46 

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

15.83% is greater than the 12.00% benchmark. 

16.53% 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

4.57% is greater than the 2.00% benchmark. 

3.61% 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. 
47 

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 Casandra Green, SPPC; Casandra.Green@dla.mil 

Steven Carney, SPPC; Steven.Carney@dla.mil 

SPPCs answering questions from the 

public about hiring authorities that 

take disability into account

0 0 2 Casandra Green, SPPC; Casandra.Green@dla.mil 

Steven Carney, SPPC; Steven.Carney@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

6 4 8 Richard Harmon, Branch Chief, Enterprise IT 

Accessibility, J62LC Richard.Harmon@dla.mil

Architectural Barriers Act 

Compliance 0 0 7 Tamberly Averett, Installation Management Division Chief, Tamberly.Averett@dla.mil

Special Emphasis Program for PWDs 

and PWTDs 9 0 0 Eric Spanbauer, DLA Special Emphasis Program Manager (SEPM); Eric.Spanbauer@dla.mil

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. 
48 

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 the Schedule A hiring authority, selectees are required to complete a SF-256 form to identify 

their disability. On another avenue, supervisors and managers identify and select qualified 

candidates through the Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP) for College Students with 

Disabilities database are hired with the same Schedule A hiring authority. 

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 uses all available and appropriate hiring authorities to recruit and hire PWD and PWTD. 

Individuals eligible for employment under the hiring authorities pursuant to 29 CFR 

1614.203(a)(3), such as Schedule A, Veterans Recruitment Appointment, and 30% or More 

Disabled Veteran Authority, can be considered for employment opportunities by applying to 

positions on USAJOBs. 
49 

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.

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 Accommodation Network (JAN) 

• Computer/Electronic Accommodations 

Program (CAP) 

• 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. 
50 

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

11.95% is less than the 12.00% benchmark.

2.32% 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)...................................................No

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 in red. 

0080 = 0.36% of 3 hires < 0.83% Security Administration

0089 = 0.12% of 1 hires < 0.95% Emergency Management

0201 = 0.95% of 8 hires < 8.52% Human Resources

0260 = 0.59% of 5 hires < 1.42% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 1.78% of 15 hires < 8.28% Administration and Program

0343 = 1.30% of 11 hires < 12.19% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.36% of 3 hires < 2.37% Logistics Management

0510 = 0.12% of 1 hires < 2.49% Accounting

0801 = 0.12% of 1 hires < 1.42% General Engineering

0905 = 0.36% of 3 hires < 2.72% Attorney

1101 = 0.12% of 1 hires < 0.59% General Business & Industry

1102 = 2.37% of 20 hires < 28.05% Contracting

1104 = 0.36% of 3 hires < 2.72% Property Disposal

2001 = 0.59% of 5 hires < 7.22% General Supply

2003 = 0.47% of 4 hires < 2.01% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.24% of 2 hires < 0.83% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

2210 = 1.89% of 16 hires < 12.78% Information Technology Management

Note: the other 13 Top MCOs not listed here had no FY22 new hires.
51 

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 in red. 

0260 = 0.36% of 3 hires < 1.42% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 0.36% of 3 hires < 8.28% Administration and Program

0343 = 0.47% of 4 hires < 12.19% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.12% of 1 hires < 2.37% Logistics Management

0801 = 0.12% of 1 hires < 1.42% General Engineering

0905 = 0.12% of 1 hires < 2.72% Attorney

1102 = 0.71% of 6 hires < 28.05% Contracting

1104 = 0.24% of 2 hires < 2.72% Property Disposal

2003 = 0.24% of 2 hires < 2.01% Supply Program Management

2210 = 0.36% of 3 hires < 12.78% Information Technology Management

Note: the other 20 Top MCOs not listed here had no FY22 new hires.

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 in red.

0080 = 0.94% of 18 hires < 1.17% Security Administration

0201 = 15.30% of 294 hires > 14.16% Human Resources

0260 = 1.04% of 20 hires > 0.72% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 12.02% of 231 hires > 11.65% Administration and Program

0343 = 13.58% of 261 hires < 13.81% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 2.13% of 41 hires < 2.16% Logistics Management

0501 = 0.16% of 3 hires < 0.32% Financial Administration & Program

0801 = 0.10% of 2 hires > 0.07% General Engineering

1035 = 0.10% of 2 hires = 0.10% General Attorney

1101 = 0.42% of 8 hires = 0.42% General Business & Industry

1102 = 6.66% of 128 hires > 5.83% Contracting

1104 = 10.61% of 204 hires > 9.55% Property Disposal

2001 = 21.75% of 418 hires < 24.02% General Supply

2003 = 8.79% of 169 hires < 9.10% Supply Program Management

2030 = 6.40% of 123 hires < 6.93% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

Note: the other 15 Top MCOs not listed here had no FY21 internal hires.
52 

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 in red.

0080 = 1.56% of 5 hires > 1.47% Security Administration

0201 = 5.92% of 19 hires > 5.49% Human Resources

0260 = 1.25% of 4 hires > 0.57% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 15.58% of 50 hires > 14.55% Administration and Program

0343 = 17.45% of 56 hires < 18.39% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.62% of 2 hires < 1.60% Logistics Management

0501 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.12% Financial Administration & Program

0801 = 0.62% of 2 hires > 0.13% General Engineering

1035 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.03% General Attorney

1101 = 0.31% of 1 hires < 0.42% General Business & Industry

1102 = 7.48% of 24 hires > 6.26% Contracting

1104 = 9.35% of 30 hires < 9.76% Property Disposal

2001 = 24.61% of 79 hires < 24.99% General Supply

2003 = 9.66% of 31 hires > 8.99% Supply Program Management

2030 = 5.61% of 18 hires < 7.24% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

Note: the other 15 Top MCOs not listed here for had no FY22 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 in red.

0080 = 0.19% of 24 hires < 2.47% Security Administration

0089 = 0.08% of 10 hires < 1.41% Emergency Management

0201 = 0.09% of 12 hires < 0.80% Human Resources

0260 = 0.11% of 14 hires < 0.54% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 1.80% of 232 hires < 20.58% Administration and Program

0343 = 2.14% of 276 hires < 21.41% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.28% of 36 hire < 3.33% Logistics Management

0391 = 0.02% of 2 hires < 0.09% Financial Administration & Program

0501 = 0.29% of 38 hires < 3.65% Accounting

0505 = 0.03% of 4 hires < 0.23% Financial Management

0510 = 0.35% of 45 hires < 3.54% Accounting

0511 = 0.10% of 13 hires > 0.02% Auditing

0690 = 0.01% of 1 hire < 0.15% Property Disposal

0801 = 0.02% of 3 hires < 1.14% General Engineering

0810 = 0.00% of 0 hire < 0.02% Civil Engineering

0905 = 0.12% of 15 hires < 3.14% General Attorney

1035 = 0.00% of 0 hire < 0.12% Public Affairs

1101 = 0.12% of 16 hires < 1.38% General Business & Industry
53 

1102 = 0.57% of 73 hires < 7.47% Contracting

2001 = 0.52% of 67 hires < 4.47% General Supply

2003 = 0.22% of 28 hires < 2.93% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.00% of 0 hire < 0.07% Distribution Facilities & Storage Management

2210 = 1.35% of 174 hires < 12.66% Information Technology Management

Note: the other seven Top MCOs not listed here had no FY22 Promotions.

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 in red.

0080 = 0.09% of 12 hires < 2.66% Security Administration

0089 = 0.04% of 5 hires < 1.49% Emergency Management

0201 = 0.06% of 8 hires < 0.89% Human Resources

0260 = 0.06% of 8 hires < 0.65% Equal Employment Opportunity

0301 = 0.90% of 116 hires < 22.37% Administration and Program

0343 = 1.10% of 142 hires < 23.55% Program Management Analyst

0346 = 0.15% of 19 hires < 3.61% Logistics Management

0391 = 0.02% of 2 hires < 0.10% Financial Administration & Program

0501 = 0.13% of 17 hires < 3.94% Accounting

0505 = 0.02% of 3 hires < 0.26% Financial Management

0510 = 0.13% of 17 hires < 3.89% Accounting

0511 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.12% Auditing

0690 = 0.01% of 1 hire < 0.15% Property Disposal

0801 = 0.01% of 1 hire < 1.16% General Engineering

0810 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.02% Civil Engineering

0905 = 0.09% of 11 hire < 3.26% General Attorney

1035 = 0.00% of 0 hire < 0.12% Public Affairs

1101 = 0.07% of 9 hire < 1.50% General Business & Industry

1102 = 0.33% of 42 hire < 8.04% Contracting

2001 = 0.27% of 35 hire < 4.99% General Supply

2003 = 0.10% of 13 hire < 3.14% Supply Program Management

2030 = 0.00% of 0 hires < 0.07% Distribution Facilities & Storage 

Management

2210 = 0.67% of 87 hire < 14.01% Information Technology Management

Note: the other seven Top MCOs not listed here had no FY22 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. 
54 

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 FY23: 

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

programs temporarily delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

• DLA will continue to maximize the use of hiring authorities and flexibilities for individuals 

with disabilities. 

• DLA will continue to conduct outreach programs to educate and attract employees with 

disabilities to apply for positions within the agency. 

• DLA will continue to provide effective Reasonable Accommodations (RA) ensuring all 

qualified employees and applicants with disabilities are afforded benefits and privileges of 

employment equal to employees and applicants without disabilities. 

• 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 FY2022. DO has drafted the Diversity & Inclusion charter and is 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 

FY2023 1st quarter. 

• DLA will continue to fortify its Strategic Plan for DEIA, People and Culture and Sustainability, 

which includes all Disabled employees within the Agency. DLA’s ability to attract, develop, 

and retain a diverse, skilled, and agile workforce is vital to our continued success as the nation’s 

combat logistics support agency. The DLA People and Culture Plan aligns DLA’s mission, 

goals, and objectives with proven human capital strategies. DLA organizations enterprise wide 

owns this plan and work together to achieve a shared vision. 

• Continuous learning has been a long-standing strategy to ensure the DLA workforce has the 

skills needed to meet the Agency's ever-changing requirements. Rotational assignments focus 

on experiential development designed to expand an individual's functional, cross-functional, and 

leadership abilities through on the job learning. Rotational assignments are a key means of 

obtaining depth and breadth of knowledge, fostering greater information sharing and 

understanding of DLA's mission, collaboration, networking, gaining corporate perspective, as 

well as professional enhancement.
55 

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

which is a two-year entry level program that includes successfully completing performancebased measures for advancement and promotion. Another two WRP participants were 

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

FY22.

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 are 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.

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. 
56 

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 581 519 11.95% 10.67% 2.50% 2.24%

Fellowship Programs 1 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Mentoring Programs --- --- --- --- --- ---

Coaching Programs --- --- --- --- --- ---

Training Programs 306 258 18.60% 15.69% 1.94% 1.63%

Detail Programs --- --- --- --- --- ---

Tuition Assistance Program 131 119 10.08% 9.16% 1.68% 1.53%

Other Career Development 

Programs 160 126 18.25% 14.38% 3.17% 2.50%

Total 1,179 1,023 58.89% 49.89% 9.30% 7.90%

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

A total of 11.95% of the 581 applicants to the Internship Programs (PaCER) were PWDs and 10.67% 

of the selectees were PWDs, which is below the permanent 15.51% PWD workforce benchmark. 

A total of 18.60% of the 306 applicants to the Training Programs were PWDs and 15.69% of the 

selectees were PWDs, which is above the permanent 15.51% PWD workforce benchmark. 

A total of 10.08% of the 131 applicants to the Tuition Assistance Program were PWDs and 9.16% of 

the selectees were PWDs, which is below the permanent 15.51% PWD workforce benchmark. 

A total of 18.25% of the 160 applicants to the Other Career Development Programs were PWDs and 

14.38% of the selectees were PWDs, which is below the permanent 15.51% PWD workforce 

benchmark. 
57 

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

A total of 2.50% of the 581 applicants to the Internship Programs (PaCER) were PWTDs and 2.24% of 

the selectees were PWTDs, which is below the permanent 3.74% PWD workforce benchmark. 

A total of 1.94% of the 306 applicants to the Training Programs were PWTDs and 1.63% of the 

selectees were PWDs, which is below the permanent 3.74% PWD workforce benchmark. 

A total of 1.68% of the 131 applicants to the Tuition Assistance Program were PWTDs and 1.53% of 

the selectees were PWTDs, which is below the permanent 3.74% PWD workforce benchmark. 

A total of 3.17% of the 160 applicants to the Other Career Development Programs were PWDs and 

2.50% of the selectees were PWDs, which is below the permanent 3.74% PWD workforce benchmark. 

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

Time-Off Awards

1 - 10 Hours: PWDs = 14.37% < 15.41% PWTDs = 3.52% < 3.73%

11 - 20 Hours: PWDs = 15.47% < 15.41% PWTDs = 3.93% > 3.73%

21 - 30 Hours: PWDs = 18.04% > 15.41% PWTDs = 4.89% > 3.73%

31 - 40 Hours: PWDs = 16.11% > 15.41% PWTDs = 2.01% < 3.73%

41 or More Hours: PWDs = 0.00% < 15.41% PWTDs = 0.00% < 3.73%

Cash Awards

$500 and Under: PWDs = 14.40% < 15.41% PWTDs = 3.65% < 3.73%

$501 - $999: PWDs = 16.14% > 15.41% PWTDs = 4.15% > 3.73%

$1,000 - $1,999: PWDs = 15.19% < 15.41% PWTDs = 4.05% > 3.73%

$2,000 - $2,999: PWDs = 15.45% < 15.41% PWTDs = 3.46% < 3.73%

$3,000 - $3,999: PWDs = 15.21% < 15.41% PWTDs = 3.23% < 3.73%

$4,000 - $4,999: PWDs = 13.94% < 15.41% PWTDs = 2.93% < 3.73%

$5,000 or More: PWDs = 13.43% < 15.41% PWTDs = 2.24% < 3.73%
58 

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

Quality Step Increases (QSI) Awards

$500 and Under: PWDs = 16.33% > 15.41% PWTDs = 3.44% < 3.73%

Performance Based Pay Increase (PBPI) Awards: 

$2,000 - $2,999: PWDs = 9.09% > 15.41% PWTDs = 0.00% < 3.73%

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 

1. 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) .................................No

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

Grade GS-15 

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

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) ..................................................Yes
59 

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% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

GS-15 11.63% 0.86% 12.98% 0.40% 0.42% 0.72%

GS-14 34.05% 3.05% 39.88% 1.74% 1.70% 3.50%

GS-13 54.32% 4.90% 47.14% 2.29% 3.24% 4.34%

Note: SES had no triggers because there were no SES promotions during FY22. In 

overall, 8.81% PWDs applied, 4.43% were qualified and 8.56% were selected, versus 

91.19% PWODs applied, 95.57% qualified and 91.44% were selected. 

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 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
60 

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% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

GS-15 11.47% 0.51% 12.76% 0.39% 7.63% 0.28%

GS-14 34.12% 1.50% 39.99% 1.67% 30.79% 0.56%

GS-13 54.42% 2.43% 47.25% 2.20% 61.58% 2.82%

Note: SES had no triggers because there were no SES promotions during FY22. In 

overall, 4.4% PWTDs applied, 4.26% were qualified and 3.67% were selected, versus 

95.56% PWODs applied, 95.74% qualified and 96.33% were selected.

