![]() |
Veteran's Preference
Many times when there is hiring news for any government related job the question of Veteran's Preference comes up and there are usually questions regarding who rates it, how many points, and the different categories of Vet's Pref.
The following was recently put out by my union and describes the criteria used, by at least the FAA, in applying Veteran's Preference points towards competitive external announcements. Veterans’ Preference Why Preference is Given
The following preference categories and points are based on 5 U.S.C. 2108 and 3309 as modified by a length of service requirement in 38 U.S.C. 5303A(d). (The letters following each category, e.g., "CPS", "CP", "XP", "TP" are a short reference which will be used by the FAA in competitive external hiring procedures.) 5-point Preference (TP)
Hope this helps someone along the way. USMCFLYR |
Doesn't apply to anybody who is 0-4 or above...
|
Fyi
Not all gov't agencies are required to consider this.
|
Originally Posted by Dragon7
(Post 1090818)
Doesn't apply to anybody who is 0-4 or above...
That actually wording is: Military retirees at the rank of major, lieutenant commander, or higher are not eligible for preference in appointment unless they are disabled veterans. (This does not apply to Reservists who will not begin drawing military retired pay until age 60). |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1090838)
That is little too much of a blanket statement.
That actually wording is: USMCFLYR Stand corrected. Thanks. |
I'm sure I'll catch all kinds of grief for this, but it sure would be nice if we lived in a society where prospective candidates were judged solely on their qualifications and positions were awarded only on merit.
USMC, for many years and over many announcements I pursued the job you currently have. I feel strongly that my education, training, and experience (Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities, if you will) were a perfect fit for the job in question. Throughout that process I tracked down the heads of the offices in both SAC and OKC and spoke at length with them several times. The last conversation I had ended with a statement to the effect of "you are exactly the kind of candidate I'd love to have in this position, and you have demostrated your desire, ambition, and commitment, but due to the preference required by Federal Law I have not had a civilian application forwarded to my desk by the selection office in over two decades." I certainly have no beef with the military, and thank our soldiers every chance I can for their service. I also don't have any problem with prior service being credited towards an overall candidate's evaluation when it directly applies to the position applied for. It is just really frustrating to not even be able to make my case as the best qualified for the position because my pre-employement screening questionaire doesn't score high enough to even get my application on the desk of those who make the decisions. Not that the government has ever been a model of efficiency or logic, but this kind of preference would receive all kinds of anti-affirmative action backlash if it benefited a gender or ethnic group. These are governent, not military jobs, and I am a tax-paying citizen of this country just as much as anyone who has worn a military uniform. Level the playing field, and let the best man win. FWIW, my grandfather was an electrician in the Navy during the attack on Pearl Harbor, my uncle was in the 82nd Airborne, and my Father-in-law was on a destroyer off the coast of Viet Nam, so please don't think I do not understand or appreciate the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. |
Originally Posted by Golden Bear
(Post 1090911)
I'm sure I'll catch all kinds of grief for this, but it sure would be nice if we lived in a society where prospective candidates were judged solely on their qualifications and positions were awarded only on merit.
USMC, for many years and over many announcements I pursued the job you currently have. I feel strongly that my education, training, and experience (Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities, if you will) were a perfect fit for the job in question. Throughout that process I tracked down the heads of the offices in both SAC and OKC and spoke at length with them several times. The last conversation I had ended with a statement to the effect of "you are exactly the kind of candidate I'd love to have in this position, and you have demostrated your desire, ambition, and commitment, but due to the preference required by Federal Law I have not had a civilian application forwarded to my desk by the selection office in over two decades." I certainly have no beef with the military, and thank our soldiers every chance I can for their service. I also don't have any problem with prior service being credited towards an overall candidate's evaluation when it directly applies to the position applied for. It is just really frustrating to not even be able to make my case as the best qualified for the position because my pre-employement screening questionaire doesn't score high enough to even get my application on the desk of those who make the decisions. Not that the government has ever been a model of efficiency or logic, but this kind of preference would receive all kinds of anti-affirmative action backlash if it benefited a gender or ethnic group. These are governent, not military jobs, and I am a tax-paying citizen of this country just as much as anyone who has worn a military uniform. Level the playing field, and let the best man win. FWIW, my grandfather was an electrician in the Navy during the attack on Pearl Harbor, my uncle was in the 82nd Airborne, and my Father-in-law was on a destroyer off the coast of Viet Nam, so please don't think I do not understand or appreciate the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. |
Originally Posted by Golden Bear
(Post 1090911)
I'm sure I'll catch all kinds of grief for this, but it sure would be nice if we lived in a society where prospective candidates were judged solely on their qualifications and positions were awarded only on merit.
USMC, for many years and over many announcements I pursued the job you currently have. I feel strongly that my education, training, and experience (Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities, if you will) were a perfect fit for the job in question. Throughout that process I tracked down the heads of the offices in both SAC and OKC and spoke at length with them several times. The last conversation I had ended with a statement to the effect of "you are exactly the kind of candidate I'd love to have in this position, and you have demostrated your desire, ambition, and commitment, but due to the preference required by Federal Law I have not had a civilian application forwarded to my desk by the selection office in over two decades." I certainly have no beef with the military, and thank our soldiers every chance I can for their service. I also don't have any problem with prior service being credited towards an overall candidate's evaluation when it directly applies to the position applied for. It is just really frustrating to not even be able to make my case as the best qualified for the position because my pre-employement screening questionaire doesn't score high enough to even get my application on the desk of those who make the decisions. Not that the government has ever been a model of efficiency or logic, but this kind of preference would receive all kinds of anti-affirmative action backlash if it benefited a gender or ethnic group. These are governent, not military jobs, and I am a tax-paying citizen of this country just as much as anyone who has worn a military uniform. Level the playing field, and let the best man win. FWIW, my grandfather was an electrician in the Navy during the attack on Pearl Harbor, my uncle was in the 82nd Airborne, and my Father-in-law was on a destroyer off the coast of Viet Nam, so please don't think I do not understand or appreciate the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. |
Forgot to add: Hindsight being 20/20, without question if I knew then what I know now I would have gone the mil route. This particular situation is not even on the list of reasons why. My own children will be encouraged should they express an interest.
Sorry for the digressive rant. Thank you again to all who have served. |
Originally Posted by Golden Bear
(Post 1091030)
Forgot to add: Hindsight being 20/20, without question if I knew then what I know now I would have gone the mil route. This particular situation is not even on the list of reasons why. My own children will be encouraged should they express an interest.
Sorry for the digressive rant. Thank you again to all who have served. GB, Don't worry about it. Unless the system grinds out a decision to put me above 30% some day, which I have no control over, I don't get it with a fair amount of service. But there are lot of other reasons where any of us can be excluded. Roll the dice, network a bit, and see what shakes out. If somebody excludes you from their hiring consideration for any real or perceived status, do you really want to work for them? Life is too short and not always fair. Lots of other things to do. Good luck |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:53 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands