Foreign Affairs Management: State Department Has Strengthened Foreign Service Promotion Process Internal Controls, but Documentation Gaps Remain
Published: 2013-07-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: States Foreign Service promotion process follows an up-or-out principle, under which failure to gain promotion to higher rank within a specified time leads to mandatory retirement for personnel in certain occupational categories. States OIG and the Foreign Service Grievance Board identified procedural concerns relating to the process in 2010.
GAO was asked to review the Foreign Service promotion process. This report examines (1) States process for ranking and promoting Foreign Service personnel, (2) procedural changes State has made to its Foreign Service promotion process in response to identified concerns, and (3) the extent to which updated procedures were consistently followed in 2011 and 2012 and whether any notable concerns about the promotion process remain. GAO reviewed laws and procedures; analyzed selection, performance standards, and reconstituted board files as well as grievance case files for the 2011 and 2012 promotion cycles; interviewed State officials; and contacted 2011 and 2012 board members to offer them an opportunity to comment on the process.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of State's (State) Foreign Service promotion process includes convening several types of boards to evaluate candidates for promotion and identify other candidates for possible separation from the Service. State has a separate process to address related grievances. Selection boards review all candidates and sort them into one of three categories: promotable, mid-ranked, and low-ranked. The selection boards produce rank-ordered lists of those candidates recommended for promotion, and a "cut line" is subsequently determined based on the number of available promotion slots. Before announcing promotions, State vets all recommended candidates to determine whether there are outstanding issues, such as a pending investigation, that can lead to their removal from the promotion list. Subsequently, State convenes performance standards boards to assess low-ranked candidates for possible separation from the Service. There are several mechanisms to address grievances relating to the promotion process. For example, State may initiate reconstituted boards to reassess candidates if a board failed to follow the procedures or if the underlying performance information contained omissions or inaccuracies. Employees not satisfied with grievance outcomes can file an appeal with the Foreign Service Grievance Board.
In response to concerns identified by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Foreign Service Grievance Board in 2010, State has taken a number of actions to strengthen its Foreign Service promotion process internal controls. For example, in response to concerns about improper introduction of information about candidates, State instituted a requirement that board members sign an oath to adhere to the promotion criteria and protect the confidentiality of board materials. State also revised its procedures governing recusal requests, thereby broadening the provisions under which a candidate can request an individual board member's recusal from reviewing their file. In addition, State updated its reconstituted board procedures, outlining a set of required documents, such as signed board member score sheets, to be included in each board's official record. In addition to actions taken in response to others' identified concerns, State initiated other practices to strengthen promotion process safeguards, such as including selection board and reconstituted board member recusal memos in the final board report.
GAO found that Foreign Service selection boards, performance standards boards, and reconstituted boards complied with many of State's updated procedures in the 2011 and 2012 Foreign Service promotion cycles, but some board reports had documentation gaps for certain internal controls. For example, all 41 selection board reports we reviewed included a signed memo certifying final results. However, only 29 of 41 selection boards had signed oaths from all board members, and 45 of 122 required oaths were missing from 2012 selection board reports. In addition, some board reports lacked documentation of some recusal requests. The absence of a fully documented system of controls increases the risk that intentional or unintentional failures to implement safeguards, by board members or State Human Resources staff, may go undetected and uncorrected. Such a failure to implement safeguards, in turn, increases the risk that the integrity of promotion results could be intentionally or inadvertently compromised.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that State take actions to ensure full implementation of promotion process internal controls. State concurred with GAO's recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of State (State) assessed more than 8,500 Foreign  Service personnel performance files for the 2012 promotion process.  State’s Foreign Service promotion system follows an up-or-out principle,  under which failure to gain promotion to a higher rank within a specified  period for certain personnel leads to mandatory retirement. Key aspects  of State’s promotion process include the annual convening of selection  boards, State’s processing of selection board results, and the convening  of performance standards boards to determine whether “low ranked”  officers should be recommended for separation from the Foreign Service.  Subsequent to previous allegations of improprieties in the process,  State’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed State’s Foreign  Service promotion process and concluded, in March 2010, that it was  fundamentally fair and trustworthy. Nonetheless, the OIG identified areas  of concern and made recommendations to strengthen the process, which  State agreed to implement.
You asked us to examine State’s Foreign Service promotion process in  light of previously identified concerns. This report addresses actions  taken by State since March 2010 to help ensure the Foreign Service  promotion process operates with fairness and integrity. Specifically, this  report examines (1) State’s process for ranking and promoting Foreign  Service personnel, (2) procedural changes State has made to its Foreign  Service promotion process in response to identified concerns, and (3) the  extent to which updated procedures were consistently followed in 2011  and 2012 and whether any notable concerns about the promotion process  remain.
To review State’s process for ranking and promoting Foreign Service  personnel, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and procedures  governing State’s promotion and grievance processes, and interviewed  officials from State’s Bureau of Human Resources (HR). We reviewed  State data on the 2011 and 2012 Foreign Service promotion cycles. We  reviewed how these data were collected, entered, and checked for  accuracy, and determined them to be sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. To examine the procedural changes State has made to its  Foreign Service promotion process, we reviewed concerns identified by  the OIG and State’s Foreign Service Grievance Board and whether they  had been addressed. We determined whether State’s responses had  been incorporated into its operating procedures, policies, and supporting  documentation by reviewing relevant agency documents. To determine  whether procedural changes were consistently followed and appropriately  documented, we reviewed relevant grievance files and selection board,  performance standards board, and reconstituted board records—referred  to as board reports. To determine whether additional notable concerns  remain, we reviewed all 2011 and 2012 selection board reports,  specifically these boards’ written concerns and recommendations on how  to improve the promotion process, as well as all grievances filed after the  2011 promotion cycle was completed, which were recorded by grievance  staff as those related to promotion, low ranking, performance standards  boards, or separation. We also administered an online data collection tool  to members of the 2011 and 2012 selection boards, performance  standards boards, and reconstituted boards to determine whether they  had any concerns with the operations of their boards.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to July 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details on our scope  and methodology can be found in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: State’s Foreign Service promotion process is governed by the Foreign  Affairs Manual (FAM), the Foreign Service Act, and the Procedural  Precepts for the Foreign Service Selection Boards—referred to as the  procedural precepts. The procedural precepts are negotiated each year  between State and the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA),  and establish the scope, organization, and responsibilities of the Foreign  Service selection boards that evaluate candidates for promotion. The  procedural precepts cover areas such as the conditions for eligibility for  promotion, guidance for boards on evaluating candidates, and the  information boards are required to submit to the Director General of the  Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources (Director General).  The procedural precepts are provided to all selection board members at  the convening of the boards and, according to State officials, are made  available to all Foreign Service personnel worldwide.
The decision criteria for promotion in the Foreign Service, also known as  the core precepts, provide the guidelines by which selection boards  evaluate Foreign Service personnel for promotion. At least every 3 years,  State and AFSA negotiate the core precepts. The core precepts define  specific skills and levels of accomplishment expected at different grades  and across the core competencies of Foreign Service personnel. These  competencies include leadership skills, management skills, interpersonal  skills, communication and foreign language skills, intellectual skills, and  substantive knowledge—the skills, knowledge, and ability an employee  applies to the job.
State’s Foreign Service promotion system follows an up-or-out principle,  under which failure to gain promotion to higher rank within a specified  period in a single salary class leads to mandatory retirement for  personnel in certain occupational categories. State’s FAM outlines the  time-in-class and time-in-service limits for specific occupational  categories.
Various offices and entities play key roles in the Foreign Service  promotion process.
HR, under the direction of the Director General, has authority over the  Foreign Service promotion process.
The Office of Performance Evaluation, within HR, manages the  promotion process, including recommending selection board  members and processing final promotion results and other selection  board outcomes. The office also provides various types of assistance  and services related to the promotion process, such as guidance to  employees in preparing their evaluation materials and monitoring of  selection board activities.
Grievance staff, also within HR, process grievances relating to the  Foreign Service promotion process or underlying performance  information relied upon by the selection boards or performance  standards boards.
The Foreign Service Grievance Board provides an appeal mechanism  for employees not satisfied with the outcome of grievances at the  agency level. The board currently consists of 20 members. Each  member, as well as the chairman, is appointed by the Secretary of  State for a term of 2 years, subject to renewal.
AFSA provides Foreign Service personnel guidance in preparing  evaluation materials. In addition, AFSA attorneys provide assistance  to staff who file a grievance with State or the Foreign Service  Grievance Board.
section_title: The Foreign Service Promotion Process Includes Several Boards That Evaluate Promotion Candidates
paragraphs: State’s Foreign Service promotion process includes several types of  boards that evaluate and rank order candidates for promotion, identify  other candidates for possible separation from the Service, and address  promotion process-related grievances. Foreign Service selection boards  identify certain candidates for promotion, “low rank” others, and make  other determinations. Performance standards boards then review low- ranked candidates for possible separation from the Service. There are  several mechanisms to resolve grievances relating to the promotion  process, including through the convening of reconstituted boards.
subsections: section_title: Boards Evaluate Foreign Service Personnel for Promotion and Possible Separation
subsections: section_title: Selection Boards
paragraphs: State carries out several key steps prior to convening the Foreign Service  selection boards. Selection boards then evaluate and rank order  candidates for promotion. Next, HR officials process board outcomes  before announcing promotions. Figure 1 provides information on key  steps of the promotion process.
State carries out several key steps before convening selection boards.
The Director General determines the number of available promotion  opportunities, evaluating factors including vacancies, estimated  attrition, and projected staffing needs.
HR designates selection board members. After the Director General  determines how many and what type of boards are needed, HR seeks  to fill the boards by soliciting volunteers and recruiting members to  meet specific needs in terms of rank or work experience. Each board  typically has four to six members of the Foreign Service along with a  public, or non-State, member. According to HR officials, public  members can offer a different perspective than Foreign Service  members, and can act as an additional safeguard over the integrity of  the process. All selection board members must be approved by the  Director General and cannot serve on a selection board for 2  consecutive years. Selection boards include generalist and specialist   Once board members are chosen, State announces them in  boards.a cable sent to posts worldwide, which includes instructions on the  conditions under which promotion candidates can request certain  board members be recused from reviewing their file. Board members  can also recuse themselves from evaluating a candidate if they  believe they may be unable to render a fair and unbiased judgment.
HR office of performance evaluation staff present official performance  folders for each candidate eligible for promotion. The Employee  Evaluation Report (EER) is a key document used by selection boards  to evaluate candidates, and includes sections on the candidate’s work  requirements, performance, and areas for improvement. The EER is  developed by the employee and the employee’s designated rating and  reviewing officers, and is screened by a review panel that is to provide  feedback on any technical mistakes that should be corrected before  the EER is formally submitted to the office of performance evaluation.  The folder also includes information on the employee’s training record  and any commendations, official reprimands, or awards, among other  information. Selection boards are to evaluate candidates based only  on information in official performance folders, along with other  employee records specified in the procedural precepts.
Selection boards follow a series of steps to evaluate and rank order  candidates for promotion and identify other candidates for possible  separation from the Service. The boards first screen all candidate files,  and sort them into one of three categories: promotion, mid-rank, or low- rank. Those candidates mid-ranked are generally not reviewed again for  promotion by that board. Next, each board member ranks each  promotable candidate using a forced distribution scale of 1-10. Any time  there is a discrepancy between board members of at least four points in  the ranking of a given candidate, the members must discuss the case  and, if the discussion results in any changes, adjust rankings accordingly  to comply with the forced distribution requirement. Each board has a  chairperson responsible for leading such discussions and helping to  ensure that board procedures are followed. Once all candidates have  been considered and ranked by each board member, the board chair  consolidates the scores for promotable candidates into one rank-order  list. Once a final rank ordering is established, the board submits its final  results as part of its official board report, which includes, among other  elements:  the rank-order list for each competition group of all candidates recom- mended for promotion; an alphabetical list of those mid-ranked; an alphabetical list of those low-ranked; an alphabetical list of any candidates referred directly to a  performance standards board to be considered for possible  separation; and  recommendations concerning policies and procedures for subsequent  boards and improvements to the performance evaluation system.
According to HR officials, the board report is the only document retained  from each selection board. All other documents, such as notes and score  sheets, are destroyed soon after the board’s dismissal. HR officials  explained that these documents are destroyed to encourage open and  frank discussions and note-taking during the board sessions.
After receiving the selection boards’ official reports, HR officials undertake  several steps before announcing promotions. First, HR officials told us  they draw a “cut-line” on selection boards’ ranked lists of candidates  recommended for promotion based on the number of available promotion  slots. Then, HR officials coordinate the vetting of candidates ranked  above the cut line with several entities, including the Office of Inspector  General, the Office of Civil Rights, the Office of Employee Relations, the  Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and the Office of the Legal Adviser. These  offices respond indicating whether there are any outstanding issues  concerning individual candidates, such as a pending investigation or other  matter, that could lead to their removal from the promotion list. In  addition, in response to personnel changes, HR officials annotate the  official board reports’ rank-ordered lists of candidates recommended for  promotion, indicating which candidates have been permanently removed  and lowering the cut line accordingly. Next, according to HR officials,  several staff, including the director of HR’s Office of Performance  Evaluation, review the revised list of candidates for promotion to ensure it  accurately reflects changes due to vetting outcomes. State then publishes  the list of promotions. Table 1 provides summary data for the 2011 and  2012 selection boards.
Performance standards boards convene each year to assess low-ranked  candidates for possible separation from the Foreign Service. According to  HR officials, there are typically two performance standards boards  convened each year—one for generalists and one for specialists.  Performance standards boards are governed by a set of procedural  precepts outlined in the FAM.alongside no fewer than 10 randomly selected employee files from the  same competition group and decide whether to recommend the employee  for counseling or for separation. The board is required to submit a report  to the Director General that includes a list of the members designated for  separation along with individual statements justifying the board’s findings  in each case. In 2011, 11 employees were designated for separation by  performance standards boards. In 2012, 14 employees were designated  for separation.
The boards review each employee’s file  Employees selected for separation from the Foreign Service have several  remedial options. The Director General first sets a separation date.  According to HR officials, employees can, until that date, choose to retire,  if eligible; resign; grieve; or request a special review board, where the  matter is adjudicated by a judge from outside the Department of State.
section_title: Grievance Process Based on Multiple Adjudication and Resolution Options
paragraphs: Foreign Service personnel have several options to seek relief through the  grievance process in response to promotion-related matters. Foreign  Service personnel are encouraged to first attempt to resolve their  concerns about their EERs with their supervisor at the post or bureau  level. According to the director of State’s grievance staff, State does not  track the number of grievances that are resolved between employees and  supervisors at post or the bureau. Employees can also formally submit a  grievance in writing to the agency grievance staff, providing information  such as the nature of the grievance, its effect, which law or regulation the  grievant believes was violated, and any relief requested. Grievance staff  process these submissions and, according to the director of the grievance  staff, will grant interim relief from separation at the agency level, if  requested. According to the director of State’s grievance staff, grievances  typically pertain to performance, discipline, or financial matters.  Grievances relating to a low ranking typically pertain to the employee’s  EER, or alleged errors in applying the applicable precepts. For example,  in certain cases employees have alleged that their EERs contained  falsely prejudicial information, or that selection boards misapplied the  procedural precepts in arriving at a decision to low rank a candidate.
Employees also have several options beyond the agency grievance staff.  A member whose grievance is not resolved satisfactorily under the  agency procedures described above can file an appeal with the Foreign  Service Grievance Board no later than 60 days after receiving the agency  decision. According to the director of the grievance staff, Foreign Service  personnel can also file charges relating to prohibited personnel  practices via the Office of Special Counsel at any point in the process.
Grievants may also appeal a decision of the Foreign Service Grievance  Board by filing a complaint in federal district court.
Reconstituted boards may be convened if HR officials or the Foreign  Service Grievance Board determines a candidate was not properly  reviewed or that the official performance folder contained incomplete or  inaccurate documentation of performance. reconstituted boards in response to 16 grievances. The members of a  reconstituted board are to be chosen, to the extent possible, on the same  basis as members of the original selection board, and, to the extent  applicable, are to observe the precepts and procedures for the original  board. Reconstituted boards review, in addition to the employee under  consideration, the files of the four individuals immediately above the cut  line for promotion as designated in the final board report for the  competition group and the files of three individuals immediately below the  cut line. The reconstituted board rank orders the files under review from  one to eight. If the employee for whom the board was reconstituted is  ranked by the reconstituted board among the top four files, he or she will  be considered ranked for promotion.
section_title: State Has Developed Procedural Changes to Address Identified Concerns with the Foreign Service Promotion Process
paragraphs: Prompted by concerns identified by the OIG and Foreign Service  Grievance Board in 2010, State took a number of actions to strengthen  procedures governing selection boards and reconstituted boards. For  example, in response to concerns identified by the OIG, State revised  procedures governing the improper introduction of information about  candidates and recusal requests. State also updated standard operating  procedures for reconstituted boards in response to concerns raised by the  OIG and Foreign Service Grievance Board. In addition, State initiated two  other practices to strengthen safeguards over the promotion process.
Reconstituted boards are governed by a set of Standard Operating Procedures  established by State in October 2011.
subsections: section_title: New Board Member Oath
paragraphs: State developed a requirement that selection board members sign an  oath in response to the OIG’s concerns about the improper introduction of  information about candidates during board deliberations. The OIG  reported that it became aware of selection board members allegedly  improperly removing documents from, or attempting to introduce  information not already contained in, a candidate’s record. In response,  State implemented a requirement that each board member sign an oath  to protect the confidentiality of board materials and report any improper  introduction of information about a candidate. The oath also addresses  board members’ adherence to the procedural precepts and promotion  criteria. A copy of each signed oath should be filed in the final board  report.
section_title: Revised Recusal Procedures
paragraphs: State revised its procedures governing candidate and board member  recusal requests in response to OIG concerns about them. The OIG  found the procedural precepts to be ambiguous regarding the allowable  involvement by a selection board member who has voluntarily recused  him- or herself from consideration of an individual candidate in other  board deliberations, and also found the bases for recusal requests to be  too limited. In response, State developed revised language covering  selection board recusal requests, which was incorporated in the 2011  procedural precepts. The revised language broadened the circumstances  under which an individual under review may request a board member’s  recusal. The revised precepts also describe the steps a board member  should take to recuse him- or herself and make clear that, while this  member will be excused from further consideration of the particular  individual, the member will continue to participate in the other activities of  the board.
section_title: Updated Procedures for Reconstituted Boards
paragraphs: State updated its procedures for reconstituted boards in response to OIG  and Foreign Service Grievance Board concerns about the operations of  these boards. The OIG reported there was no regulation in place  establishing the conditions that cause a reconstituted board to be formed,  its membership, purpose, or the outcome of its recommendations. In  addition, the Foreign Service Grievance Board found serious deficiencies  and irregularities in the operation of six reconstituted boards, including  destruction of underlying board records; inability of board members to  confirm that the results reported in the final reports accurately reflected  the board’s decisions; evidence that the boards failed to incorporate the  safeguards followed by regular selection boards; and lack of evidence  that HR staff prepared board reports with sufficient attention to detail. In  response, State negotiated and published updated standard operating  procedures for reconstituted boards in October 2011. The updated  procedures require documentation of steps associated with reconstituted  boards. For example, the procedures call for HR to retain an official folder  on each reconstituted board, which should include, among other items,  documentation of the notification to employees of the names of board  members; final board scoresheets that are signed or initialed by all board   recusal forms, if applicable; and the final board  members; signed oaths;report, signed by all members or their proxy.
section_title: Renewed Emphasis on Certifying Board Results
paragraphs: State said it would place renewed emphasis on ensuring that all board  members sign board results in response to an OIG concern regarding  board result certification. The OIG reported that several former board  members asserted that HR officials submitted to the Director General  rank-ordered lists of candidates for promotion without those board  members certifying the lists, or with results that differed from the  members’ recollections. State responded that, while a certification  requirement, by signature and initials, of board results was already in  place prior to the OIG’s report, it would re-emphasize the need to ensure  that this procedure is followed prior to remitting any board list to the  Director General. An HR official noted that the use of proxy signatures for  board members’ certification of results was considered acceptable, so  long as signed by another board member and not by an HR official.
section_title: Discontinued Annotation of Promotion Lists
paragraphs: State reported it discontinued annotating promotion lists in response to  the OIG’s concern about this practice. The OIG reported that an existing  practice of annotating candidate promotion lists—such as by computer,  pen, or pencil—could be used to influence the board in favor of certain  candidates, such as those who were nearly promoted in prior promotion  cycles. According to HR officials, some HR staff had previously annotated  promotion lists by noting employees who had the previous year received  Meritorious Service Increases, which are given to some employees rank- ordered by selection boards but not promoted due to limited number of  promotion opportunities. State reported that it ended this practice.