3. 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) .........................................................No

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 0.00% of qualified PWD applicants (note: there were no SES 

openings in FY22).

1.96% of 20 new hires to GS-15 were PWD, vs 0.94% of qualified PWD applicants. 

2.45 % of 48 new hires to GS-14 were PWD, vs 1.44% of qualified PWD applicants. 

9.31% of 132 new hires to GS-13 were PWD, vs 3.62% of qualified PWD applicants. 

DLA is now receiving AFV reports, and triggers were identified. DLA will continue to leverage the data and 

further investigate the triggers to identify potential barriers in the hiring process. The USA Staffing Office at 

OPM changed the former Applicant Flow Data (AFD) Detail Report and re-named it as the Applicant Flow 

Vacancy (AFV) Level Detail Report during the FY22 3rd quarter. OPM created the schema, which includes a 

new ability to identify application details broken down by supervisory vacancies, gender, ethnicity, race, and 

additional disability indicators. DO will look for ways to further leverage the AFV data to better identify 

triggers to conducting barrier analyses.
61 

4. 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) .........................................................No

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 PWTD, vs 0.00% of qualified PWTD applicants (note: there were 

no SES openings in FY22).

0.49% of 20 new hires to GS-15 were PWTDs, vs 1.44% of qualified PWTD applicants. 

0.49% of 48 new hires to GS-14 were PWTDs, vs 0.62% of qualified PWTD applicants. 

2.94% of 132 new hires to GS-13 were PWTDs, vs 0.56% of qualified PWTD applicants. 

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. 

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
62 

DLA is now receiving AFV, and triggers were identified. DLA will continue to leverage the data and 

further investigate the triggers to identify potential barriers in the hiring process. The USA Staffing 

Office at OPM changed the former Applicant Flow Data (AFD) Detail Report and re-named it as the 

Applicant Flow Vacancy (AFV) Level Detail Report during the FY22 3rd quarter. OPM created the 

schema, which includes a new ability to identify application details broken down by supervisory 

vacancies, gender, ethnicity, race, and additional disability indicators. DO will look for ways to further 

leverage the AFV data to better identify triggers to conducting barrier analyses.

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. 

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

DO will work with HR to formulate a data plan to include Executives, Managers and Supervisors 

on a permanent basis. 

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. 

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

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

New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) ...........................................No
63 

DO will work with HR to formulate a data plan to include Executives, Managers and Supervisors 

on a permanent basis. DO will further investigate when the Enterprise Diversity, Equity, Inclusion 

and Accessibility (DEIA) committee becomes established in FY23.

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. 

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

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

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

DO will work with HR to formulate a data plan to include Executives, Managers and Supervisors 

on a permanent basis. DO will further investigate when the Enterprise Diversity, Equity, Inclusion 

and Accessibility (DEIA) committee becomes established in FY23.

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.

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. Sixteen of 20 employees with Schedule A appointments identified as eligible for conversion 

were converted to career or career conditional appointments. The remaining four (4) employees 

were not converted due to an oversight. The actions are anticipated to be processed by pay period 

beginning 2/26/23. 
64 

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, 95.98% were permanent and 4.02% were temporary. 

Voluntary permanent separations under the 12% benchmark: 11.79% PWDs vs 58.03% PWODs. 

Involuntary permanent separations under the 12% benchmark: 10.09% PWDs vs 54.13% 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: 0.92% PWTDs vs 33.947% PWODs. 

Involuntary permanent separations under the 2% benchmark: 1.83% PWTDs vs 54.13% 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.

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. 
65 

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. 

