No)

Willisa Donald

Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office (EI) NO

Christine Enriquez, Colonel, United States Army

Director, Human Resource Directorate NO

Mary Lynn Dickson

Affirmative Employment Program Manager YES

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)
161

NO NO

Sources of Data

Sources 

Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables YES Analysis of the Disability workforce 

utilizing EEOC MD-715 B Tables.

Complaint Data (Trends) NO

Grievance Data (Trends) NO

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, 

Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

NO

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., 

FEVS)

NO

Exit Interview Data YES

No Disability or Reasonable 

Accommodation information was 

included in the Exit Interview Data. 

Focus Groups NO

Interviews NO

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, 

MSPB, GAO, OPM)

NO

Other (Please Describe) NO

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or 

No)

Modified 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

09/30/2023 Coordinate with the Office of 

Human Capital to determine if 

expanded Exit Interview Data is 

available.

YES

09/30/2023 Review Exit Interview questions to 

determine if Disability or 

Reasonable Accommodation 

information is collected. 

YES

12/31/2023 Analyze Separations data to identify 

trends. 

YES

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing any of the 

planned activities.
162

2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those 

activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

3. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how the 

agency intends to improve the plan for the next fiscal year. 
163
164

AGENCY TOTAL WORKFORCE ANALYSIS

In FY22, the DTRA civilian workforce was 1,361, a decrease of 119 (8.04%) from FY21 (1480). The 

total workforce was comprised of 1,335 permanent employees and 26 temporary employees. Although, 

the permanent workforce decreased by 119 individuals; there was no change in the number of 

employees within the temporary workforce. 

The Agency experienced changes in multiple areas of the workforce in FY22. DTRA’s participation 

rate for Females declined from 521 (35.20%) in FY21 to 463 (34.02%), a decrease of 1.18%, and 

remains significantly below the CLF of 48.21%. 

The Hispanic Male participation rate in FY22 was 4.92%, an increase of 0.12% in comparison with 

FY21. Although, DTRA experienced an increase in Hispanic Male representation in FY22, 

representation in the workforce remains significantly below the CLF of 6.82%. The overall Hispanic 

Female participation rate in FY22 was 2.42%, an increase of 0.06% in comparison with FY21. 

Although, DTRA experienced an increase in Hispanic Female representation in FY22, representation in 

the workforce remains significantly below the CLF of 6.16%. 

The participation rate of White employees declined from 1000 or (67.57%) in FY21 to 911 or (66.94%) 

in FY22. 

The participation rate of Black/African American (AA) employees decreased from 261 or (17.64%) in 

FY21 to 241 or (17.71%) in FY22. 

The participation rate of Asian employees decreased from 91 or (6.15%) in FY21 to 83 or (6.10%) in 

FY22. 

The participation rate of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander participation rate decreased from 

five (5) or (0.34%) in FY21 to four (4) or (0.29%) FY22. 

The participation rate of American Indian or Alaska Natives increased from eight (8) or (0.55%) in 

FY21 to ten (10) or (0.73%) in FY22. 

The participation rate for Two or More Races increased from nine (9) or (0.61%) in FY21 to 12 or 

(0.61%) in FY22. Regarding the increase in representation for Two or More Races, the EEOC 

instructed the Agency’s ADVANA point of contact, that for FY22 all employees whom did not indicate 

a race should be classified as Two or More Races. 

The chart below identifies the areas of low participation within the DTRA workforce according to the 

EEOC MD-715 A & B Tables:
165

 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

2014 -

2018

CLF

# % # % # % # % # % % 

Total 

Males 894 65.49% 849 64.86% 834 64.9% 959 64.8% 898 65.98% 51.79% 

Total 

Females 471 34.51% 460 35.14% 451 35.1% 521 35.2% 463 34.02% 48.21% 

Hispanic 

Males 19 1.39% 50 3.82% 56 4.36% 71 4.8% 67 4.92% 6.82% 

Hispanic 

Females 17 1.25% 27 2.06% 29 2.26% 35 2.36% 33 2.42% 6.16% 

White 

Males 669 49.01% 628 47.98% 608 47.32% 698 47.16% 649 47.69% 35.65% 

White 

Females 273 20.37% 263 20.09% 255 19.84% 302 20.41% 262 19.25% 31.82% 

Black/AA 

Males 118 8.64% 121 9.24% 118 9.18% 124 8.38% 118 8.67% 5.7% 

Black/AA 

Females 113 8.28% 131 10.01% 128 9.96% 137 9.26% 123 9.04% 6.61% 

Asian 

Males 35 2.56% 37 2.84% 41 3.19% 53 3.58% 48 3.53% 2.19% 

Asian 

Females 26 1.9% 31 2.37% 30 2.33% 38 2.57% 35 2.57% 2.18% 

NHPI 

Male 1 0.07% 2 0.15% 2 0.16% 1 0.07% 1 0.07% 0.08% 

NHPI 

Female 3 0.22% 3 0.23% 3 0.23% 4 0.27% 3 0.22% 0.08% 

AIAN

Male 3 0.22% 5 0.38% 5 0.39% 6 0.41% 7 0.51% 0.31% 

AIAN 

Female 1 0.07% 2 0.15% 2 0.16% 2 0.14% 3 0.22% 0.31% 

Two Or 

More 

Races 

Males

49 3.59% 6 0.46% 4 0.31% 6 0.41% 8 0.59% 1.05% 

Two Or 

More 

Races 

Females

33 2.42% 3 0.23% 4 0.31% 3 0.2% 4 0.29% 1.05% 

Note: The EEOC utilizes the 2014-2018 CLF for preparation of the MD-715 A & B Tables. 

PARTICIPATION FOR GENERAL SCHEDULE GRADES

• The DTRA Total workforce was made up of 1335 permanent employees and 26 Temporary 

employees for a total workforce of 1361 employees. 

• The GS-01 to GS-11 grades contained 70 employees, or 5.14% of the permanent workforce. The 

majority of the GS-01 to GS-11 workforce was located in the GS-11 positions.
166

• The GS-12 to GS-15 grades contained the majority of DTRA employees, 1149 employees, or 84.42 

of % of the permanent workforce. The majority of the workforce was located in the GS-13 

positions. 

• There were a total of 898 or 65.98% Males in the Agency workforce. The majority of the Male 

workforce was located in GS-13 and GS-14 positions. 

• There were are a total of 463 or 34.02% Females in the Agency workforce. The majority of the 

Female workforce was located in GS-13 positions.

• There were a total of 911 White employees (Males 649, Females 262) in the Agency workforce. 

The majority of the White Male workforce was located in GS-13 (183; 40.67%) and GS-14 (194;

51.73%) positions. The majority of the White Female workforce was located in GS-13 (85;

18.89%) and GS-14 (77; 20.53%) positions. 

• There were a total of 100 Hispanics (Males 67, Females 33) within the Agency workforce. The 

majority of the Hispanic Male workforce was located in GS-13 (25; 5.56%) positions. The majority 

of the Hispanic Female workforce was located in GS-13 (13; 2.89%) positions.