section_title: More Nonspecialists to Serve on Specialists Boards
paragraphs: State said it would try to increase the number of nonspecialists on  specialist boards—which evaluate Foreign Service personnel who provide  technical, support, or administrative services—in response to the OIG’s  concern about these boards’ composition. The OIG reported that, since  specialist board members are drawn from a smaller universe than  generalist boards, there is a greater possibility these members will  personally or by reputation know the candidates being reviewed. State  responded that it endorsed the OIG’s recommendation to include at least  two nonspecialists on each specialist board. However, State noted that  while it would seek to do so in the future, it needed to retain some  flexibility to make exceptions in cases where two nonspecialists were not  available.
section_title: New Procedural Manual for HR Staff
paragraphs: The OIG reported there was no consolidated procedural manual for  training new HR employees. State developed such a manual and  distributed copies to staff. The manual includes information on  procedures relating to the promotion process.
section_title: Additional State- Initiated Practices to Strengthen Promotion Process Safeguards
paragraphs: In addition to State’s actions taken in response to others’ identified  concerns about the promotion process, we found that State initiated two  additional documentation practices to strengthen promotion process  safeguards. The first is to have selection board members, in addition to  signing final board results, initial each page of the promotable, mid-rank,  and low-rank lists in official board reports, thereby attesting to the  accurate rank order of all candidates the selection board evaluated. The  second is to include selection board and reconstituted board member  recusal memos in each final board report.
section_title: State Complied with Many Updated Procedures in 2011 and 2012, but Some Documentation Gaps Existed
paragraphs: We found that selection boards, performance standards boards, and  reconstituted boards complied with many updated procedures in the 2011  and 2012 Foreign Service promotion cycles; however, some selection  boards and reconstituted boards had documentation gaps for certain  internal controls. Our review of board files, related grievances filed since  October 2011, and responses to an online data collection tool sent to  2011 and 2012 board members revealed limited concerns about the  operations of some boards.
subsections: section_title: Selection Boards and Reconstituted Boards Had Some Documentation Gaps
paragraphs: Our review of 77 selection boards, performance standards boards, and  reconstituted boards for the 2011 and 2012 promotion cycles found that  board members and HR staff complied with many updated internal  controls. For example, all 41 selection board reports we reviewed  included a memo certifying final results signed by board members or by  proxy, and documentation indicating that a public member served on the  board. In addition, all 32 reconstituted board reports we reviewed  included a statement describing the board’s purpose, a notification to the  employee of the board’s composition, documentation indicating a public  member served on the board, final board score sheets, and a final board  report signed by all members or by proxy.
However, we found that some board reports, which constitute the master  record of proceedings, had a number of documentation gaps. As shown  in figure 2, there were several instances of missing oaths and incomplete  documentation of recusals among the 41 selection boards we reviewed.  For example, we found that 2012 selection board reports did not include  45 of 122 required signed oaths from members, or nearly 40 percent of  the required total. Subsequent to our file review, State officials provided a  portion of these missing oaths and other missing documents from  ancillary records.
We also checked for discrepancies between boards’ rank-ordered  promotion lists and official promotion announcements and found a total of  74 names recommended for promotion in 2011 and 2012 selection board  reports that did not appear on corresponding promotion announcements.  State officials explained that these individuals were not included on  promotion lists due to requirements outlined in the FAM relating to the (1)  permanent removal of names from promotion lists due to personnel  actions such as retirement, and (2) temporary removal of names from  promotion lists due to outcomes of the vetting process described earlier.  State provided documentation to account for each removed name.
Compliance with procedures was better, but still not complete, for  performance standards boards and reconstituted boards. For example,  some reconstituted boards lacked final board score sheets that were  signed or initialed by all members, and some lacked signed oaths from all  board members. Compliance for performance standards boards and  reconstituted boards is shown in figures 3 and 4.
Our review of board files, related grievances, and responses to an online  data collection tool sent to board members revealed limited concerns  about the operations of some boards. Our review of selection boards’  observations about and recommendations for improving the promotion  process revealed no concerns relating to the boards’ ability to adhere to  core and procedural precepts. Our grievance file review revealed one  allegation of bias concerning a board member, which was not sustained.  Our online tool revealed a limited number of procedural concerns  pertaining to a few specific boards.
The Director General requests that all selection boards provide  observations about the promotion process and recommendations for  improving it. Our review of the 41 selection boards’ observations and  recommendations revealed no reported concerns relating to the boards’  ability to adhere to the core precepts and procedural precepts. However,  we found that a number of boards provided observations and  recommendations for improving the promotion process in several areas.  For example, more than half of the 41 boards made observations and  recommendations concerning the following:  completeness, accuracy, or accessibility of the official performance  folder; promotion criteria, policies, or related practices; and technological issues affecting board operations.
In addition, more than a third of the 41 boards made observations and  recommendations concerning the following: uncertainty over how to interpret some performance appraisal  information; and  sufficiency or quality of promotion process guidance and training.
