42 

Part J - Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and 

Retention of Persons with Disabilities

To capture agencies’ affirmative action plan for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) and Persons with 

Targeted Disabilities (PWTD), EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e)) and MD-715 require 

agencies to describe how their plan will improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of 

applicants and employees with disabilities. All agencies, regardless of size, must complete this Part of 

the MD-715 report. 

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. 

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.

Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) ................................................. No

Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) ................................................... No

16.18% is greater than the 12.00% benchmark. 

16.24% is greater than the 12.00% benchmark. 

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.

Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) ............................................... No

Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD)................................................. No

4.88% is greater than the 2.00% benchmark 

3.70% is greater than the 2.00% benchmark 

Describe how the agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers and/or 

recruiters.

DLA has consistently communicated through Disability self-identification video, selfidentification articles and demographic charts. DLA also promotes National Disability Awareness 

Month presentations and seminars, which state our commitment to increase the representation of 

PWTDs to 2% and PWDs to 12% of our workforce. DLA also collaborates with the Office of 

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (ODEI) within OSD and the DLA HR Recruitment Cadre. 
43 

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.

A. Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability Program

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. 

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

Full (Name, Title, Office, Email)

Time

Part 

Time

Collateral 

Duty

Processing applications from PWD 

and PWTD by Selective Placement 

Coordinators (SPPCs)

0 0 90 Michele Brandt, SPPC; Michele.Brandt@dla.mil 

Sheri Cornute, SPPC; Sheri.Cornute@dla.mil 

SPPCs answering questions from the 

public about hiring authorities that 

take disability into account

0 0 2 Michele Brandt, SPPC; Michele.Brandt@dla.mil 

Sheri Cornute, SPPC; Sheri.Cornute@dla.mil

Processing reasonable 

accommodation requests from 

applicants and employees

8 0 3 Monique Ray, DLA Disability Program Manager 

(DPM); Monique.Ray@dla.mil 

Section 508 Compliance

8 4 0 

Richard Harmon, J62JC Assistive Technology/

Section 508 Compliance Branch Chief; 

Richard.Harmon@dla.mil

Architectural Barriers Act 

Compliance 0 0 7 

Gus Zakhem, Chief of Facilities Sustainment and 

Equipment, Installation Operations, 

Gus.Zakhem@dla.mil

Special Emphasis Program for PWDs

and PWTDs

9 0 0 Eric Spanbauer, DLA Special Emphasis Program 

Manager (SEPM); Eric.Spanbauer@dla.mil
44 

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. DLA has a full-time Disability Program Manager (DPM) who works with seven Disability 

Program Coordinators (DPCs) at the Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) EEO offices. A 

vacancy announcement was posted in USAJOBS to fill in the DPM vacancy and onboarded by 

Summer 2021. 

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. The DPM and all DPCs have attended a Disability Program Manager training course, and 

regularly attend workshops and webinars hosted by the National Employment Law Institute, the 

Job Accommodation Network, and the Employer Assistance and Resource Network. They also 

participate in the Federal Exchange on Employment and Disability, hosted by the EEOC, the 

Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of Labor. All DPCs regularly receives 

updates and advisories from the Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP). 

DO hosts a roundtable every other month to discuss RA, SEP, and AEP matters, conduct on-thespot training, and share best practices, trends, and solutions. 

The DPM hosts a quarterly meeting to discuss RA issues.

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 Persons with Disabilities (PWD) and Persons 

with Targeted Disabilities (PWTD). 

A. Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities

Describe the programs and resources the agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities, 

including individuals with targeted disabilities.

Job applicants may use Schedule A hiring authority to apply for vacancy announcements. If hired 

with Schedule A hiring authority, selectees are required to complete SF-256 to identify their 

disability. DLA searches the WRP database to identify qualified PWDs.
45 

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.

DLA opens all vacancy announcements to PWD, via Schedule A hiring authority, and to 30% or 

more disabled veterans.

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. 

Individuals requesting consideration through Schedule A hiring authority are required to provide a 

letter from a physician or other care provider certifying their eligibility for Schedule A hiring 

authority. Individuals who request consideration as a 30% or more disabled veteran are required 

to provide DD Form 214, Military Discharge and a letter from the Department of Veteran's Affairs 

or branch of the armed forces certifying an overall service-connected disability. Individuals must 

meet eligibility requirements for the appointment authority and minimum qualifications for the 

vacancy.

HR refers qualified applicants to the selecting official in veteran’s preference order and then if 

they identify as being eligible for Schedule A hiring authority, for 30% or more disabled veteran’s 

authority, or both.HR refers qualified applicants to the selecting official in veteran’s preference 

order and then if they identify as being eligible for Schedule A hiring authority, for 30% or more 

disabled veteran’s authority, or both. 

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. All new supervisors are trained on Schedule A hiring authority during the HR Management 

class, which is refreshed every three years.

B. Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations

Describe the agency’s efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist Persons 

with Disabilities (PWD) and including Persons with Targeted Disabilities (PWTD), in securing and 

maintaining employment.
46 

Organizations that assist PWDs and PWTDs with securing employment where DLA currently maintains 

contact with:

• Department of Labor for the WRP

• State Rehabilitation Service

• Veteran Employment Centers

• Gallaudet University

• National Institute of the Blind

• National Technical Institution of the Deaf

• Disabled American Veterans

• Social Security Administration

• Wounded Warrior Project

• Philadelphia Veterans Contact and Advocacy Program

• Job Fairs that target PWD and PWTD populations, such as the Careers and the Disabled Expo.

• Local college and university campus disability programs to inform them of job opportunities with 

DLA and to raise awareness of the different hiring authorities and programs.

• Job Accommodation Network (JAN)

• Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP).

C. Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring) 

Using the goals of 12% for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) and 2% for Persons with Targeted 

Disabilities (PWTDs) 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.

New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) ........................... Yes

New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) ........................ No

9.00% is less than the 12.00% benchmark 

3.30% is greater than the 2.00% benchmark 

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.

New Hires for MCO (PWD) .....................................................Yes

New Hires for MCO (PWTD) ...................................................Yes

Triggers exist for PWDs in the following MCOs: (Percent of new hires in that MCO.)

MCOs with enough hires (≥8) for the trigger to be significant are marked with *.