• There were a total of 241 Black/African Americans (Males 118, Females 123) within the Agency 

workforce. The majority of the Black/African American Male workforce was located in GS-13 (46;

10.22%) positions. The majority of the Black/African American Female workforce was located in 

GS-13 (62; 13.78%) positions.

• There were a total of 83 Asians (Males 48, Females 35) within the Agency workforce. The majority 

of the Asian Male workforce was located in the GS-13 (12; 2.67%) and GS-14 (15; 4%) positions. 

The majority of the Asian Female workforce was located in the GS-13 (14; 3.11%) and GS-14 (77; 

2.93%) positions.

• There were a total of four (4) Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders (1 Male, 3 Females) 

within the Agency workforce. The Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Male workforce is 

solely represented in a GS-13 (1; 0.22%) position. The Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

Female workforce was solely represented in GS-13 (2; 0.44%) and GS-14 (1; 0.27%) positions.

• There were a total of nine (9) American Indian or Alaska Natives (6 Males, 3 Females) within the 

Agency workforce. The majority of the American Indian or Alaska Native Male workforce were 

located in GS-13 (3; 0.67%) positions. The majority of the American Indian or Alaska Native 

Female workforce was located in GS-10 (1; 50%) and GS-15 (1; 0.54%) positions.

• There were a total of 12 Two or More Races (8 Males, 4 Females) within the Agency workforce. 

The majority of the Two or More Races Male workforce as located in GS-13 (3; 0.67%) and GS-14 

(2; 0.53%) positions. The Two or More Races Female workforce was equally represented in the 
167

GS-12 (1; 0.72%), GS-13 (1; 0.22%), GS-14 (1; 0.27%), and GS-15 (1; 0.54%) positions.

• There were a total of 204 (14.99%) PWDs and 51 (3.75%) PWTDs within the Agency workforce. 

The majority of PWDs were located in GS-13 (71; 15.78%) and GS-14 (56; 14.93%) positions. The 

majority of PWTDs were located in GS-13 (19; 4.22%) and GS-14 (14; 3.73%) positions. 

Additionally, the majority of PWTDs within the Agency workforce fell within the Targeted 

Disability category of Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing (17; 1.25%).

NEW HIRES 

• In FY22 the Agency hired a total of 225 new civilian employees, in comparison with 161 new 

civilian employees hired in FY21. 

• 80 Females (35.56%) in comparison to 67 Females (42%), 

• 145 Males (64.44%). 

• Females (6 Hispanic, 45 White, 21 Black/AA, 7 Asian, and 1 AIAN), 

• Males (7 Hispanic, 106 White, 21 Black/AA, 5 Asian, 2 AIAN, and 4 Two or More Races). 

• Disability included 34 PWD and 11 PWTD. 

SEPARATIONS

• During FY22, 190 employees separated from the Agency, 114 Males and 76 Females. 

• Males (29 Resignation, 36 Retirement, and 49 Other Separation), 

• Women (15 Resignation, 21 Retirement and 39 Other Separation). 

• Disability included 34 PWD (1 Removal, 11 Resignations, 13 Retirement, and 9 Other

Separation) and seven (7) PWTD (1 Resignation, 5 Retirement, and 1 Other Separation).

EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS

• During FY22, 33 employees received Time-Off Awards of 1 to 10 hours; 19 (57.58%) Males, 14 

(42.42%) Female, six (6) (2.99%) PWD. Time-Off Awards by RNO were broken down as follows: 

• Males (1 Hispanic, 14 White, 2 Black/AA, 1 Asian, and 1 AIAN).

• Females (1 Hispanic, 6 White, 3 Black/AA, 3 Asian, and 1 Two or More Races).

• In FY22, 73 employees received Time-Off Awards of 11 - 20 hours; 38 (52.05%) Male, 35 

(47.95%) Female, nine (9) (4.48 %), PWDs and two (2) (4 %) PWTDs. Time-Off Awards by RNO 

were broken down as follows: 

• Males (3 Hispanic, 30 White, 4 Black/AA, and 1 AIAN).

• Females (2 Hispanic, 20 White, 11 Black/AA, and 2 Asian). 

• During FY22, 142 employees received Time-Off Awards of 21-30 Hours; 86 (60.56%) Male, 35 

(47.95%) Female, 27 (13.43%) PWDs and 8 (16%) PWTDs. Time-Off Awards by RNO were 

broken down as follows: 

• Males (3 Hispanic, 59 White, 17 Black/AA, 4 Asian, and 3 Two or More Races).

• Females (5 Hispanic, 23 White, 21 Black/AA, 6 Asian, and 1 NHPI). 

• Throughout FY22, 732 employees received Time-Off Awards of 31-40 Hours; 478 (65.30%) 

Males, 254 (34.70%) Female, 106 (52.74%) PWDs and 24 (48 %) PWTDs. Time-Off Awards by 
168

RNO were broken down as follows:

• Males (41 Hispanic, 341White, 63 Black/AA, 27 Asian, 1 NHPI, 2 AIAN, and 3 Two or 

More Races).

• Females (20 Hispanic, 147 White, 68 Black/AA, 14 Asian, 1 NHPI, 1 AIAN and 3 Two or 

More Races). 

• During FY22, Cash Awards in amount of $500 and under were received by 431 employees, 271 

(62.88%) Male, 160 (37.12%) Female, 69 (34.33%) PWDs and 18 (36 %) PWTDs. Cash Awards 

by RNO were broken down as follows: 

• Males (18 Hispanic, 341 White, 63 Black/AA, 27 Asian, 1 NHPI, 2 AIAN, and 3 Two or 

More Races).

• Females (20 Hispanic, 147 White, 68 Black/AA, 14 Asian, 1 NHPI, 1 AIAN, and 3 Two or 

More Races). 

• In FY22, Cash Awards in amount of $501 - $999 were received by 385 employees, 261 (67.79%) 

Male, 124 (32.21%) Female, 57 (28.36%) PWDs and 17 (34 %) PWTDs. Cash Awards by RNO 

were broken down as follows: 

• Males (23 Hispanic, 183 White, 34 Black/AA, 14 Asian, 1 NHPI, 2 AIAN, and 4 Two or 

More Races).

• Females (7 Hispanic, 79 White, 27 Black/AA, 9 Asian, and 2 Two or More Races).

• Throughout FY22, Cash Awards in amount of $1000 - $1999 were received by 310 employees, 184 

(59.35%) Male, 126 (40.65%) Female, 48 (23.88%) PWDs and 12 (24 %) PWTDs. Cash Awards 

by RNO were broken down as follows: 

• Males (7 Hispanic, 140 White, 26 Black/AA, 10 Asian, and 1 Two or More Races).

• Females (7 Hispanic, 64 White, 35 Black/AA, 17 Asian, 2 NHPI, and 1 Two or More 

Races). 

• During FY22, Cash Awards in amount of $2000 - $2999 were received by 116 employees, 84 

(72.41%) Male, 32 (27.59%) Female, 18 (8.96 %) PWDs and 4 (8%) PWTDs. Cash Awards by 

RNO were broken down as follows: 

• Males (12 Hispanic, 57 White, 9 Black/AA, 4 Asian, and 2 Two or More Races).

• Females (1 Hispanic, 23 White, 7 Black/AA, and 1 Asian). 

• In FY22, Cash Awards in amount of $3000 - $3999 were received by 198 employees, 117 (59.09%) 

Male, 81 (40.91%) Female, 30 (14.93%) PWDs and five (5) (10%) PWTDs. Cash Awards by RNO 

were broken down as follows: 

• Males (11 Hispanic, 78 White, 20 Black/AA, 4 Asian, 3 AIAN, and 1 Two or More Races).

• Females (4 Hispanic, 39 White, 30 Black/AA, 6 Asian, 3 AIAN, and 2 Two or More Races). 

• Throughout FY22, Cash Awards in amount of $4000 - $4999 were received by 193 employees, 125 

(64.77%) Males, 68 (35.23%) Females, 27 (13.43%) PWDs and seven (7) (14 %) PWTDs. Cash 

Awards by RNO were broken down as follows: 

• Males (8 Hispanic, 96 White, 11 Black/AA, 9 Asian, and 1 Two or More Races).

• Females (3 Hispanic, 37 White, 18 Black/AA, and 10 Asian). 
169

• During FY22, Cash Awards in amount of $5000 or more were received by 311 employees, 218 

(70.10%) Males, 93 (29.90%) Females, 41 (20.40%) PWDs and 8 (16%) PWTDs. Cash Awards by 

RNO were broken down as follows: 

• Males (13 Hispanic, 162 White, 34 Black/AA, 8 Asian, and 1 Two or More Races.

• Females (9 Hispanic, 60 White, 18 Black/AA, 4 Asian, 1 AIAN, and 1 Two or More Races). 

• During FY22, 71 employees 43 (60.56%) Male, 28 (39.44%) Female, nine (9) (4.48 %) PWDs and 

one (1) (2.00%) PWTDs received a Quality Step Increase (QSI). The QSIs were broken down as 

follows: 

• Males (2 Hispanic, 34 White, 2 Black/AA, 3 Asian, and 2 AIAN). 

• Females (21 white, 4 Black/AA, 2 Asian, and 1 NHPI). 

MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS

The EI Office collaborated with the Office of Human Capital to revise the Mission Critical 

Occupations during FY22. The list was updated to include 20 Mission Critical Positions – Security, 

Foreign Affairs, Internal Relations, Intelligence, Human Resources Management, Administrative 

Officer, Logistics Management, Telecommunications, Financial Administration and Program, 

Accounting, Budget Analysis, Public Affairs, Contracting, Computer Science, General Education 

Training, Training Instruction, Inventory Management, Transportation Specialist, Traffic 

Management, and Information Technology. The following are snapshots of these major occupations.

0080 – Security

• The Male participation rate 73.77% in FY22 increased by 2.13% in comparison with the FY21 

participation rate of 71.64%. Representation in the workforce remained above the Occupational 

Civilian Labor Force (OCLF) of 51.79%.

• The Female participation rate 26.23% in FY22 declined by 2.13% in comparison with the FY21 

participation rate of 28.36%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of

54.30%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate of 8.2% in FY22 increased by 0.74% in comparison with the 

FY21 participation rate of 7.46%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 

4.4%. 

• Hispanic Female participation rate of 3.28% in FY22 declined by 1.2% in comparison with the 

FY21 participation rate of 4.48%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 

5.5%.

• White Male participation rate of 36.07% in FY22 declined by 5.72% in comparison with the FY21 

participation rate of 41.79%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 32.5%. 

• White Female participation rate of 9.84% in FY22 declined by 2.1% in comparison with the FY21 

participation rate of 11.94%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 36.4%. 

• Asian Males participation rate of 4.92% in FY22 increased by 3.43% in comparison with the FY21
170

participation rate of 1.49%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 3.50%.

• Asian Females participation rate of 1.64% in FY22 increased by 0.15% in comparison with the 

FY21 participation rate of 1.49%. Although there was a slight increase in the percentage of Asian 

Females within this major occupation the number of Asian Females in the workforce remained the 

same for FY22 and FY21. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 3.50%.

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates remained at 0.00% in FY22 in comparison with 

the FY21 participation rate of 0.00%. Representation in the workforce remained below

their respective OCLFs of (0.10%; 0.10%). 

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates remained at 0.00% in FY22 in comparison with 

the FY21 participation rate of 0.00%. Representation in the workforce remained below

their respective OCLFs of (0.20%; 0.30%).

• Two or More Races Male participation rate of 1.64% in FY22, increased by 0.15% in 

comparison with the FY21 participation rate of 1.49%. Representation in the workforce 

remained below the OCLF of 0.09%.

• Two or More Races Female participation rate remained at 0.00% in FY22 in comparison 

with the FY21 participation rate of 0.00%. Representation in the workforce remained 

below the OCLF of 1.30%.

• There were nine (9; 14.75%) PWDs and three (3; 4.92%) PWTDs during FY22. PWD 

representation was above the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above the Federal 

goal of 2%.

0130 Foreign Affairs

• There was no Male representation in FY22. 

• The Female participation rate was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 48.5%.

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce remained below their respective OCLFs of (4.3%; 4.5%). 

• The White Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 40.1%.

• The White Female participation rate was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

above the OCLF of 35.9%.

• Black/African American Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. 

Representation in the workforce remained below their respective OCLFs of (4%; 7.2%). 

• Asian Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 
171

workforce remained below their respective OCLFs of (3.5%; 3.5%). 

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce remained below their respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.1%). 

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce remained below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.3%). 

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. 

Representation in the workforce remained below their respective OCLFs of (0.9%; 1.3%). 

• There was one (1; 100%) PWD and one (1; 100%) PWTDs during FY22. PWD representation 

was above the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above the Federal goal of 2%.

0131 - International Relations

• The Male participation rate was 80% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 51.5%.

• The Female participation rate was 20.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 48.5%.

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (4.3%; 4.5%). 

• White Male participation rate was 80% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 40.1%. 

• White Female participation rate was 10% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 36.40%. 

• Asian Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 1.8%. 

• Asian Female participation rate was 0.98% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 2.2%. 

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below the respective OCLFs of (0.00%; 0.1%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below the respective OCLFs of (0.6%; 0.5%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates remained at 0.00% in FY22. 

Representation in the workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (1.0%; 1.7%).

• There were three (3) (30%) PWDs and no representation of PWTDs during FY22. PWD 
172

representation was above the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal 

goal of 2%.

0132 – Intelligence

• The Male participation rate was 74.51% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 51.5%. 

• The Female participation rate was 25.49% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 48.5%. 

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 3.92% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 4.3%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 2.94% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 4.5%.

• White Males participation rate was 65.69% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 40.1%.

• White Females participation rate was 19.61% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 35.9%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 3.7%.

• Black/AA Female participation rate was 0.98% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was

below the OCLF of 3.6%.

• Asian Males participation rate in FY22 was 3.92%. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 1.8%.

• Asian Females participation rate was 0.98% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 2.2%.

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Male representation in the 

workforce remained consistent with the OCLF of 0.00%. Female representation in the workforce 

was below the OCLF of 0.1%.