State’s HR staff review and respond to board-identified issues each year  and discuss proposed solutions with the Director General. In both 2011  and 2012, State issued worldwide cables with additional guidance to  employees, raters, and review panel members to address key board- identified issues. For example, with regard to observations and  recommendations about promotion criteria, policies, and related  practices, the guidance stressed that candidates (and raters) need to  demonstrate the extent of work experience within their “cone” and  whether they are serving in “stretch” positions above their current grade  level. In addition, in response to board feedback, State has developed a  process, which was implemented in 2013, whereby employees can self- certify the accuracy of their eligibility for review and related performance  information.
We reviewed all grievances related to 2011 and 2012 board actions and  found that, with one exception, none alleged that any board or board  member violated core integrity and fairness precepts such as the  intentional introduction of extraneous material into the proceedings or  overt bias toward an individual. The one exception was a case in which  an employee alleged that a board member held a personal bias toward  him and should have recused himself from considering the individual’s  file. According to State officials, this grievance was denied at the agency  level in April 2013. Grievances generally focused on a complaint that a  board misapplied a given precept in arriving at a low-ranking decision. For  example, some grievants alleged that a board relied on comments made  in the Area for Improvement section of the EER to support a low-ranking  determination without corroborating evidence of poor performance  elsewhere in the EER, as is required by the procedural precepts. We  noted that HR officials often agreed with the grievant in low-ranking  complaints and provided the requested relief of expunging the low- ranking statement from the employee’s performance folder, along with  related modifications to their “scorecard.”
Our online data collection tool revealed a limited number of procedural  concerns relating to the operations of three specific boards. Our online  tool was designed to provide board members with an opportunity to  identify whether they observed any actions, behaviors, or concerns that  could have compromised their board’s integrity and fairness. Our online  tool was sent to 293 of 298 members who served on the 2011 and 2012  selection boards, 2011 and 2012 performance standards boards, and  reconstituted boards since October 2011. We received 206 completed  forms. From this total, two responses identified a total of four concerns  with the operation of a board in 2011 or 2012. One response claimed that  a board member had refused to follow precept instructions to consider  candidate service in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan in a favorable light.
The same response noted that the board did not follow proper recusal  procedures in all cases. The second response claimed that an “HR  official” had inappropriately instructed a board member. The same  response noted that the board did not follow proper recusal procedures in  all cases. We obtained permission from one respondent to provide the  respondent’s two concerns to State’s HR staff and the OIG for further  review and follow-up as appropriate.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: State’s Foreign Service promotion process is conducted within the  context of an up-or-out system and the practice of identifying a set  percentage of staff each year for possible separation from the Service.  Within an organizational culture that emphasizes performance and career  advancement, safeguards to ensure the fairness and integrity of the  promotion process are of particular importance. While we found that State  had responded to previously identified concerns about its Foreign Service  promotion process and taken a number of actions to strengthen internal  controls over the process, documentation supporting the full  implementation of these controls was sometimes missing. For example,  we found that many selection board member oaths were missing from  2012 selection board reports and some boards did not include  documentation of recusal requests. In the absence of a fully documented  system of controls, there is a risk that intentional or unintentional failures  to implement safeguards, by board members or HR staff, will go  undetected and uncorrected. A failure to implement safeguards, in turn,  increases the risk that promotion results could be intentionally or  inadvertently compromised.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve and better document State’s compliance with key safeguards  governing the Foreign Service promotion process, we recommend that  the Secretary of State instruct the Director General of the Foreign Service  and Director of the Human Resources Office of Performance Evaluation  to take steps to ensure that selection board, performance standards  board, and reconstituted board reports are complete and fully document  compliance with internal controls, including but not limited to signed oaths  and recusal memos.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to State for its review and comment.  State provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II.  State concurred with our recommendation to ensure board reports are  complete and fully documented. In particular, State noted that, during the  course of our review, it examined areas we had brought to the  department’s attention, and made adjustments in procedures for filing  signed oaths, recusal memos, and board reports. State added that it  would continue to improve record-keeping in this regard. State also  provided technical comments, which we have incorporated throughout  this report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Secretary of State. In addition, the report is available  at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8980 or courtsm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) the Department of State’s (State) process for  ranking and promoting Foreign Service personnel, (2) procedural  changes State has made to its Foreign Service promotion process in  response to identified concerns, and (3) the extent to which updated  procedures were consistently followed in 2011 and 2012 and whether any  notable concerns about the promotion process remain.