The outward facing/external DLA web page, www.dla.mil, has a link at the bottom of the page has 

a link that reads “Section 508.” This link takes visitors to the DLA Section 508 page: 

http://www.dla.mil/508.aspx. This page has resources and instructions 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/Section508-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 FY2022, the DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility (J62LC) strengthened its accessibility initiatives 

in the areas of User Support, Procurement of Accessible IT, Application and Content Development, and 

Training. 

User Support

The DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team 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 DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team 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. 

The DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team continues to support and engage with Employees with 

Disabilities by:

• Providing Tier 2 ServiceNow 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; and

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

developers, and content creators.
66 

Over the next fiscal year, we plan to:

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

as appropriate. 

Procurement of Accessible IT

DLA J7 has implemented procedures to ensure incorporation of Section 508 contract language into 

official contracting documents. 

• Since January 2022, 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: 

o Section 508 requirements were incorporated in Performance Work Statement (PWS), 

Statement of Objective (SOO), or Statement of Work (SOW) in solicitations for ICT 

products and services, and Procurement notes H11 & L29 were incorporated in 

solicitations and awards when procuring ICT products and services. 

• Additionally, DLA J7 reviews DLA's ICT contracts in GSA's Solicitation Review Tool (SRT) 

for compliance. 

The DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team 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 J62LC intranet site, 

https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/J62L/SitePages/J62LC.aspx 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 DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team continues to work with the Learning Management System 

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

guidance and application testing with multiple Assistive Technology (AT) software tools. The DLA 

Enterprise IT Accessibility Team maintains a partnership with the J1 LMS multimedia team to 

functionally test courses, as well as provide course design guidance and spot checking of enterprisewide mandatory courses prior to their deployment. This engagement continues to reduce the number of 

courses that require alternate engagement actions for AT users. 

In coordination and collaboration with the DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team, the DLA Enterprise 

Test Office provides Section 508 compliance testing support for the portfolio community on an asneeded basis. The Enterprise Test Office performs manual testing with JAWS, ZoomText, and Dragon 

Naturally Speaking as well as keyboard-only testing. They also engage with the J62 portfolio 

community, stressing the importance of including Section 508 requirements in all ICT development and 

in procurement actions. 

The DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team uses automated software solutions to assist DLA personnel 

in testing and validating website compliance. 

In 2021, the Enterprise IT Accessibility Team completed a pilot of the automated scanning tool, axe 

Monitor, with 17 J62 applications. The team has initiated an Enterprise deployment. The project 

employs two tools, axe Monitor and axe Expert, to assess accessibility compliance.
67 

• axe Monitor: Scanning application which dynamically scans, monitors, and reports on 

accessibility defects of websites and web applications. 

o It provides a mechanical check against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 

2.0 AA standard. 

o It provides trend data on improvements or regressions and assists with root cause analysis. 

• axe Expert: Browser extension that provides fast, in-browser accessibility defect results during 

coding, allowing immediate remediation. 

DLA's public website, www.dla.mil, has been undergoing redesign with accessibility as a requirement 

for content, going page by page through the site starting in October 2021. Even though the required 

annual page reviews in prior years included criteria dedicated to Section 508 accessibility, the 

opportunity to have a temporary dedicated team examine content revealed more improperly formatted 

content than expected. Only a few sections remain before redesign is completed and all pages would 

have been reviewed for accessibility.

The redesign team addresses the following specific areas when adapting content, but also looks out for 

any other related accessibility issues:

DLA's public website, www.dla.mil, has been undergoing redesign with accessibility as a requirement 

for content, going page by page through the site starting in October 2021. Even though the required 

annual page reviews in prior years included criteria dedicated to Section 508 accessibility, the 

opportunity to have a temporary dedicated team examine content revealed more improperly formatted 

content than expected. Only a few sections remain before redesign is completed and all pages would 

have been reviewed for accessibility.

The redesign team addresses the following specific areas when adapting content, but also looks out for 

any other related accessibility issues:

• Use of and logical progression of headers on pages to subdivide content, from H1-H4. 

• Ensuring tables are not being used for layout purposes, table data is organized properly and 

logically, and row/column headers are used. 

• Images have alt text. 

• Images of text are replaced with actual text, or a text equivalent is provided. 

• Color is not the sole indicator of emphasis or action within text. 

• Favoring open-captioned videos when given the choice of video content to embed Major 

accomplishments include: 

o Redesigned hundreds of previously inaccessible tables to formats that are both more 

accessible, easier to read and navigate. 

o Developed code to clean up system-generated images associated with our news and 

biographies that weren't displaying alt text. 

o Created text-based equivalents of dozens of promotional brochures. 

The largest challenge will be when the sitewide redesign is complete and individual content managers 

begin creating and editing new content. Risks are mitigated by specifically citing what made previous 

content inaccessible, providing updated standards that further enforce accessibility, and continuing to 

provide training resources to support accessible best practices. 
68 

Training: 

The DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team uses various platforms to increase knowledge of 

accessibility through the DLA enterprise, to include the following: 

• Four real-time interactive accessibility webinars. 

• Providing 300 (up from 150) licenses to developers giving access to Deque University, an online accessibility learning platform; 

• Provide training courses in DLA’s Learning Management System (LMS) 

o 18 self-paced accessibility training courses; 

o Nine recorded interactive accessibility webinars; 

• Maintaining an intranet site with best practice accessibility information; 

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

• Maintaining 14 issue-focused knowledge-based articles (KBAs) and more when the need arises.

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.) 

In FY22, a total of 743 (389 in FY21, 589 in FY20) of RA requests were made and 89% (96% in 

FY21, 91% in FY20) of those completed were timely and 1 (1 in FY21, 8 in FY20) remained open to 

the following FY. 

On average during FY22, the Reasonable Accommodation (RA) process took 20 workdays (12 in 

FY21, 20 in FY20) to approve or deny a request for an RA, and 26 workdays (27 in FY21, 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 roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders within the process. 

During FY22, DLA processed 89% (96% in FY21, 88% in FY20) of RA requests within 45 

workdays, just below the 90% goal. This decrease in timeliness was in part due to the increase in the 

types of requests that were submitted during this timeframe (remote work, fulltime telework, 

telework for three or more days a week and reassignment). 

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. 
69 

DLA employees are required to attend an on-line RA training course designed to provide awareness 

of matters affecting persons with disabilities in the workplace and DLA’s reasonable accommodation 

application process. All employees are required to renew this training every two years and 

supervisors/managers are required to take it annually. 

DLA will continue to hold the quarterly Enterprise-wide Disability Program, Special Emphasis 

Program & Affirmative Employment Program Roundtable meeting that is a forum for on-the-spot 

training, sharing best practices and trends, discussing accommodation issues, and implementing 

solutions. 

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. 

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/ 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.

One request was received in the past, but after further clarification and vetting with the Office of 

General Counsel, 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?
70 

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

harassment cases at 21.98%.

DLA average for FY22: 462 PART IV, Part 2 

Mental: 8 of 127 formal complaints = 6.29% 

Physical: 7 of 127 formal complaints = 5.51%

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?

In FY22, a total of 7 settlement agreements were entered. There were no findings of discrimination 

alleging harassment based on disability. 

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.

None. 

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?

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

14.03%.

DLA average for FY22: 462 PART IV, Part 2 

Mental: 1 of 127 formal complaints = 0.78% 

Physical: 6 of 127 formal complaints = 4.72% 

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?

In FY22, there were zero findings of discrimination, and four settlement agreements were entered. 
71 

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. 

FY22: N/A.

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. 

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

HQ J/D code and MSC Issuing Authorities No
72 

Name and Title

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Sabrina DeWalt, Chief Policy Management & Oversight (DT) No

Dennis King, Chief Strategy Plans & Governance Division (DT-SPG) No

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

Dana Norton, Enterprise Organizational Alignment Program Manager (DT-SPG) Yes

Randy Davis, DLA Forms Program Manager (DT-PMO) Yes

Jodi Beard, 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 General Order memorandums and 

missions and functions 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 

Yes 2/4/2019
73 

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

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.