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates in FY22 were 0.00%. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (1%; 1.7%).

• There were 11 (10.78%) PWDs and two (2) (1.96%) PWTDs during FY22. PWD representation 

was below the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal goal of 2%. 

0201 - Human Resources

• The Male participation rate was 27.91% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 
173

OCLF of 38.8 %.

• The Female participation rate was 72.09% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 61.2%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 2.33% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 4.7%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 9.30% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

above the OCLF of 6.7%.

• White Male participation rate was 11.63% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 28.1%.

• White Female participation rate was 23.26% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 43.5%.

• Asian Male participation rate in FY22 was 0.00%. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 1.9%.

• Asian Female participation rate in FY22 was 2.33%. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 2.4%.

• NHPI Male and Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Male representation in the workforce 

remained consistent with the OCLF of 0.00%. Female representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 0.1%.

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below the respective OCLFs of (0.20%; 0.30%).

• Two or More Races Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below the OCLF of 0.7%.

• Two or More Races Female participation rate was 2.33% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was above the OCLF of 1.2%.

• There were 10 (23.26%) PWDs and one (1) (2.33%) PWTDs during FY22. PWD representation 

was above the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above the Federal goal of 2%.

0341 – Administrative Officer

• The participation rate for Males was 40.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 45.7%.

• The participation rate for Females was 60.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above

the OCLF of 54.3%.
174

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (4.4%; 5.5%).

• White Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 32.5% for this major occupation.

• White Female participation rate in was 60% FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 36.4%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate was 20% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above

the OCLF of 4%.

• Black/AA Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 7.2%.

• Asian Male participation rate was 20% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 3.50%.

• Asian Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 3.50%.

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.10%; 0.10%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.20%; 0.30%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rate were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (0.9%; 1.3%).

• There was one (1) (10.45%) PWD and no representation of PWTDs during FY22. PWD 

representation was below the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal 

goal of 2%.

0346 – Logistics Management

• The participation rate for Males was 92.86% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 65.5%.

• The participation rate for Females was 7.14% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 34.5%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 21.43% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above

the OCLF of 7.8%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 4.2%.
175

• White Male participation rate was 28.57% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 43.2%.

• White Female participation rate was 7.14% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 22.1%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate was 35.71% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 9.8%.

• Black/AA Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 5.2%.

• Asian Male participation rate was 7.14% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 2.8%.

• Asian Female participation rate in FY22 was 0.00%. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 2.0%.

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.2%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.30%; 0.20%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (1.6%; 0.6%).

• There were five (5) (35.71 %) PWDs and no representation of PWTDs during FY22. PWD 

representation was above the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal 

goal of 2%.

0391– Telecommunications

• The Male participation rate was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of (91.1%).

• There was no Female representation in FY22. 

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 33.33% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 11.6%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 0.9%.

• White Male participation rate was 66.67% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 65.4%.

• White Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 
176

the OCLF of 6.2%.

• Black/AA Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (8.4%; 1.3%).

• Asian Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (2.8%; 0.3%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (2.8%; 0.3%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (2.5%; 0.1%). 

• There was one (1) (33.33%) PWD and one (1) (33.33%) PWTD during FY22. PWD representation 

was above the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation in the workforce was above the Federal 

goal of 2%.

0501 – Financial Administration & Program 

• The participation rate for Males was 47.06% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 54.2%.

• The participation rate for Females was 52.94% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 45.8%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate in FY22 was 0.00%. Representation in the workforce was below

the OCLF of 3.9%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 5.88% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above

the OCLF of 4.6%.

• White Male participation rate was 23.53% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 44.1%.

• White Female participation rate was 35.29% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above

the OCLF of 32.8%.

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Male representation in the 

workforce was consistent with the OCLF of 0.00%. Female representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 0.1%.

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.2%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs (0.8%; 0.9%).
177

• There was one (1) (5.88%) PWD and one (1) (5.88%) PWTD during FY22. PWD representation 

was below the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above the Federal goal of 2%.

0510 – Accounting

• The participation rate for Males was 27.27% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 39%.

• The participation rate for Females was 72.73% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

above the OCLF of 61%.

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (2.7%; 5.1%).

• White Male participation rate was 18.18% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 29.7%.

• White Females participation rate was 22.73% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 42.9%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate was 4.55% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 5.7%

• Black/AA Female participation rate was 36.36% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

above the OCLF of 5.7%.

• Asian Male participation rate was 4.55% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 3.1%.

• Asian Female participation rate was 13.64% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 5.7%.

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Male representation in the 

workforce was consistent with the OCLF of 0.00%. Female representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 0.1%.

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.3%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (0.6%; 1.1%).

• There was one (1) (4.55%) PWD and one (1) (4.55%) PWTD during FY22. PWD representation 

was below the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above the Federal goal of 2%.

0560 – Budget Analysis

• The participation rate for Males was 32.91% in FY22, in comparison with the FY21 participation 
178

rate of 30.77%, a decline in FY22 of 2.14%. Representation in the workforce remained below the 

OCLF of 38.3%.

• The participation rate for Females was 67.09% in FY22, in comparison with the FY21 

participation rate of 69.23%, a decline in FY22 of 2.14%. Representation in the workforce 

remained above the OCLF of 61.7%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 3.80% in FY22, in comparison with the FY21 participation 

rate of 3.30%, an increase in FY22 of 0.50%. Representation in the workforce remained above the 

OCLF of 3.1%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 3.80% in FY22, in comparison with the FY21 participation 

rate of 4.40%, a decline in FY22 of 0.60%. Representation in the workforce remained below the 

OCLF of 5.7%.

• White Male participation rate was 16.46% in FY22, in comparison with the FY21 participation 

rate of 14.29%, an increase of 2.17%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF 

of 27.3%.

• White Female participation rate was 29.11% in FY22, in comparison with the FY21 participation 

rate of 34.07%, a decline of 3.96%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 

37.6%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate in FY22 was 6.33%, in comparison with the FY21 participation 

rate of 7.69%, a decrease of 1.36%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 

4.6%.

• Black/AA Female participation rate in FY22 was 27.85%, in comparison with the FY21 

participation rate of 25.27%, an increase of 2.58%. Representation in the workforce remained 

above the OCLF of 11.4%.

• Asian Male participation rate in FY22 was 6.33%, in comparison with the FY21 participation rate 

of 5.49%, a decrease of 0.84%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 

2.3%.

• Asian Female participation rate in FY22 was 3.80%, in comparison with the FY21 participation rate 

of 3.30%, an increase of 0.50%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 

5.3%.

• NHPI Male participation rate remained at 0.00% in FY22 with no change in representation noted in 

comparison with the FY21 participation rate of 0.00%. Representation in the workforce remained 

below the OCLF of 0.1%.

• NHPI Female participation rate was 1.27% in FY22, in comparison with the FY21 participation rate 

of 1.10%, an increase of 0.17%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 

0.1%.

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates remained at 0.00% in FY22 with no change in 
179

representation in comparison with the FY21 participation rate of 0.00%. Representation in the 

workforce remained below the respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.3%).

• Two or More Races Male participation rate remained at 0.00% in FY22 with no change in 

representation in comparison with the FY21 participation rate of 0.00%. Representation in the 

workforce remained below the OCLF of 0.8%.

• Two or More Races Female participation rate was 1.27% in FY22, in comparison with the FY21 

participation rate of 1.10%, an increase in representation of 0.27% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce remained below the OCLF of 1.5%.

• There were seven (7) (8.86%) PWDs and no representation of PWTDs. PWD representation was 

below the Federal goal of 12%. PWD representation was below the Federal goal of 2%.

1035 – Public Affairs 

• The participation rate for Males was 40% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 37.6%.

• The participation rate for Females was 60% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 62.4%.

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce were below their respective OCLFs of (5.2%; 11.3%).

• White Male participation rate was 20% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 25.9%.

• White Females participation rate was 40% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 41.6%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate was 20% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 3.8%.

• Black/AA Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 4.4%.

• Asian Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (1.8%; 3.3%).

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Male representation in the 

workforce was consistent with the OCLF of 0.00%. Female representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 0.1%.

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates in FY22 were 0.00%. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.3%).

• Two or More Races Male participation rate in FY22 was 0.00%. Representation in the workforce 
180

was below the OCLF of 0.7 %.

• There was no representation of PWDs and PWTDs. PWD representation was below the Federal 

goal of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal goal of 2%.

1102 - Contracting

• The participation rate for Males was 43.04% in FY22, in comparison with 37.04% in FY21, an 

increase of 6%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 47.3%. 

• The participation rate for Females was 56.96% in FY22, in comparison with 62.96% in FY21, a 

decrease of 6%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 52.7%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 1.27% in FY22, in comparison with 1.23% in FY22, an 

increase of 0.04%. Representation in the workforce was below the OCLF of 4.3%. 

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 6.33% in FY22, in comparison with 4.94% in FY21, an 

increase of 1.39%. Representation in the workforce was above the OCLF of 4.6%.

• White Male participation rate was 27.85% in FY22, in comparison with 23.46% in FY21, an 

increase of 4.39%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 37%.

• White Female participation rate was 34.18% in FY22, in comparison with 34.57% in FY21, an 

increase of 0.39%. Representation in the workforce remained below the OCLF of 39.2%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate was 11.39% in FY22, in comparison with 9.88% in FY21, an 

increase of 1.51%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 3.3%.

• Black/AA Female participation rate was 8.86% in FY22, in comparison with 14.81% in FY21, a 

decrease of 5.95%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 5.2%.

• Asian Male participation rate was 2.53% in FY22, in comparison with 2.47% in FY21, an increase 

of 0.06%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 1.9%.

• Asian Female participation rate was 6.33% in FY22, in comparison with 2.4% in FY21, an 

increase of 3.93%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 2.4%.

• NHPI Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22, in comparison with 0.00% in FY21. 

Representation in the workforce remained consistent with the OCLF of 0.00%.

• NHPI Female participation rate was 1.27% in FY22, in comparison with 1.23% in FY21, an 

increase of 0.04%. Representation in the workforce remained above the OCLF of 0.1%.

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22, in comparison with 0.00% in 

FY21. Representation in the workforce remained below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.3%).

• Two or More Races Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22, in comparison with 0.00% in FY21. 

Representation in the workforce remained below their respective OCLFs of (0.6%; 1%).
181

• There were nine (9) (11.39%) PWDs and two (2) (2.53%) PWTDs during FY22. PWD

representation was below the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above the Federal 

goal of 2%.

1550 – Computer Science

• The participation rate for Males was 66.67% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 63.5%. 

• The participation rate for Females was 33.33% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 36.5%.

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (4.7%; 2.7%).

• White Male participation rate was 50% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 45.1%.

• White Female participation rate was 33.33% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 24.3%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate was 16.67 % in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

above the OCLF of 5.2%.

• Black/AA Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 4.5%. 

• Asian Male and Female participation rate in FY22 was 0.00%. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (6.8%; 4%).

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.1%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.1%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (1.5%; 0.8%).

• There no representation of PWDs and no representation of PWTDs. PWD representation was below 

the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal goal of 2%.

1701 – General Education Training

• The Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 36.9%. 
182

• The Female participation rate was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 63.1%.

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (4.2%; 6.6%).

• White Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 25.8%.

• White Female participation rate was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 45.1%.

• Black/AA Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (3.8%; 6.5%).

• Asian Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (1.8%; 2.9%).

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.08%; 0.08%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.3%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (1%; 1.6%).

• There was no representation of PWDs or PWTDs. PWD representation was below the Federal goal 

of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal goal of 2%.

1712 - Training Instruction

• The Male participation rate was 87.50% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 36.9%.

• The Female participation rate was 12.50% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 63.1%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 4.2%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 12.50% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

significantly below the OCLF of 6.6%.

• White Male participation rate was 87.5% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 25.8%. 

• White Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 
183

the OCLF of 45.1%.

• Black/AA Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (3.8%; 6.5%).

• Asian Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (1.8%; 2.9%).

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.1%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.3%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (1%; 1.6%).

• There was one (1) (12.50%) PWD and one (1) (12.50%) PWTD. PWD representation was above 

the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above the Federal goal of 2%.

2010 – Inventory Management

• The Male participation rate was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 65.5%.

• The Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF of 34.5%.

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (7.8%; 4.2%).

• White Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the respective OCLF of 22.1%.

• Black/AA Male participation rate was 33.33% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above 

the OCLF of 9.8%.

• Black/AA Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 5.2%.

• Asian Male and Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the respective OCLFs of (2.8%; 2%).

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below the respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.2%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below the respective OCLFs of (0.3%; 0.2%).
184

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22 Representation was 

below their respective OCLFs of (1.6%; 0.6%).

• There were two (2) (66.67 %) PWDs and two (2) (66.67 %) PWTDs. PWD representation was 

above the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above the Federal goal of 2%.

2101 – Transportation Specialist

• The Male participation rate was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 45.7 %.

• The Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 

OCLF 54.3%.

• Hispanic Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (4.4%; 5.5%).

• White Males participation rate was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 32.5%.

• White Females participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 36.4%.

• Black/AA Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce were below their respective OCLFs of (4%; 7.2%).

• Asian Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

were below their respective OCLFs of (3.5%; 3.5%).

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

were below their respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.1%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.3%).

• Two or More Races Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (0.9%; 1.3%).

• There was no representation of PWDs or PWTDs. PWD representation was below the Federal goal 

of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal goal of 2%.

2130 – Traffic Management

• The Male participation rate for was 100% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 45.7%.

• The Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below the 
185

OCLF of 54.3%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 20% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 4.4%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was 

below the OCLF of 5.5%.

• White Males participation rate was 40% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was above the 

OCLF of 32.5%. 

• White Females participation rate was 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce was below 

the OCLF of 36.4%.

• Asian Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (3.5%; 3.5%).

• NHPI Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.1%).

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the workforce 

was below their respective OCLFs of (0.2%; 0.3%). 

• Two or More Races Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22. Representation in the 

workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (0.9%; 1.3%).