To review State’s process for ranking and promoting Foreign Service  personnel, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and procedures  governing State’s promotion and grievance processes, including the  Foreign Service Act of 1980, the Foreign Affairs Manual, the Procedural  Precepts and Core Precepts for the 2012 Foreign Service Selection  Boards, and the training and information materials provided to 2012  selection board members. To understand how these procedures are  implemented in practice, we interviewed State officials within the Bureau  of Human Resources (HR), including officials from the offices of  performance evaluation and grievances. We also interviewed the  president and several other officials from the American Foreign Service  Association (AFSA), the exclusive bargaining agent for Foreign Service  personnel, to understand AFSA’s role in the promotion process. We  interviewed four public, or non-State, members of selection boards, which  evaluate and rank order candidates for promotion. We reviewed State  data on the 2011 and 2012 Foreign Service promotion cycles, and the  number, resolution, and status of grievances filed by candidates who  were “low ranked” by selection boards in 2011 and 2012. We discussed  with State officials how these promotion process and grievance-related  data were collected and checked for accuracy. State HR officials told us  the promotion data were compiled by HR’s Office of Resource  Management and Organizational Analysis. According to HR officials, HR  staff members manually enter these data into a system referred to as the  Board Maintenance Application. HR Office of Resource Management and  Organizational Analysis staff members work with HR performance  evaluation staff to verify the number of promotions, as well as the  rankings of those promoted, and the number of those recommended for  promotion but not promoted. These results are published annually, every  spring. For grievance data, the director of State’s grievance staff told us  grievance staff obtained the names of every person low ranked or  referred to a performance standards board in 2011 and 2012 from HR  performance evaluation staff, then cross-checked those names against  the names of individuals who had filed grievances. Grievance staff then  manually searched the grievance files to determine whether the  individuals’ grievances involved low rankings, by year. We determined  these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To review the procedural changes State has made to its Foreign Service  promotion process in response to identified concerns, we focused on  concerns identified since March 2010, when the State Office of Inspector  General (OIG) issued its Report of Inspection, “Review of the Integrity  and Fairness of the Foreign Service Selection Board Process.” We also  focused on State procedural changes made since March 2010. In addition  to the OIG’s report, we reviewed the record of proceedings for the  Foreign Service Grievance Board’s case 2008-051 from July 2010, which  addressed concerns with State’s procedures governing reconstituted  boards, which are convened if it is determined a promotion candidate was  not properly reviewed. We also reviewed Foreign Service personnel  grievance cases related to the promotion process, from 2011 through  February 2013. In particular, we reviewed those cases the grievance  office had categorized as one of the following grievance types: promotion,  low-ranking, performance standards boards (which review low-ranked  candidates for possible separation), or separation. We selected these  categories after reviewing a spreadsheet State provided that listed all filed  grievances by category, as we determined they were most applicable to  our review of the promotion process, compared with other categories  such as discipline, financial, and leave restoration. We also reviewed all  Foreign Service Grievance Board filings related to the same universe of  filed grievance cases. In addition, we reviewed selection board  recommendations to the Director General from the 2011 and 2012  promotion cycles, which we discuss further below. We also reviewed  responses to our online data collection tool, discussed below, that was  sent to 2011 and 2012 selection board, performance standards board,  and reconstituted board members. To learn about State’s procedural  changes developed in response to the OIG’s recommendations, we  reviewed State and OIG documents showing actions taken by State to  comply with the OIG’s recommendations. We also interviewed State HR  officials and officials from the OIG. To examine State actions taken in  response to selection board member recommendations to the Director  General, we reviewed HR summary memos and cables explaining  suggested actions, and interviewed HR officials to discuss the status of  these actions. We further discuss these actions in our report’s third  objective.
To review the extent to which updated procedures were consistently  followed in 2011 and 2012, and whether any notable concerns about the  process remain, we reviewed selection board and performance standards  board records for 2011 and 2012 and reconstituted board records from  October 2011 through April 2013. According to State officials, the official  reports, referred to as board reports, from these boards are the only  records retained; the remaining records are destroyed as a standard  practice. We reviewed the three types of board reports within the  following timeframes:
All 41 selection boards reports from 2011 and 2012, the 2 years  subsequent to the Inspector General’s report, to enable us to assess  the extent to which State had implemented and consistently followed  changes made subsequent to that report. To ensure we reviewed the  accurate universe of selection board reports, we compared the list of  board reports provided against State cables announcing the results of  the promotion process for 2011 and 2012, which also identified all  boards convened in 2011 and 2012. This comparison identified no  discrepancies.
All four performance standards board reports from 2011 and 2012.
There were two performance standards board reports each year for  2011 and 2012, contained within a single folder for each year. We  received both reports for each year.
All 32 board reports for reconstituted boards—convened in response  to grievances pertaining to selection board promotion or low-ranking  determinations, and convened after October 2011, when State issued  new Standard Operating Procedures for these boards, through April  2013. To ensure we reviewed the accurate universe of reconstituted  board files within this timeframe, we compared the files provided by  State against an inventory list provided by State; identified several  discrepancies and resolved them with HR officials; and presented a  master list of reconstituted boards to State officials, who confirmed the  list reflected all reconstituted boards relating to promotions within our  requested timeframe. Near the conclusion of our engagement, we  reviewed those reconstituted boards that had taken place following  our initial file review.
To help conduct our review of the three types of boards, we developed a  data collection instrument with data categories reflecting the information  required and routinely captured in each type of report. To determine the  data included in these reports, we reviewed applicable precepts and  standard operating procedures outlining required information, reviewed a  sample of the board reports, and discussed the reports with HR officials.  The analysts discussed the data categories with two research  methodologists and a senior manager and reached agreement on them  before coding the reports. For all reports, two analysts reviewed each  report jointly. Another independent party reviewed the results of this  process after the fact.