0080 = 0.37% of 17* hires < 5.21% Security Administration

0089 = 0.44% of 20* hires < 6.39% Emergency Management

0201 = 0.44% of 20* hires < 3.34% Human Resources

0260 = 0.42% of 19* hires < 3.38% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 2.39% of 109* hires < 24.36% Administration and Program
47 

0343 = 1.84% of 84* hires < 19.35% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.02% of 1 hires < 1.45% Logistics Management

0501 = 0.99% of 45* hires < 3.89% Financial Administration & Program

0510 = 0.77% of 35* hires < 7.91% Accounting

0801 = 0.02% of 1 hires < 0.70% General Engineering

0810 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.13% Civil Engineering

1101 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.11% General Business & Industry

1102 = 0.22% of 10* hires < 1.71% Contracting

1104 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.29% Property Disposal

1811 = 0.13% of 6 hires < 2.72% Criminal Investigating

2001 = 0.64% of 29* hires < 8.94% General Supply

2003 = 0.04% of 2 hires < 1.14% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.02% of 1 hires < 0.46% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

2210 = 1.27% of 58* hires < 8.52% Information Technology Management

Note: the other 11 Top MCOs not listed here had no FY21 new hires.

Triggers exist for PWTDs in the following MCOs: (Percent of new hires in that MCO.)

MCOs with enough hires (≥8) for the trigger to be significant are marked with *.

0080 = 0.18% of 8* hires < 5.21% Security Administration

0089 = 0.18% of 8* hires < 6.39% Emergency Management

0201 = 0.13% of 6 hires < 3.34% Human Resources

0260 = 0.09% of 4 hires < 3.38% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 1.10% of 50* hires < 24.36% Administration and Program

0343 = 0.86% of 39* hires < 19.35% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 1.45% Logistics Management

0501 = 0.53% of 24* hires < 3.89% Financial Administration & Program

0510 = 0.33% of 15* hires < 7.91% Accounting

0801 = 0.02% of 1 hires < 0.70% General Engineering

0810 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.13% Civil Engineering

1101 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.11% General Business & Industry

1102 = 0.07% of 3 hires < 1.71% Contracting

1104 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.29% Property Disposal

1811 = 0.11% of 5 hires < 2.72% Criminal Investigating

2001 = 0.22% of 10* hires < 8.94% General Supply

2003 = 0.04% of 2 hires < 1.14% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.46% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

2210 = 0.57% of 26* hires < 8.52% Information Technology Management

Note: the other 11 Top MCOs not listed here had no FY21 new hires.
48 

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.

Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) .....................................Yes

Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) ..................................Yes

Triggers exist for PWDs in the following MCOs: (Percent of new hires in that MCO.)

MCOs with enough hires (≥8) for the trigger to be significant are marked with *.

0080 = 0.42% of 96 hires < 2.98% Security Administration

0089 = 0.26% of 60 hires < 2.43% Emergency Management

0201 = 1.11% of 251 hires < 2.56% Human Resources

0260 = 0.30% of 69 hires < 1.12% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 2.68% of 607 hires < 16.49% Administration and Program

0343 = 4.12% of 934 hires < 22.07% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.62% of 140 hires < 3.11% Logistics Management

0391 = 0.00% of 1 hires < 0.04% Telecommunications

0501 = 0.50% of 113 hires < 1.49% Financial Administration & Program

0510 = 0.38% of 86 hires < 2.26% Accounting

0511 = 0.00% of 1 hires < 0.04% Auditing

0690 = 0.02% of 4 hires < 0.08% Industrial Hygiene

0801 = 0.08% of 18 hires < 0.91% General Engineering

0905 = 0.15% of 33 hires < 2.17% General Attorney

1101 = 0.40% of 90 hires < 2.04% General Business & Industry

1102 = 1.75% of 398 hires < 6.53% Contracting

1104 = 1.27% of 289 hires < 5.11% Property Disposal

1515 = 0.00% of 1 hires < 0.00% Operations Research

1811 = 0.03% of 6 hires < 0.61% Criminal Investigating

2001 = 2.23% of 505 hires < 11.81% General Supply

2003 = 1.04% of 236 hires < 6.06% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.54% of 123 hires < 2.68% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

2210 = 2.65% of 602 hires < 7.35% Information Technology Management

Note: the other seven Top MCOs not listed here had no FY21 internal hires. 

Triggers exist for PWTDs in the following MCOs: (Percent of new hires in that MCO.)

MCOs with enough hires (≥8) for the trigger to be significant are marked with *.

0080 = 0.23% of 52 hires < 2.98% Security Administration

0089 = 0.13% of 30 hires < 2.43% Emergency Management

0201 = 0.47% of 107 hires < 2.56% Human Resources

0260 = 0.13% of 29 hires < 1.12% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 1.35% of 306 hires < 16.49% Administration and Program

0343 = 1.90% of 430 hires < 22.07% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.37% of 85 hires < 3.11% Logistics Management

0391 = 0.00% of 1 hires < 0.04% Telecommunications

0501 = 0.25% of 57 hires < 1.49% Financial Administration & Program

0510 = 0.17% of 39 hires < 2.26% Accounting
49 

0511 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.04% Auditing

0690 = 0.00% of 1 hires < 0.08% Industrial Hygiene

0801 = 0.07% of 15 hires < 0.91% General Engineering

0905 = 0.10% of 22 hires < 2.17% General Attorney

1101 = 0.19% of 42 hires < 2.04% General Business & Industry

1102 = 0.87% of 198 hires < 6.53% Contracting

1104 = 0.71% of 160 hires < 5.11% Property Disposal

1515 = 0.00% of 1 hires < 0.00% Operations Research

1811 = 0.02% of 5 hires < 0.61% Criminal Investigating

2001 = 1.10% of 250 hires < 11.81% General Supply

2003 = 0.56% of 128 hires < 6.06% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.29% of 66 hires < 2.68% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

2210 = 1.36% of 308 hires < 7.35% Information Technology Management

Note: the other seven Top MCOs not listed here for had no FY21 internal hires. 

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. 

Promotions for MCO (PWD) ....................................................Yes

Promotions for MCO (PWTD) .................................................Yes

Triggers exist for PWDs in the following MCOs: (Percent of promotions in that MCO.)

MCOs with enough hires (≥8) for the trigger to be significant are marked with *.

0080 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 5.21% Security Administration

0089 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 6.39% Emergency Management

0201 = 0.92% of 15* hires < 3.34% Human Resources

0260 = 0.18% of 3 hires < 3.38% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 2.01% of 33* hires < 24.36% Administration and Program

0343 = 1.10% of 18* hires < 19.35% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.06% of 1 hire < 1.45% Logistics Management

0501 = 0.06% of 1 hire < 3.89% Financial Administration & Program

0510 = 0.06% of 1 hire < 7.91% Accounting

0801 = 0.06% of 1 hires < 0.70% General Engineering

0810 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.13% Civil Engineering

1101 = 0.12% of 2 hires < 0.11% General Business & Industry

1102 = 2.44% of 40* hires > 1.71% Contracting

1104 = 0.55% of 9* hires > 0.29% Property Disposal

1811 = 0.12% of 2 hires < 2.72% Criminal Investigating

2001 = 1.10% of 18* hires < 8.94% General Supply

2003 = 0.49% of 8* hires < 1.14% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.31% of 5 hires < 0.46% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

2210 = 0.31% of 5 hires < 8.52% Information Technology Management

Note: the other 11 Top MCOs not listed here had no FY21 Promotions.
50 

Triggers exist for PWTDs in the following MCOs: (Percent of promotions in that MCO.)

MCOs with enough hires (≥8) for the trigger to be significant are marked with *.

0080 = 0.06% of 1 hire < 5.21% Security Administration

0089 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 6.39% Emergency Management

0201 = 0.12% of 2 hires < 3.34% Human Resources

0260 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 3.38% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 0.73% of 12* hires < 24.36% Administration and Program

0343 = 0.43% of 7 hires < 19.35% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 1.45% Logistics Management

0501 = 0.06% of 1 hire < 3.89% Financial Administration & Program

0510 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 7.91% Accounting

0801 = 0.06% of 1 hire < 0.70% General Engineering

0810 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.13% Civil Engineering

1101 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.11% General Business & Industry

1102 = 1.40% of 23* hires > 1.71% Contracting

1104 = 0.12% of 2 hires > 0.29% Property Disposal

1811 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 2.72% Criminal Investigating

2001 = 0.12% of 2 hires < 8.94% General Supply

2003 = 0.18% of 3 hires < 1.14% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.06% of 1 hire < 0.46% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

2210 = 0.31% of 5 hires < 8.52% Information Technology Management

Note: the other 11 Top MCOs not listed here had no FY21 Promotions.

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 Persons with Disabilities (PWDs), including Persons with Targeted 

Disabilities (PWTDs), have sufficient opportunities for advancement. 

Plans for additional programs in FY22: 

• DO continues to recommend improvements to track and advertise mentoring temporarily 

delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
51 

• The DLA Career Mapping Program continues to develop the DLA Career Guide, the DLA 

Career Pyramid, DLA Career Paths and DLA Career Checklists for specific job series, 

which will be available to all employees to assist them with advancement of their careers. 

The Career Mapping Program will continue to publish new career field specific tools, 

which will assist with planning employee’s career development and progression. 

• Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Special Emphasis Program Committee groups for PWDs 

were curtailed throughout FY2021. DO has drafted the Diversity & Inclusion charter on 

the glide path to a full committee implementation with stakeholder representatives from 

each D/J codes after the groundwork for virtual meetings becomes accessible to all 

stakeholders by FY2022 4th quarter. 

• Several of the DLA organizations use the Pathways to Career Excellence (PaCE) program, 

which is a two-year entry level program that include successfully completing performancebased measures for advancement and promotions. Two WRP participants were 

successfully induced into PaCE after having met or exceeded, satisfactory requirements in 

FY21. 

B. Career Development Opportunities

Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its employees.

DLA Enterprise Tuition Assistance Program: Provides financial support for continued education 

courses at the undergraduate or graduate level. Permanent, full-time civilian employees are 

eligible after their initial two-year probationary/trial period in Federal civilian service.

DLA Enterprise Leader Development Program: An Agency-wide leadership development 

program designed to build and enhance the leadership skills of DLA employees at all levels. The 

competencies include supervisory certification, coaching, mentoring, the use of leadership 

development guides, multi-source feedbacks, and behavior-based interviewing techniques.

Defense Civilian Emerging Leader Program: A DoD cohort and competency-based leadership 

development program for entry level and emerging leaders. Permanent full-time, civilians in 

grades 7 through 12 are eligible, including Federal Wage System employees. 

DLA Enterprise Rotation Program (Cross-Organizational): Cross-organizational rotational 

assignments within DLA. (Intra-organizational rotations are also available) Rotational 

assignments were listed seeking GS-11 to GS-14 employee participation. 

Logistics for the 21st Century: A 5 1⁄2-day course designed by the Institute for Defense and 

Business to provide early-career, high-potential logisticians with a comprehensive and tailored 

educational experience. GS-11 through GS-13 early-career civilian logisticians is eligible.

DoD Defense Pricing and Contracting Acquisition Exchange Program: A unique developmental 

6- to 9-month experience through rotational assignments for high caliber individuals in acquisition 

related career fields. Permanent civilian acquisition employees in grades GS 11 and above are 

eligible.
52 

OSD Sustainment Fellowship Program: A 12-month hands-on leadership and management 

program to enhance the career development of mid-level logistics professionals. Civilian logistics 

employees in grades GS-13 and GS-14 are eligible.

In-House Coaching Program Pilot for FY19: Through in-house coaching, improve leadership 

capability across the agency. Employees who have completed ELDP Level 3 and managers are 

eligible.

DLA Executive Development Program: A program that allows managers to nominate high 

potential, highly motivated individuals to attend up to two training programs, for approval by 

DLA’s executive board. Permanent civilians in grades GS-13 through GS-15 with at least 18-

months of continuous service with DLA are eligible.

In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that require 

competition and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to participate. 

Career Development 

Opportunities

Total Participants PWD PWTD

Applicants (#) Selectees (#) Applicants 

(%) Selectees (%) Applicants (%) Selectees (%)

Internship Programs

Fellowship Programs

Mentoring Programs

Coaching Programs

Training Programs 429 387 2.9% 3.1% 1.0% 1.1%

Detail Programs

Other Career Development 

Programs 643 495 5.7% 5.4% 1.0% 1.0%

Total 1,072 882 8.6% 8.5% 2.1% 2.1%
53 

Do triggers exist for PWDs 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.

Applicants (PWD) .....................................................................Yes

Selections (PWD)......................................................................Yes

7.23% of the 429 applicants to the Training Programs (PaCER) were PWDs and 7.23% of the selectees

were PWDs, which is below the permanent 15.25% PWD workforce benchmark. 

9.49% of the 643 applicants to the Other Career Development Programs were PWDs and 9.50% of the 

selectees were PWDs, which is below the permanent 15.25% PWD workforce benchmark. 

Note: Many of the programs were affected due to COVID-19 pandemic which only limited the onboarding of mission essential personnel. Due to limited staffing, the causes of the triggers could not 

be identified but DO will investigate triggers in FY22. 

Do triggers exist for PWTDs 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. 

Applicants (PWTD) ..................................................................Yes

Selections (PWTD) ...................................................................Yes

2.56% of the 429 applicants to the Training Programs (PaCER) were PWTDs and 2.56% of the 

selectees were PWTDs, which is below the permanent 3.87% PWTD workforce benchmark. 

1.71% of the 643 applicants to the Other Career Development Programs were PWTDs and 1.79% of the 

selectees were PWTDs, which is below the permanent 3.87% PWD workforce benchmark. 

Note: Many of the programs were affected due to COVID-19 pandemic which only limited the onboarding of mission essential personnel. Due to limited staffing, the causes of the triggers could not 

be identified but DO will investigate triggers in FY22. 

C. Awards

Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWDs 

and/or PWTDs for any level of the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If “yes,” 

please describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWD)...........................Yes 

Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) .................................Yes
54 

Time-Off (1-10 Hours): PWDs = 14.51% < 15.25%; PWTDs = 3.65% < 3.87% 

Time-Off (11-20 Hours): PWDs = 16.65% > 15.25%; PWTDs = 4.36% > 3.87% 

Time-Off (21-30 Hours): PWDs = 20.31% > 15.25%; PWTDs = 3.52% < 3.87% 

Time-Off (31-40 Hours): PWDs = 16.43% > 15.25%; PWTDs = 2.42% < 3.87% 

Cash Awards ($500 and Under): PWDs = 14.33% < 15.25%; PWTDs = 3.55% < 3.87% 

Cash Awards ($501 -$999): PWDs = 15.59% > 15.25%; PWTDs = 4.09% > 3.87% 

Cash Awards ($1,000-$1,999): PWDs = 15.34% > 15.25%; PWTDs = 4.11% > 3.87% 

Cash Awards ($2,000-$2,999): PWDs = 15.16% < 15.25%; PWTDs = 3.32% < 3.87% 

Cash Awards ($3,000-$3,999): PWDs = 14.51% < 15.25%; PWTDs = 3.33% < 3.87% 

Cash Awards ($4,000-$4,999): PWDs = 12.26% < 15.25%; PWTDs = 2.23% < 3.87% 

Cash Awards ($5,000 or More): PWDs = 10.51% < 15.25%; PWTDs = 2.17% < 3.87% 

Note: Due to limited staffing, the causes of the triggers could not be identified but DO will 

investigate triggers in FY22. 

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. 

Pay Increases (PWD) ................................................................Yes

Pay Increases (PWTD) ..............................................................Yes

QSI Awards: PWDs = 16.33% > 15.25%; PWTDs = 3.44% < 3.87% 

PBPI Awards: PWDs = 8.00% > 15.25%; PWTDs = 0.00% < 3.87% 

Note: Due to limited staffing, the causes of the triggers could not be identified but DO will 

investigate triggers in FY22. 
55 

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. 

Other Types of Recognition (PWD) .........................................No

Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) .......................................No

DO and HR are not aware of other employee recognition programs. 

D. Promotions 

Does your agency have a trigger involving PWDs 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 non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes,” 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) .................................Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) ..................................................Yes

Grade GS-15 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) .................................Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) ..................................................Yes

Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) .................................Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) ..................................................Yes

Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) .................................Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) .................................................Yes

Applied Qualified Selected

No 

Disability PWDs No Disability PWDs No Disability PWDs

SES 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

GS-15 7.08% 0.36% 3.72% 0.17% 0.14% 0.00%

GS-14 26.85% 2.37% 11.35% 0.86% 0.58% 0.02%
56 

GS-13 66.07% 5.43% 23.86% 2.06% 1.51% 0.09%

In overall, 8.17% PWDs applied, 3.08% were qualified and 0.11% were selected versus 91.8% 

PWODs applied, 38.95% were qualified and 2.23% were selected. 

Note: Due to limited staffing, the causes of the triggers could not be identified but DO will 

investigate triggers in FY22. 

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 non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes,” 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) ...............................Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) ................................................Yes

Grade GS-15 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) ...............................Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) ................................................Yes

Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) ...............................Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) ................................................Yes

Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) ...............................Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) ................................................Yes

Applied Qualified Selected

No 

Disability PWTDs No Disability PWTDs No Disability PWTDs

SES 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

GS-15 6.99% 0.18% 3.67% 0.07% 0.14% 0.00%

GS-14 26.98% 1.19% 11.38% 0.39% 0.56% 0.02%

GS-13 66.02% 2.90% 23.92% 1.06% 1.50% 0.03%

In overall, 4.23% PWTDs applied, 1.53% were qualified and 0.05% were selected versus 95.7% 

PWODs applied, 38.98% were qualified and 2.20% were selected. 
57 

Note: Due to limited staffing, the causes of the triggers could not be identified but DO will 

investigate triggers in FY22. 

Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWDs 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. 

New Hires to SES (PWD) .........................................................Yes

New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) .....................................................Yes

New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) .....................................................Yes

New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) .....................................................Yes

0.00% of 0 SES new hires were PWD, vs 100.00% of qualified PWD applicants.

0.00% of 24 new hires to GS-15 were PWD, vs 0.17% of qualified PWD applicants. 

0.01% of 98 new hires to GS-14 were PWD, vs 0.87% of qualified PWD applicants.

0.09% of 261 new hires to GS-13 were PWD, vs 2.06% of qualified PWD applicants. 

Note: Due to limited staffing, the causes of the triggers could not be identified but DO will 

investigate triggers in FY22. 

Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWTDs 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. 