• There were two (2) (40 %) PWDs and no representation of PWTDs. PWD representation was above 

the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was below the Federal goal of 2%.

2210 - Information Technology Management

• The Male participation rate was 73.97% in FY22, in comparison with 74.40% in FY21, a decrease 

of 0.43%. Representation in the workforce was below the OCLF of 70.9%. 

• The Female participation rate was 26.03% in FY22, in comparison with 25.30% in FY21, an 

increase of 0.73%. Representation in the workforce was below the OCLF of 29.1%.

• Hispanic Male participation rate was 10.96% in FY22, in comparison with 12.05% in FY21, a 

decrease of 1.09%. Representation in the workforce was below the OCLF of 4.5%.

• Hispanic Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22, in comparison with 0.00% in FY21. 

Representation in the workforce was below the OCLF of 1.6%.

• White Male participation rate was 51.81% in FY22, in comparison with 54.55% in FY21, an 

increase of 2.74%. Representation in the workforce was above the OCLF of 54.3%.

• White Female participation rate was 13.70% in FY22, in comparison with 14.46% in FY21, an 

increase of 0.76%. Representation in the workforce was below the OCLF of 21.6%.
186

• Asian Male participation rate was 4.11% in FY22, in comparison with 3.61% in FY21, an increase 

of 0.50%. Representation in the workforce was below the OCLF of 7%.

• Asian Female participation rate was 2.74% in FY22, in comparison with 2.41% in FY21, an 

increase of 0.33%. Representation in the workforce was below the OCLF of 7%.

• NHPI Male and Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22, in comparison with 0.00% in FY21. 

Male representation in the workforce was below the respective OCLF of 0.1%; however, Female 

representation of 0.00% is consistent with the OCLF of 0.00%.

• AIAN Male and Female participation rates were 0.00% in FY22, in comparison with 0.00% in 

FY21. Representation in the workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (0.1%; 0.1%).

• Two or More Races Female participation rate was 0.00% in FY22, in comparison with 0.00% in 

FY21. Representation in the workforce was below their respective OCLFs of (1.3%; 0.7%).

• There were 11 (15.07%) PWDs and three (3) (4.11%) PWTDs in this major occupation. PWD 

representation was above the Federal goal of 12%. PWTD representation was above below the 

Federal goal of 2%.

APPLICANT FLOW DATA

In FY22, the EI Office received and analyzed the applicant flow data provided by USAStaffing 

regarding the Agency’s Mission Critical Occupations. 

0080 – Security

Internal Competitive Promotions

• There were 140 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities only four (4) 

(4%) were selected out of the 56 (40%) qualified and 54 (38.57%) who were referred. 

Additionally, there were 64 Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion; however,

but no selections were made from the 38 (59.37%) considered qualified and 35 (54.68%) 

referred. 

• There were 19 applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those nine (9) (47.36%) were considered qualified and referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion.

• Among the applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, 6 (46.15%) individuals with a 

Targeted Disability were considered qualified and referred. However, no individuals with 

Targeted Disabilities were selected as Internal Competitive Promotions. 
187

New Hires

• There were 140 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, there were only four (4) 

selections made out of the 56 (40%) considered qualified or 54 (38.57%) whom were referred. 

Additionally, there were 240 Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; however there were 

no selections made from the 218 (90.83%) considered qualified and the 17 (7.08%) referred. 

• There were 39 applicants for New Hires, whom identified as having a Disability, of those 31 

(79.48%) were considered qualified and 12 (30.76%) referred. However, no individuals with a 

Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• Among the applicants for New Hires, 17 (62.96%) individuals with a Targeted Disability were 

considered qualified and 10 (37.03%) were referred. However, no individuals with Targeted 

Disabilities were selected as New Hires. 

0131 - International Relations

Internal Competitive Promotions

• There were 80 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities; however, only 

one (1) (1.25%) was selected out of the 17 (21.25%) considered qualified and referred. 

Additionally, there were 44 Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion but no 

selections were made from the 3 (6.81%) considered qualified and referred.

• There were 13 applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those two (2) (15.38%) were considered qualified and referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• Among the applicants for New Hires, one (1) (12.50%) individual with a Targeted Disability 

was considered qualified and referred. However, no individuals with Targeted Disabilities were 

selected as New Hires. 

New Hires

• There were 93 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, no one was selected from 

the 68 (73.11%) considered qualified and five (5) (5.37%) referred. Additionally, there were 60 

Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, no one was selected from the 41 

(68.33%) considered qualified and one (1) (1.66%) referred.

• There were 12 applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those nine (9) (75%) were considered qualified and one (1) (8.33%) was referred. 

However, no individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• Among the applicants for New Hires, 1 (100%) individuals with a Targeted Disability were 

considered qualified. However, no individuals with Targeted Disabilities were referred or 

selected as New Hires. 

0132 – Intelligence
188

Internal Competitive Promotions

• Although there were 384 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities; 

however, only five (5) (1.30%) were selected out of the 172 (44.79%) were considered qualified 

165 (42.96%) were referred. Additionally, there were 109 Female applicants for Internal 

Competitive Promotion opportunities; however only three (3) (2.75%) selections were made 

from the 38 (34.86%) were considered qualified and 36 (33.02%) were referred.

• There were 42 applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those 20 (47.61%) were considered qualified and referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• Among the applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, 12 (41.37%) individuals with a 

Targeted Disability were considered qualified and were referred. However, no individuals with 

Targeted Disabilities were referred or selected as Internal Competitive Promotions. 

New Hires

• There were 533 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, only eight (8) (1.50%) 

were selected from the 198 (37.14%) considered qualified and 141 (26.45%) referred. 

Additionally, there were 242 Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, only four 

(4) (1.65%) were selected from the 78 (32.23%) considered qualified and 43 (17.76%) whom 

were referred.

• There were 80 applicants for New Hire opportunities whom identified as having a Disability. 

Although there were 80 applicants only one (1) (1.25%) was selected out of the 28 (35%) whom 

were considered qualified and 21 (26.25%) whom were referred. 

• Among the applicants for New Hires, 25 (34.24%) individuals with a Targeted Disability were 

considered qualified and 20 (27.39%) were referred. Although there were 25 applicants who 

identified as having a Targeted Disability, only one (1) (1.25%) was selected. 

0201 - Human Resources

Internal Competitive Promotions

• Although there were 150 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities only 

one (1) (0.66%) were selected out of the 60 (40%) qualified and 55 (36.66%) referred. 

Additionally, there were 261 Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion only three 

(3) (1.14%) selections were made from the 103 (39.46%) considered qualified and 84 (32.18%) 

referred.

• There were 46 applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities, whom identified as 

having a Disability. Although, there were 46 applicants only one (1) (2.17%) was selected out of 

the 14 (30.43%) whom were considered qualified and 13 (28.26%) whom were referred. 
189

• Among the applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities, eight (8) (50%) 

identified as individuals with a Targeted Disability. Although, there were eight (8) applicants 

only one (1) was selected out of the 8 (50%) whom were considered qualified and whom were 

referred. 