To summarize and organize the selection boards’ written  recommendations or observations to the Director General, two analysts  read and entered this information into the data collection instrument. In 41  selection board reports, the team identified 306 separate  recommendations or observations. To analyze this written information,  the two analysts developed a set of summary statements and higher-level  categories to be used for reporting purposes. The summary statements  provided a detailed explanation of the nature of the board  recommendations or observations, including examples to illustrate what  types of recommendations or observations would be coded under these  statements. The higher-level categories served as abbreviated headings  or titles of these more detailed statements. These statements and  categories were based on an inductive exercise involving an in-depth  reading and comparison of the board recommendations. The two analysts  then tested these statements on an initial set of five board reports, by  coding the text in them jointly. The statements and categories were  developed iteratively, with modifications made as appropriate. The text  was coded “yes” or “no.” If a segment of text was coded as “yes,” it  indicated that the particular board had made one or more  recommendation that fell into this category. If a recommendation  addressed more than one of our categories, we coded it into all applicable  categories. The analysts coded the remainder of the reports  independently. Once concluded, the analysts met to discuss codes and  reconcile disagreements as needed. The two analysts were able to  reconcile all disagreements. A third party reviewer reviewed the team’s  work and provided several suggestions, informed by discussions with  team members, on revisions to some of the categories to more clearly  capture how the team defined and interpreted them. Final tallies of the  analysis were obtained by counting, for each statement, the number of  “yes” and “no” responses and reflecting the number of times a category of  recommendation occurred in the 41 reports.
To determine whether State was following its procedures for promoting  candidates recommended for promotion by selection boards, we  reconciled selection board report lists of rank-ordered candidates for  promotion against State official promotion announcements. We first  identified discrepancies between the two lists by reviewing selection  board rank-ordered promotion lists against the State promotion  announcements. We provided a copy of our list of discrepancies to HR  officials, who provided lists explaining the reasons why certain candidates  were removed from promotion lists. Through this process, State  accounted for all missing names. To corroborate State’s explanation of  why names were removed from promotion lists, we requested  documentation from State attesting to the reasons given for these  removals for a selected number of these individuals. State provided us  with this documentation, and therefore fully accounted for all  discrepancies between selection board report lists of rank-ordered  candidates for promotion against State official promotion announcements.
Similarly, we took steps to compare recusals we found documented in  selection board reports against State’s master list of recusal requests. We  cross-referenced State’s master list of recusal requests against the  recusals documented in board reports. Through this process, we  identified discrepancies, namely that four board reports had recusal  information that was not reflected in State’s master list and that nine  recusal requests included in State’s master list were not documented in  the board reports. We discussed and provided specific information on  these discrepancies with State officials. State subsequently presented  copies of the nine recusal requests that were not initially documented in  selection board reports.
To supplement our promotion process file review, we distributed an online  tool to allow selection board, performance standards board, and  reconstituted board members an opportunity to anonymously comment on  any actions, behaviors, or other concerns relating to the board on which  they served that they believed could have compromised the board’s  integrity and fairness. The online tool’s intended use was to gather any  information received from selection board members, and, to the extent  possible, follow up on any concerns or allegations; it was not intended to  present frequencies or tabulations based on the responses we received,  or to report comprehensively on the attitudes of board members on the  promotion process. We determined this type of online tool was  appropriate for this case because of the prior allegations of improper  behavior related to the process. Before distributing the online tool, we  shared it with three selection board members and incorporated their  comments, as appropriate. We also shared the online tool with State and  AFSA. We received comments from both State and AFSA; incorporated  some of their suggestions, as appropriate; and explained, where  applicable, why we did not incorporate certain other suggestions. We  requested that State provide us with email addresses for board members  from the following board types and within the following timeframes:  selection boards in 2011 and 2012, performance standards boards in  2011 and 2012, and reconstituted boards from October 2011 to February  2013, as we distributed the online tool in March 2013. State provided  email addresses for all but several of these names; we obtained some of  the missing email addresses through our own research and others from  AFSA. Through our own cross-referencing of State-provided lists of board  members against our lists of boards and board members, we discovered  that certain board member email addresses were missing. We requested  that State provide email addresses for these names. Overall, we identified  a universe of 298 individuals who served on the three types of boards  within our specified timeframes. We were unable to contact five of these  members for various reasons, including one retired board member for  whom State had no email address, and several others due to missing or  invalid e-mail addresses.
We sent an e-mail with a link to the online tool to 293 board members on  March 11, 2013. Responses were accepted through April 7, 2013. We  received 206 completed forms. We cannot report a response rate as it is  possible that respondents submitted multiple forms or individuals  responded who were not board members in 2011 or 2012. Board  members could respond anonymously, and some respondents did not  provide contact information. We reviewed written responses to identify  any obvious or apparent duplicate or multiple entries, and identified one  such entry. We reviewed all 206 completed forms and identified four  responses indicating a concern or problem with the operation of a  particular board. Two of these four responses constituted the one  apparent duplicate entry, and pertained to a selection board convened in  2009, which is outside the scope of this engagement. We nonetheless  provided this concern to State’s HR staff and the OIG for further review  and follow-up as appropriate. The remaining two responses, each of  which identified two separate concerns, fell within our engagement’s  scope and are discussed in the body of the report. We obtained  permission from one respondent to provide the respondent’s two  concerns to State’s HR staff and the OIG for further review and follow-up  as appropriate.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to July 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State
subsections: section_title: GAO Comment
paragraphs: The following is GAO’s comment on the letter from the Department of  State   1.  This statement is incorrect. Although Figure 4 did note that State was  able to locate some of the missing documentation in ancillary files, it  did not note that this was due to the need to compartmentalize  sensitive information.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Timothy J. DiNapoli (Director),  Anthony Moran (Assistant Director), Joe Carney, Martin De Alteriis, Karen  Deans, Etana Finkler, Ernie Jackson, Jill Lacey, Mike ten Kate, and  Ramon Rodriguez made key contributions to this report.