New Hires to SES (PWTD) ......................................................Yes

New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) ...................................................Yes

New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) ...................................................Yes

New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) ...................................................Yes

0.00% of 0 SES new hires were PWTDs, vs 100.00% of qualified PWTD applicants. 

0.00% of 24 new hires to GS-15 were PWTDs, vs 0.17% of qualified PWTD applicants.

0.01% of 98 new hires to GS-14 were PWTDs, vs 0.87% of qualified PWTD applicants. 

0.09% of 261 new hires to GS-13 were PWTDs, vs 2.06% of qualified PWTD applicants. 
58 

Note: Due to limited staffing, the causes of the triggers could not be identified but DO will 

investigate triggers in FY22. 

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. 

Executives 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) .................................No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) ..................................................No

Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) .................................No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) ..................................................No

Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) .................................No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) ..................................................No

Data source was not available from the Applicant Flow Data (AFD) due to changing technical 

systems rendered data inaccessible. DO will work with HR to formulate a data plan to include 

Executives, Managers and Supervisors on a permanent basis. Therefore, no triggers could be 

identified at this time.
59 

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. 

Executives 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) ...............................No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) ................................................No

Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) ...............................No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) ................................................No

Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) ...............................No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) ................................................No

Data source was not available from the Applicant Flow Data (AFD) due to changing technical 

systems rendered data inaccessible. DO will work with HR to formulate a data plan to include 

Executives, Managers and Supervisors on a permanent basis. Therefore, no triggers could be 

identified at this time.

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. 

New Hires for Executives (PWD) .............................................No

New Hires for Managers (PWD) ..............................................No

New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) ...........................................No

Data source was not available from the Applicant Flow Data (AFD) due to changing technical 

systems rendered data inaccessible. DO will work with HR to formulate a data plan to include 

Executives, Managers and Supervisors on a permanent basis. Therefore, no triggers could be 

identified at this time.
60 

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. 

New Hires for Executives (PWTD) ..........................................No

New Hires for Managers (PWTD) ............................................No

New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) ........................................No

Data source was not available from the Applicant Flow Data (AFD) due to changing technical 

systems rendered data inaccessible. DO will work with HR to formulate a data plan to include 

Executives, Managers and Supervisors on a permanent basis. Therefore, no triggers could be 

identified at this time.

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities

To be a model employer for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) and Persons with Targeted Disabilities 

(PWTD), 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.
61 

A. Voluntary and Involuntary Separations

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. 

No. During FY21, only one employee with a Schedule A appointment was eligible for conversion 

to career or career conditional did not occur because their managers did not send the Request for 

Personnel Action (RPA) to their respective HR’s Customer Accounts Managers (CAM) until FY22. 

The EEO office addressed this missing action to DLA HR Services which HR is reaching out to the 

management to find out about their intent to convert this employee. 

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. 

Voluntary Separations (PWD) .................................................No

Involuntary Separations (PWD) ...............................................No

Out of the total workforce separations, 93.94% were permanent and 6.06% were temporary. 

Voluntary permanent separations under the 12% benchmark: 9.31% PWDs vs 67.37% PWODs 

Involuntary permanent separations under the 12% benchmark: 2.86% PWDs vs 17.33% PWODs 

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.

Voluntary Separations (PWTD) ................................................No

Involuntary Separations (PWTD) .............................................No

Voluntary permanent separations under the 2% benchmark: 2.54% PWTDs vs 67.37% PWODs 

Involuntary permanent separations under the 2% benchmark: 0.59% PWTDs vs 17.33% PWODs 

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. 

None. 
62 

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.

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.

DLA web page at www.dla.mil has a link that reads “Accessibility/Section 508.” This link takes 

visitors to the DLA Section 508 page: http://www.dla.mil/508.aspx. This page instructs 

individuals who are having difficulty accessing any part of the DLA website to complete the 

hyperlinked DoD Section 508 Issues, Complaints and Concerns Form at 

https://dodcio.defense.gov/DoDSection508/Section-508-Form/ which starts the current complaint

process.

Please provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining 

employees and applicant’s rights under the Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of 

how to file a complaint.

http://www.dla.mil/EEO/ABA/

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.

During FY2021, the DLA Assistive Technology (AT)/Section 508 Compliance Branch strengthened its 

accessibility initiatives in the areas of User Support, Procurement of Accessible Information Technology 

(IT), Application and Content Development, and Training. 

User Support: The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch maintains a contract for AT support services. 

This contract provides configuration, troubleshooting and support of AT across the DLA Enterprise so 

that users with disabilities can execute their work and support the warfighter. This contract also provides 

the specialized AT knowledge that is needed to support DLA’s Reasonable Accommodation (RA) 

program. Engineers under this contract provide state-of-the-art IT recommendations to support one or 

multiple disabilities; they also provide input into DLA’s IT policy and infrastructure decisions to address 

the needs of users with disabilities in future infrastructure decisions. 

The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch maintains enterprise licensing for AT software. This more 

efficient, centralized process has greatly reduced lengthy and unproductive wait times experienced by 

AT users by decreasing the time needed to obtain the software from weeks to hours and the time 

needed for installations from days to minutes. 
63 

The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch continues to support and engage with Employees with 

Disabilities by:

• Providing Tier 2 Remedy support 

• Hosting a dedicated support group so that their concerns are routed to a specialized team that 

can address their issues and promptly resolve them

• Implementing a dedicated team mailbox providing direct support to users of AT tools, IT 

developers, and content creators

Over the next fiscal year, AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch plans to:

• Continue to evaluate new releases of Assistive Technology software and provide to DLA users 

as appropriate 

Procurement of Accessible IT: The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch and DLA HQ Contracting 

Office participated in GSA’s Solicitation Review Tool (SRT) second round of user acceptance testing. 

The tool was fully deployed in July 2020. The tool measures whether Federal agencies are including 

Section 508 language in their IT solicitations. The Assistive Technology/508 Compliance Branch will 

continue to engage with DLA HQ Contracting Office to encourage use of the tool to ensure that Section 

508 requirements are included in all IT solicitations.