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

for making their existing policy and procedure 

documents 508 compliant. 

3) DT created a standard issuance with Section 508 

compatible template for use to document policies 

and procedures throughout the agency.

4) DT provided the guidance, tools, and training to the 

OPR policy managers and procedural writers for 

oversight requirements for 508 compliancy. OPR 

must establish decentralized operation to ensure 

their local issuances are complying.

DT will monitor and report on progress of compliance 

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

02/28/2019

Ensure Enterprise Organizational Alignment procedures 

(DLAI 5010.05) address 508 compliance requirements, 

ensuring the General Order memorandums, and missions 

and functions documents signed by the DLA Vice Director 

meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. Issuance must state:

Current:

1) General Order memorandums and missions and 

functions are 508 compliant beginning in 2020. 

1) DT is responsible for ensuring that General Order

memorandums and missions and functions 

documents are compliant.

2) HQs J and D codes and MSCs must provide 

compliant memorandums and missions and 

functions. 

Historical (year 2020 and after):

1) Historical (non-current) General Order 

memorandums signed by the DLA DV and the 

missions and functions dated 2020 and after must 

be 508 compliant.

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

compliance memorandums and missions and 

functions. 

Yes 2/4/2019

02/28/2019 Alter DLAI 4000.19, Agreements Program, to address 508 

compliance requirements, ensuring all documents signed by 

Yes 01/09/2019
74 

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

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.

Organizational Support Agreements Managers will ensure 

their organization agreements and supporting documentation 

meet WCAG 2.0 guidelines. (DT)

06/30/2019

Ensure the General Order memorandums and missions and 

functions 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) General Order memorandums and Missions and 

Functions. 

Historical (non-current) General Order memorandums and 

missions and functions dating back to 2020. (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
75 

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

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

continued use, revision, or cancellation. (DT) Yes 12/31/2023 

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 12/31/2023 

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 12/31/2023 

09/30/2021

Replace currently inaccessible General Orders 

memorandums and mission and function documents dating 

back to 2020 with altered documents that meet the WCAG 

2.0 guidelines. (DT)

Yes 12/31/2023 

09/30/2021

Replace historically inaccessible General Orders 

memorandums and missions and functions dating back to 

2020 with altered documents that meet the WCAG 2.0 

guidelines. (DT)

Yes 12/31/2023 

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 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; User Support systems were readily made 

available to provide configurations, troubleshooting and Assistive Technology support throughout the 

Enterprise. 

FY21 Continue to evaluate new releases of Assistive Technology software and provide to DLA users as

appropriate; Implemented Section 508 procedures for MSCs; and increased Section 508 training on 

technology standards; and DLA won the SECDEF award for Accessible Communication and Technology 

in October 2021.

FY22 Worked with 508 Program Management team to continue to evaluate accessibility on all posted documents 

on both intra and external websites; The DLA Enterprise IT Accessibility Team uses various platforms to 

increase knowledge of Section 508 accessibility through the DLA enterprise.
76 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY23 Planned activities on all aspects of accessibility will continue in FY23 and it will be further supported once 

the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) committee becomes established. 

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 FY21 due 

to reduced EEO staffing. In FY22, planned activities continued and delays are not anticipated for 

FY23. 

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.

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 

and continues to monitor newer developments to ensure full compliance. 
77 

Appendix 1 – Glossary

The following definitions apply to this report:

Applicant: A person who applies for employment.

Applicant Flow Data: Formerly 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.

Civilian Labor Force (CLF): 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 CLF 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
78 

Appendix 2 – Organizational Chart

As of December 2022

 
79 

Appendix 3 – Policy Statements

Policy Statement on Equal Employment Opportunity