New Hires

• There were 85 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities, of which 64 (75.29%) were 

considered qualified and 17 (20%) were referred. However, no Males whom were referred were 

selected for New Hire opportunities for this major occupation. Additionally, there were 258 

Female applicants for New Hire opportunities, of which 219 (84.88%) were considered 

qualified and 15 (5.81%) were referred. However, no Females whom were referred were 

selected for New Hire opportunities.

• There were 22 applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those 20 (90.90%) were considered qualified and four (4) (18.18%) were referred. 

However, no individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• Among the applicants for New Hires, 6 (66.66%) individuals with a Targeted Disability were 

considered qualified and 3 (33.33%) were referred. However, no individuals with Targeted 

Disabilities were selected as New Hires. 

0341 – Administrative Officer

• During FY22, there were no Internal Competitive Promotion or New Hires by RNO, Disability 

or Targeted Disability. 

0346 – Logistics Management

Internal Competitive Promotions

• There were 12 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities, of which four 

(4) (33.33%) were considered qualified and were referred. However, no Males whom were 

referred were selected for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities for this major 

occupation. Additionally, there were four (4) Female applicants for Internal Competitive 

Promotion opportunities, of which one 1 (25%) were considered qualified and were referred. 

However, no Females whom were referred were selected for Internal Competitive Promotion 

opportunities.

• There were two (2) applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having 

a Disability, of those one (1) (50%) was considered qualified and referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

New Hires

• During FY22, there were no New Hires by RNO, Disability or Targeted Disability. 
190

0391– Telecommunications

Internal Competitive Promotions

• Although there were nine (9) Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities; 

however there were no selections from the four (4) (4.44%) considered qualified and referred. 

Additionally, there were three (3) Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion 

opportunities; however there were no applicants considered qualified, thus none were referred 

nor selected.

• There was one (1) applicant for Internal Competitive Promotions opportunities, whom identified 

as having a Disability, and was considered qualified and referred. However, no individuals with 

a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• Among the applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions opportunities, one (1) (100%) 

individual with a Targeted Disability was considered qualified and was referred. However, no 

individuals with a Targeted Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

New Hires

• There were 29 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however there were no selections 

from the 25 (86.20%) considered qualified and 10 (34.48%) whom were referred. Additionally, 

there were five (5) Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; however there were 

individuals referred from the two (2) (40%) whom were considered qualified. 

• There were four (4) applicants for New Hire opportunities, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those three (3) (75%) were considered qualified were referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• Among the applicants for New Hires, three (3) (75.00%) individuals with a Targeted Disability 

were considered qualified referred. However, no individuals with Targeted Disabilities were 

selected as New Hires. 

0501 – Financial Administration & Program 

Internal Competitive Promotions
191

• During FY22, there were no Internal Competitive Promotions by RNO, Disability or Targeted 

Disability. 

New Hires

• There were 21 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however there were no selections 

from the four (4) (19.04%) considered qualified and referred. Additionally, there were 18 

Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; however there were no selections from the seven 

(7) (38.88%) considered qualified and referred. 

• There were six (6) applicants for New Hire opportunities, whom identified as having a 

Disability; however, none of the applicants were considered qualified or referred. 

0510 – Accounting

Internal Competitive Promotions

• There were 15 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities; however there 

were no selections from the two (2) (13.33%) were considered qualified and referred. 

Additionally, there were 31 Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion 

opportunities; however there were no selections made from the (45.16%) who were considered 

qualified and referred.

• There were five (5) applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having 

a Disability, of those four (4) (80%) were consider qualified and referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• Among the applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, 1 (100%) individual with a 

Targeted Disability was considered qualified and was referred. However, individuals with a

Targeted Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

New Hires

• There were 31 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however there were no selections 

from the four (4) (12.90 %) considered qualified and referred. Additionally, there were 30 

Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; however there were no selections from the six 

(6) (20 %) considered qualified and referred. 

• There were six (6) applicants for New Hire opportunities, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those two (2) (19.04%) were consider qualified and referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

0560 – Budget Analysis

Internal Competitive Promotions

• During FY22, there were no Internal Competitive Promotions by RNO, Disability or Targeted 

Disability. 
192

• Although there were 140 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities only 

four (4) (4%) were selected out of the 56 (40%) qualified and 54 (38.57%) referred. 

Additionally, there were 64 Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion but no 

selections were made from the 38 (59.37%) qualified and 35 (54.68%) referred.

New Hires

• There were 175 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities, of which one (1) (1.75%) was 

selected out of the 54 (30.85%) individuals to more considered qualified and referred. 

Additionally, there were 228 Female applicants for New Hire opportunities, of which three (3) 

(1.31%) were selected out of the 87 (38.15%) were considered qualified and referred.

• There were 28 applicants for New Hire opportunities, whom identified as having a Disability, of 

those five (5) (17.85%) were considered qualified and referred. However, no individuals with a 

Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

1035 – Public Affairs 

Internal Competitive Promotions

• During FY22, there were no Internal Competitive Promotion by RNO, Disability or Targeted 

Disability. 

New Hires

• During FY22, there were no New Hires by RNO, Disability or Targeted Disability. 

1102 – Contracting

Internal Competitive Promotions

• During FY22, there were no Internal Competitive Promotion by RNO, Disability or Targeted 

Disability. 

New Hires

• There were 158 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities, of which four (4) (2.53%) were 

selected out of the 79 (15 %) individuals who are considered qualified and referred. 

Additionally, there were 172 Female applicants for New Hire opportunities, of which three (3) 

(1.74%) were selected out of the 99 (57.55 %) were considered qualified and referred.

• There were 28 applicants for New Hire opportunities, whom identified as having a Disability, of 

those one (1) (3.57 %) was selected out of the 15 (53.57%) were considered qualified and 

referred. 

• Among the applicants for New Hires, 14 (66.66%) individuals with a Targeted Disability were 

considered qualified and 14 (66.66%) were referred, and one (1) (4.76%) were selected as a 

New Hire. 

1550 – Computer Science
193

Internal Competitive Promotions

• During FY22, there were no Internal Competitive Promotions by RNO, Disability or Targeted 

Disability. 

New Hires

• There were 83 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities, of which two (2.40%) were selected 

out of the 35 (42.16%) individuals who are considered qualified and referred. Additionally, 

there were 21 Female applicants for New Hire opportunities, of which one (1) (4.76%) were 

selected out of the nine (9) (42.85%) whom were considered qualified and referred.

• There were 10 applicants for New Hire opportunities, whom identified as having a Disability, of 

those one (1) (10%) was selected from the six (60%) whom were considered qualified and 

referred. 

• Among the applicants for New Hires, 2 (66.66%) individuals with a Targeted Disability were 

considered qualified and 2 (66.66%) were referred. However, no individuals with Targeted 

Disabilities were selected as New Hires. 

1701 – General Education Training

Internal Competitive Promotions

• Although there were 13 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities; 

however, there were no selections from the six (6) (46.15%) considered qualified and referred. 

Additionally, there were six (6) (33.33%) Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion 

of which two (2) (33.33%) were considered qualified and whom were referred, of those one (1) 

(16.66%) was selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion.