DLA’s Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) have implemented procedures to ensure incorporation of 

Section 508 contract language into official contracting documents. Since March 2020, DLA 

Acquisition, J72, has pulled a report every other month from Federal Procurement Data System – Next

Generation (FPDS-NG) of all IT related contracts. From this report, randomly selected contracts were 

reviewed to ensure the following:

Section 508 requirements were incorporated in PWSs, Statements of Objective (SOO), or in 

solicitations for Information Communications Technology (ICT) products and services.

Procurement notes H11 & L29 were incorporated in solicitations and awards when procuring ICT 

products and services.

The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch continues to advocate for buying and developing accessible IT 

by providing training, communications, and resources to build awareness of what is required and who is 

responsible. Helpful resources are published on the AT/Section 508 intranet site. Additionally, DLA 

HQ Contracting Office has a better understanding of the legal requirements for IT accessibility, and 

they are updating their job aids to ensure management of IT accessibility throughout the procurement 

phases (pre-award, award, and post-award). 

Application and Content Development: The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch actively engages 

with application developers and content creators. This engagement consists of outreach, consultation, 

assistance with Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) completion, VPAT review, testing, 

and recommendations. For application developers, the VPAT is the centerpiece for this engagement. 

The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch customized the VPAT for the DLA enterprise. This 

customization enhanced the ability of the numerous program offices to conduct self-assessments to 

improve their accessibility posture. During this period, the team assisted 12 program offices in 

successfully completing the VPAT process for components of their programs. 
64 

The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch provides best practice information for content creators to 

build accessible e-content. This best practice information includes accessibility guidance on how to 

create accessible documents; frequently asked questions; links to resource material and accessibility 

checklists. During this period, the team assisted 20 program offices with content remediation. 

The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch continues to work with the Learning Management System 

(LMS) program to provide application compliance recommendations, accessibility implementation 

guidance and application testing with multiple AT software. The DLA Section 508 office maintains a 

partnership with the J1 LMS multimedia team to functionally test courses, provide course design 

guidance and spot checking of enterprise-wide mandatory courses prior to their deployment. This 

engagement continues to reduce the number of courses that require alternate engagement actions for 

AT users.

The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch has completed its pilot phase for a commercial automated 

accessibility scanning tool. The tool provides enterprise level accessibility audits, reporting, and 

measures the accessibility of an application against the Section 508 standards. These tools are currently 

operational and provides automated scans for accessibility issues on thousands of DLA’s public 

webpages. Additionally, the AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch has released a software tool for users 

to provide compliance scanning of individual webpages from the user’s individual workstations. This 

tool provides developers and content creators the ability to troubleshoot accessibility issues and focus 

remediation efforts. Additionally, the tool provides online resources to create a detailed understanding 

of the identified accessibility challenges along with remediation guidance. 

Training: The AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch provided accessibility education and training using 

various platforms to increase knowledge of accessibility through the DLA enterprise, to include the 

following:

• Presented twelve on-line workshops providing over 21 hours of interactive training on 

accessibility topics of interest to IT developers, testers, and content creators. These topics 

included Accessible Design Guidelines, Testing Websites with Screen Reader Tools, Fixing 

Common Issues and Preparing Accessible E-Documents 

• Partnering with the DLA LMS program office to develop and deploy 18 self-registering, selfpaced courses allowing general employees as well as content developer professions to enhance 

their understanding of accessibility-related topics

• Providing 150 developers with access to Deque University, an on-line accessibility learning 

platform

• Maintaining an intranet site with best practice accessibility information

• Authoring and publishing 14 issue-focused knowledge-based articles providing tailored step-bystep instructions on accessibility issues hindering users of AT tools within the DLA enterprise

• Publishing best-practice articles on the DLA intranet site on various accessibility topics

Over the next fiscal year, the AT/Section 508 Compliance Branch plans to:

Partner with the DLA LMS program office to develop and host our recorded online workshops on 

the LMS platform

• Present twelve on-line workshops 

• Publish additional best-practice articles. 
65 

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.

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.)

On average, the reasonable accommodation (RA) process took 12 workdays (20 in FY20) to 

approve or deny a request for an RA, and 27 workdays (34 in FY20) from the initial request to 

provide the RA. 

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.

DLA has Instructions and detailed procedures for the Reasonable Accommodation Process that 

outline the process and the required actions for each stakeholder role.

During FY21, DLA processed 96% (88% in FY20) of RA requests within 45 workdays, exceeding 

the 90% goal. 

DLA provides interim accommodations while requestors are waiting for their final RA decision. 

This allows employees to continue to work while waiting on the RA process. 

DLA supervisors, managers, and employees are required to take RA training in LMS every two 

years. In addition, face-to-face training has been instituted to augment the RA training in LMS. 

DO holds quarterly DPC meetings to review, update and resolve issues with the RA process.

D. Personal Assistance Services (PAS) 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 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. 

PAS information is available at https://www.dla.mil/EEO/Offers/PersonalAssistanceServices/ 
66 

about “Requesting a Personal Assistance Services” which explains the rights and procedures of 

the PAS process. The new DPM is working to update the DLA SOP 1440.01-01, RA for 

Individuals with Disabilities, which will include the PAS information. 

DLA is working towards a decentralized contract that will provide the PAS to each Major 

Subordinate Command (MSC). One request was received in the past, but after further 

clarification and vetting with Legal, it was determined that the employee did not qualify, and the 

individual was provided a reasonable accommodation instead. To date the EEO offices have not 

yet received any PAS requests, but they are ready to provide PAS once requested. 

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data 

A. EEO Complaint data involving Harassment 

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of Persons with Disabilities (PWD) file a 

formal EEO complaint alleging harassment, as compared to the government-wide average?

No. The percentages were lower than the Government-wide average for formal complaints - 

Harassment at 22.10%. 

DLA average for FY21: 

Mental: 9 of 112 = 8.0% 

Physical: 13 of 112 = 11.6% 

During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on disability status 

result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

In FY21, there were 0 findings of discrimination, and 12 settlement agreements were entered. 

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.

None. 
67 

B. EEO Complaint Data involving Reasonable Accommodation 

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?

No. The percentages were lower than the Government-wide average - Failure to Accommodate 

at 14.33%. 

DLA average for FY21: 

Mental: 6 of 112 = 5.4% 

Physical: 7 of 112 = 6.3% 

During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable 

accommodation result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

In FY21, there was 1 finding of discrimination and 1 settlement agreement was entered. 

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. 