• There were two (2) applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities, whom 

identified as having a Disability. However, none of the applicants were considered qualified or 

referred, thus there were no individuals with a Disability selected for an Internal Competitive 

Promotion. 

• There were three (3) applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities, whom 

identified as having a Targeted Disability. However, note of the applicants were considered 

qualified or referred, thus there were no individuals with a Targeted Disability selected for an 

Internal Competitive Promotion. 

New Hires

• There were 13 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, there were no selections 

from the nine (9) (69.23%) whom were considered qualified and the four (4) (30.76%) whom 

were referred. Additionally, there were 12 Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; 

however, there were no selections from the 11 (52.38%) whom were considered qualified and 

the one (1) (4.76%) who was referred.
194

• There were four (4) applicants for New Hire opportunities, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those four (4) (100%) were considered qualified and two (2) (50%) whom were 

referred. However, no individuals with Targeted Disabilities were selected as New Hires. 

 

1712 - Training Instruction

Internal Competitive Promotions

• Although there were 20 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities; 

however, there were no selections from the seven (7) (35%) were considered qualified and 

referred. Additionally, there were two (2) Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion

opportunities. However, neither of the applicants was considered qualified or referred. 

• There was one (1) applicant for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities, whom identified 

as having a Disability. Although the applicant was considered qualified and was referred the 

individual was not selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• There was one (1) applicant for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities, whom identified 

as having a Targeted Disability. Although the applicant was considered qualified and was 

referred the individual was not selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

New Hires

• There were 20 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however there were no selections 

from the seven (7) (35%) who were considered qualified and referred. Additionally, there were 

two (2) Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, neither of the applicants were 

considered qualified nor referred. There is no selections were made for Female New Hire 

opportunities.

• There were two (2) applicants for New Hires opportunities, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those two (2) (100%) were considered qualified and referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for a New Hire opportunity. 

• There were two (2) the applicants for New Hire opportunities whom identified as having a 

Targeted Disability, of those two (2) (100%) were considered qualified and referred. However, 

no individuals with a Disability were selected for a New Hire opportunity. 

2010 – Inventory Management

Internal Competitive Promotions
195

• Although there were 41 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities only 

one (1) (2.43%) was selected out of the 16 (39.02%) who were considered qualified and 

referred. Additionally, there were 15 Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion 

opportunities but no selections were made from the three (3) (20%) who were considered 

qualified and referred.

• During FY22 there were no Internal Competitive Promotion selections by Disability or Targeted 

Disability.

New Hires

• During FY22, there were no New Hires by RNO, Disability or Targeted Disability. 

2101 – Transportation Specialist

• During FY22, there were no Internal Competitive Promotions or New Hires by RNO, Disability 

or Targeted Disability. 

2130 – Traffic Management

Internal Competitive Promotions

• There were 21 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities; however, 

there were no selections from the (14.28%) whom were considered qualified and referred. 

Additionally, there were three (3) Female applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion but no 

selections were made from the two (2) (66.66%) considered qualified and referred.

• There were six (6) applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those one (1) (17%) was considered qualified and referred. However, no 

individuals with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• During FY22 there were no Internal Competitive Promotion selections by Disability or Targeted 

Disability.

New Hires

• During FY22, there were no New Hires by RNO, Disability or Targeted Disability. 

2210 - Information Technology Management

Internal Competitive Promotions

• Although there were 308 Male applicants for Internal Competitive Promotion opportunities only 

four (4) (1.29%) were selected out of the 176 (57.14%) whom were considered qualified and 

168 (54.54%) referred. Additionally, there were 64 Female applicants for Internal Competitive 

Promotion but no selections were made from the 34 (53.12%) qualified and 35 (54.68%) 

referred.
196

New Hires

• There were 702 Male applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, only four (4) (0.56%) 

were selected out of the 425 (60.54%) whom were considered qualified and 299 (42.59%) 

referred. Additionally, there were 146 Female applicants for New Hire opportunities; however, 

only three (3) (2.05%) were selected out of the 89 (60.95%) considered qualified and the 57 

(39.04%) and were referred.

• There were 63 applicants for New Hire opportunities, whom identified as having a Disability, of 

those 39 (61.90%) were considered qualified and 28 (44.44%) were referred. 

• There were 35 applicants for Internal Competitive Promotions, whom identified as having a 

Disability, of those 26 (65%) were considered qualified and referred. However, no individuals 

with a Disability were selected for an Internal Competitive Promotion. 

• During FY22 there were no Internal Competitive Promotion selections by Targeted Disability.

• There were 27 applicants for New Hire opportunities whom identified as having a Targeted 

Disability, of those 18 (66.66%) were considered qualified and 16 (59.25%) were referred. 

However, no individuals with a Targeted Disability were selected for a New Hire opportunity. 
197

APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS 

ABQ Albuquerque 

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution 

AHP Anti-Harassment Program 

AHPM Anti-Harassment Program Manager 

AL Acquisition, Contracts, and Logistics Directorate 

AL-EL Engineering and Logistics Department 

AL-SB Office of Small Business Programs 

CAP Computer Accommodation Program 

CLF Civilian Labor Force 

COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 

CT Cooperative Threat Reduction Directorate 

D&I Diversity and Inclusion 

DARS Department for Aging and Rehabilitation Services

DBVI Department of the Blind and Vision Impairment 

DID Diversity Internship for DTRA 

DIR DTRA Director 

DoD Department of Defense 

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

EI Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Office 

EIS Enterprise Information System 

EO Equal Opportunity 

ERG Employee Resource Group 

ES Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health Office 

FedSEP Federal Sector EEO Portal 

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

FY Fiscal Year 

GC General Counsel 

HBCU Historically Black College and University 

HR Human Resources Directorate 

IG Inspector General 

IT Information Management and Technology Directorate 

LDC Leadership Development Council 
198

LGBTQIA Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, 

Intersex, Asexual/Ally 

MD Management Directive 

MSI Minority-Serving Institution 

NDEAM Month National Disability Employment Awareness 

NE Nuclear Enterprise Directorate 

No FEAR Notification & Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Retaliation Act 

of 2002 

OB On-Site Inspection and Building Capacity Directorate 

OB-BE Conventional Inspections Department 

OB-BP Building Partner Capacity Department

OB-BPI INDOPACOM Operations Division 

OB-OS Open Skies Department 

OFO Office of Federal Operations 

OI Operations and Integration Directorate 

OI-MSC Security and Counterintelligence Division 

PAS Personal Assistance Services 

PNNL 

PWD

PWTD

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Person with Disability

Person with Targeted Disability

RA Reasonable Accommodation 

RD Research and Development Directorate 

RD-CB Chemical and Biological Technologies 

RD-CXU Urgent Solutions Division 

RD-ECN Nevada Test Division 

SAPR Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

SEP Special Emphasis Program 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SI Strategic Integration Directorate 

SLI Sign Language Interpreter 

STRI Strategic Trends Research Initiative 

UCP Unified Command Plan 

WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction 

WRP Workforce Recruitment Program
199