Finding one: The case was at an EEOC hearing when the Administrative Judge (AJ) stated 

Complainant was subject to discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, when his 

conditional job offer was rescinded due to his medical condition. The AJ stated there was no 

evidence that the Agency conducted an individualized assessment of Complainant’s ability to 

perform the Maintenance Worker position. The undisputed evidence is that the Agency Doctor 

conducted a brief medical exam and decided that Complainant presented a risk of further injury. 

The AJ entered a finding that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act by rescinding the job 

offer to Complainant based on Complainant’s medical records and based on an inappropriate, 

unsupported conclusion of risk of future injury. The Agency appealed the AJ’s decision. Note: 

This case was not for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, but an individualized 

assessment issue is in question.

DLA continues to provide face-to-face RA training to senior leaders, supervisors, and employees, 

to augment the mandatory LMS mandatory online training every two years to ensure all personnel 

understands the reasonable accommodation process. 

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. 
68 

Has the agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices) that affect 

employment opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) and Persons with Targeted 

Disabilities (PWTDs)? Yes

Has the agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWDs and/or PWTDs? Yes

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.

Barrier 1

Trigger 1

1) Glass ceiling for PWTDs above the GS-12 level. 

2) 3.78% of the permanent workforce has reported a targeted disability, but 3.13% of 

the employees who voluntarily separated from DLA had reported a targeted 

disability. 

Barrier(s)

DLA policy documents are not accessible to all employees. DLAIs (DLA 

Instructions), DLA Regulations (DLARs), DLA Manuals (DLAMs), and DLA SOPs 

(Standard Operating Procedures) do not pass the Adobe Acrobat accessibility checker.

Objective(s) Ensure all DLA policy documents are accessible to all employees, consistent with the 

Rehabilitation act.

Responsible Official(s)

Name and Title

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Aleeta Coleman, Director, DLA Transformation (DT) No

Greg Wicklund, Deputy Director, DLA Transformation (DT) No

HQ J/D code and MSC Issuing Authorities No

Thomas Doyle, Chief Policy Management & Oversight (DT) No

Todd Lloyd, Chief Strategy Plans & Governance Division (DT-SPG) No

Michael Dingle, DLA Issuances Program Manager (DT-PMO) Yes

Patricia Wright, Enterprise Organizational Alignment Program Manager (DT-SPG) Yes

Sylvia Nance, DLA Forms Program Manager (DT-PMO) Yes
69 

Name and Title

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Bryon Grosvalet, DLA Agreements Program Manager (DT PMO) Yes

T.A. DeLaney, Director Enterprise Business Standards Office (J67B) No

Kathryn Hammer-Wells, Division Chief (J72) Yes

Anne Burleigh, Business Process Analyst (J72) Yes

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

12/01/2018

Identify all DLAIs, DLARs, DLAMs, Directive-type 

Memoranda (DTMs) and DLA SOPs which do not meet the 

Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 

guidelines, consistent with 29 USC §794d (DT)

Yes 11/9/2018

12/01/2018 Identify all DLA GOs which do not meet the WCAG 2.0 

guidelines, consistent with 29 USC §794d. (DT) Yes 11/9/2018

12/31/2018

Alter DLAI 7750.07, Forms Management Program, to 

address 508 compliance requirements, ensuring all forms 

created/revised meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. (DT)

Yes 2/4/2019

02/28/2019

Alter the DLAI, DLAR, DLAM, DTM and DLA SOP 

templates to meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, consistent with 

29 USC §794d (DT)

Yes 1/30/2019

02/28/2019

Alter DLA Issuance procedures (DLAI 5025.01, DLAM 

5025.01, DLAI 5025.13) to address 508 compliance 

requirements, ensuring all policy and procedure documents 

signed by DT and J code, D code, or MSC Issuing 

Authorities meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. Issuances must 

state:

1) All policy and procedure documents 

created/revised will be 508 compliant.

1) HQs J and D codes and MSCs will be responsible 

for making their existing policy and procedure 

documents 508 compliant.

Yes 2/4/2019
70 

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

2) HQs J and D codes and MSCs must provide DT a 

compliance completion action plan in accordance 

with TMT tasking suspense.

DT will monitor and report on progress of compliance 

action plans to leadership on a quarterly basis. (DT)

02/28/2019

Alter Enterprise Organizational Alignment procedures 

(DLAI 5010.05) to address 508 compliance requirements, 

ensuring documents signed by the DLA Vice Director meet 

the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. Issuance must state:

Current:

1) GO packages created/revised will be 508 compliant

2) DT will be responsible for making GO templates 

and resource documents compliant

3) HQs J and D codes and MSCs will be responsible 

for making their current Mission and Functions and 

*organization charts 508 compliant

4) *Organization charts will be depicted in the 

Missions and Functions document; a stand-alone 

organization chart is not required

5) HQs J and D codes and MSCs must provide DT a 

compliance completion action plan in accordance 

with TMT tasking suspense

Historical (year 2000 and after):

1) Historical (non-current) GOs dated 2000 and after 

must be altered to be 508 compliant.

2) HQs J and D codes and MSCs must alter their 

historical (non-current) GOs to be 508 compliant.

3) HQs J and D codes and MSCs must provide DT a 

compliance completion action plan in accordance 

with the TMT tasking suspense date.

DT will monitor and report on progress of compliance 

action plans to leadership on a quarterly basis. (DT)

Yes 2/4/2019

02/28/2019

Alter DLAI 4000.19, Agreements Program, to address 508 

compliance requirements, ensuring all documents signed by 

the agency’s senior designee meet the WCAG 2.0 

guidelines. Issuance must state:

1) All agreements created or revised will be 508 

compliant

2) HQs J and D codes and MSCs will be responsible 

for making supporting documentation 508 

compliant.

Yes 01/09/2019
71 

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Organizational Support Agreements Managers will ensure 

their organization agreements and supporting documentation 

meet WCAG 2.0 guidelines. (DT)

06/30/2019

Alter all GO templates to ensure approved GO documents 

signed by the DLA Vice Director meet the WCAG 2.0 

guidelines. (DT)

Yes 6/21/2019

06/30/2019

Address 508 compliance requirements in planned revision 

of DLAI 5105.02, Annual Operating Plan, to ensure HQs J 

and D codes and MSC’s Dynamic Operating Plans meet the 

WCAG 2.0 guidelines. (DT)

Yes 6/12/2019

06/01/2019

Alter Defense Logistics Management System documents to 

meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, consistent with 29 USC 

§794d (J67B)

Yes 9/5/2019

6/30/2019

HQs J and D codes and MSCs provide compliance action 

plans to DT for:

1) Policy and procedures

2) Current Mission and Functions

Historical (non-current) GOs (DT)

Yes 12/20/2019

12/31/2019

Conduct a forms survey on active MSC-level forms for 

continued use, revision, and re-designating to DLA-level 

forms, or cancellation. (DT)

Yes 1/10/2020

04/30/2020

Supervisors add relevant planned activities to the 

performance standards of their non-supervisory Responsible 

Officials. (All)

Yes 12/31/2022 1/10/2020

4/31/2020 Alter DLA Acquisition Directive template to meet the 

WCAG 2.0 guidelines, consistent with 29 USC §794d (J72) Yes 12/31/2022 6/25/2020

12/31/2020 Conduct a forms survey on active DLA-level forms for 

continued use, revision, or cancellation. (DT) Yes 12/31/2022

06/30/2021

HQs J and D codes and MSCs must provide all altered 

policy and procedure documents to DT using the 3-year 

Issuance life cycle from 2019-2021. (All)

Yes 12/31/2022

09/30/2021

Using the normal 3-year Issuance life cycle, replace all 

inaccessible policy and procedure documents with 

documents that meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. (DT)

Yes 12/31/2022
72 

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

09/30/2021

Replace current inaccessible GOs and Mission and Function 

documents with altered documents that meet the WCAG 2.0 

guidelines. (DT)

Yes 12/31/2022

09/30/2021 Replace historical inaccessible GOs with altered GOs that 

meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. (DT) Yes 12/31/2022

Report of Accomplishments

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY18 The barrier and its root causes were identified. The templates that the MSCs, J-codes, and D-codes are 

using to draft policies do not meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. No administrative control existed to ensure 

that the final document meets WCAG 2.0 guidelines.

FY19 The D&I committee met repeatedly to discuss the barrier and how DLA should remove it any aspects of 

policy and procedural barriers. 

Most of the planned activities for FY19 were accomplished, as documented above.

FY20 Almost all the planned activities in Part VII were completed.

FY21 Planned activities put on hold due to short staffing and hiring new personnel by end of FY21.

Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing any of the planned 

activities.

During FY21, DLA completed almost all the planned activities in Part VII of the FY20 report, 

four target dates for the four of the activities were readjusted and had to be retargeted to FY22 due 

to reduced EEO staffing. 

For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those 

activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

DLA’s upgraded policy templates allow for new policy documents to be accessible. Current 

policy documents will become accessible as they are reviewed during the normal policy review 

cycle.
73 

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.

DLA has made significant progress in making policy documents accessible, so the plan does not 

currently need improvement. DO remains in close collaboration with the DLA Section 508 office 

continues to monitor newer developments to ensure full compliance. 
74 

Appendix 1 – Glossary

The following definitions apply to this report:

Applicant: A person who applies for employment.

Applicant Flow Data: Information reflecting characteristics of the pool of individuals applying for an employment opportunity.

Barrier: An Agency policy, principle, practice, or condition that limits or tends to limit employment opportunities for members of a 

gender, race, or ethnic background or for an individual (or individuals) based on disability status.

Blocked Pipeline: A blocked pipeline occurs when people who are in upwardly mobile occupations fail to reach the senior grade levels 

within those occupations.

Disability: For the purpose of statistics, recruitment, and targeted goals, the number of employees in the workforce who have indicated 

having a disability on an Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 256. For all other purposes, the definition contained in 29 CFR 

§ 1630.2 applies.

National Civilian Labor Force (NCLF): Persons 16 years of age and over, except those in the armed forces, who are employed or are 

unemployed and seeking work. The EEOC recently updated the NCLF with a tabulated (2014-2018) American Community Survey as of 

January 3, 2022. 

Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF): A specific group in the workforce by individual Job Series. 

Employees: Members of our permanent or temporary work force, whether full or part-time and whether in competitive or excepted service 

positions. 

Fiscal Year: The period from October 1 of one year to September 30 of the following year.

Glass Ceiling: A glass ceiling exists when a EEO group cannot reach the executive level of leadership in an organization, despite their 

presence in positions that comprise the feeder pool for executive positions.

Glass Wall: When individuals in an EEO group cannot obtain employment in our MCOs.

Goal: Under the Rehabilitation Act, an identifiable objective set by an Agency to address or eliminate barriers to equal employment

opportunity or to address the lingering effects of past discrimination.

Mission Critical Occupations (MCO): Agency occupational series without which the agency cannot fulfill its mission. These occupations 

also tend to be the most heavily populated relative to other occupations within the agency and typically follow a career path to senior 

leadership positions. For barrier analysis in FY18 and FY19, DO is using the 29 series that reach the GS-15 and SES level.

Persons without Disabilities: Defined by EEOC to be the sum of people who reported that they did not have a disability and people who 

reported that they had a disability, but that the disability was not listed on Standard Form 256.

Reasonable Accommodation (RA): Generally, any modification or adjustment to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances 

under which work is customarily performed, that enables an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of a position or 

enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as afforded to similarly situated individuals without a disability. For a more complete

definition, see 29 CFR § 1630.2(o).

See also: EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

No. 915.002 (October 17, 2002). 

Targeted Disabilities: Disabilities that the Federal Government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in affirmative 

action programs. They are:

1) Developmental disability

2) Traumatic brain injury

3) Deafness

4) Blindness

5) Missing extremities

6) Partial or complete paralysis

7) Partial or complete paralysis

8) Significant mobility impairment

9) Conclusive disorders

10) Intellectual disability

11) Dwarfism

12) Significant disfigurement 

Technical Assistance: Training, assistance, or guidance provided by the EEOC, in writing, by telephone, or in person
75 

Appendix 2 – Organizational Chart

As of April 2022

 
76 

Appendix 3 – Policy Statements

Policy Statement on Equal Employment Opportunity
77 

Policy Statement on Sexual Harassment
78 
79 

Policy Statement on Reasonable Accommodations 
80 

Policy Statement on Diversity and Inclusion