Category Archives: Promotions

EEOC Denies Class Certification Claim Over @StateDept’s Promotion System

November 2, 2021 By in Discrimination, EEOC, Foreign Service, FSOs, Promotions, Realities of the FS, State Department Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Via EEOC Appeal No. 2020005030
Class Certification Denied.  Complainant alleged that the Agency’s promotion system, while utilizing facially neutral annual selection boards, relied on subjective factors that manifest bias including “career promise,” mentor/mentee input, and relationship-forming potential.  Complainant asserted that the reliance on such subjective criteria negatively impacted the advancement of Foreign Service Officers over the age of 40.  The AJ denied class certification, and the Commission affirmed the decision on appeal.  The AJ found that Complainant failed to establish commonality and typicality.  Specifically, Complainant failed to establish how the use of the identified subjective criteria impacted those age 40 or older.  Not only did Complainant fail to provide evidence of the application of such allegedly discriminatory criteria to himself, but he also failed to provide evidence from other class members concerning how they were harmed by the use of such subjective criteria.  The AJ noted that while Complainant provided information in support of his claim of a statistically significant disparate impact on older workers seeking promotion, he failed to show how the use of the subjective criteria negatively affected other older Foreign Service Officers.  Further, the Agency applied other criteria when considering promotions including specific career paths, postings, discipline, and employee evaluation reports, which were applied to eligible Foreign Service officers “in direct competition with others of their skill code and grade.”  The Commission noted that Complainant failed to address the application of these other criteria in any way and failed to identify facts common to the class as a whole.”  The AJ further found that Complainant failed to meet the typicality requirement because he had unique circumstances, specifically a negative employee evaluation, which undermined his assertion that his claim was typical of the class.  The AJ found that the arguments Complainant made when grieving his 2014 evaluation regarding the importance of employee evaluation reports to his promotion prospects undercut his argument that promotions were based on subjective criteria.  Therefore, the AJ properly concluded that Complainant failed to establish the requirements for class certification.  The Commission remanded Complainant’s individual complaint for processing.  Ty S. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 2020005030 (Dec. 14, 2020).
Details:

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(a)(2) states that a class complaint is a written complaint of discrimination filed on behalf of a class by the agent of the class alleging that: (i) the class is so numerous that a consolidated complaint of the members of the class is impractical; (ii) there are questions of fact common to the class; (iii) the claims of the agent are typical of the claims of the class; and (iv) the agent of the class, or if represented, the representative will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(d)(2) provides that a class complaint may be dismissed if it does not meet the four requirements of a class complaint or for any of the procedural grounds for dismissal set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107. The class agent, as the party seeking certification of the class, carries the burden of proof, and it is his obligation to  submit sufficient probative evidence to demonstrate satisfaction of the four regulatory criteria. Anderson, et al. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 01A41492 (Oct. 18, 2005).
[…]
…we find that the AJ properly concluded that Complainant failed to establish the commonality and typicality requirements for class certification. As such, we need not also address whether Complainant satisfies the numerosity and adequacy of representation requirements. We affirm the AJ’s decision to deny class certification in this case.

Click to access 2020005030%20DEC.pdf

 

###

 

EEOC Case: Middle Eastern FSO Alleges Discrimination, Raises “Unconscious Bias” Over Non-Promotion

October 15, 2021 By in Discrimination, EEOC, Federal Agencies, Foreign Service, FSOs, Promotions, Realities of the FS, Staffing the FS, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , ,

 

EEOC Appeal No. 2020000559
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Foreign Service (“FS”) Officer, FS-04, (Political) at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey.

On December 7, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency on the bases of race (Middle Eastern), national origin (Iranian, naturalized U.S. Citizen), and religion (Muslim) when, on or about August 31, 2019, she learned that she was not promoted by the 2018 Foreign Service Selection Boards.
[…]
The record includes, but is not limited to, the following relevant facts:

Promotions for FSOs, such as Complainant, are determined by Selection Boards (also referred to as the Promotion Board or “Board”) comprised of volunteer reviewers from within the Agency. In 2018, it was established Agency practice for all reviewers to undergo two days of training on relevant software, and how to impartially evaluate an employee based on their awards and duty posts from the past five years, the employee’s electronic Official Personnel Files (“eOPF” or “file”), and their EER (review). The volunteers are instructed to recuse themselves if they feel they are unable to review a file objectively. During the 2018 training, the volunteers were briefed by the Agency’s Office of Civil Rights about diversity with a focus on “ensuring the Board applied the Department’s EEO principles in its deliberations and decisions.”
[..]
The promotion review was on a “class-wide basis,” so all FS-04 candidates within the same specialty were reviewed by the same Board. Thus, the Board reviewing Complainant and other FS-04s was responsible for reviewing more than 875 files within 10 weeks, or 34 to 40 employee
files per day. When asked to provide affidavits for the instant complaint, none of the panelists recognized Complainant’s name or specifically recalled the contents of her employee file.

Complainant maintains that she was qualified and deserving of a promotion based on her accomplishments, and submits copies of her EERs from 2011 to 2018, a Superior Honor Award (2011), a Letter of Commendation (2012), two Meritorious Honor Awards (2016 and 2018) and the highest language score among her cohort of Turkish language students (2017) and service above grade in three out of four assignments. While Complainant concedes, “I do not have information from which I can assess whether my performance was superior to those selected,” Complainant asserts that her “track record in multiple positions senior my grade, my awards, and my EERs, I am on par with those promoted.”

Complainant contends that, at the time of her 2018 non-selection, “unconscious bias” was a known obstacle to achieving awards and promotions within the Agency’s selection process. She states that at least two affinity groups, Executive Women at State and Balancing Act, had been trying to raise the issue of unconscious bias with respect to the scoring process. The Union surveyed employees in 2017 and identified strong support for removing names from EERs (reviews). Regarding this survey, Complainant states that “individuals like me, with different ethnically identifiable names, almost unanimously found fault with the Agency’s practice of including names in the EERs.”
[..]
Significantly, Complainant argues that the Agency, in both investigating and deciding her case, disregarded her allegations of “unconscious bias,” instead applying a disparate treatment analysis to her allegations. It is clear from the record that Complainant was attempting to raise a disparate impact claim, as she repeatedly clarified in her affidavit that she did not believe the Panel intentionally discriminated against her, instead, describing herself as the victim of unconscious bias as a result of the Agency practice of promotion boards knowing the names of the candidates they were reviewing.

Complainant challenges the Agency’s policy of allowing reviewers for FS promotions to see the employees’ first and last names, arguing that a candidate’s name could trigger implicit bias by the reviewer. As evidence of bias against individuals of Middle Eastern dissent, Complainant cites FBI data revealing a 67% increase in hate-based incidents against Muslim Americans in 2015, the highest since the aftermath of September 11, 2001. She also cites the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which, based on media tracking, found an exponential increase in hate-based attacks. She recalls the “Muslim Ban,” where the President called first for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” later modified to “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants. Moreover, Complainant argues that even if all of the panelists did not realize her name was of Middle Eastern origin specifically, “it is impossible for someone not to know that I am from a specific minority group . . . and that I am likely from the Middle East with a high probability that I am Muslim.”
[…]
In the present case, as a result of the Agency’s investigation’s sole focus on disparate treatment, the record is not sufficiently developed to determine whether Complainant can establish even a prima facie case of disparate impact.3 We have presented some of the details of our prior analysis in Gwendolyn G. to provide Complainant and the Agency with guidance in determining the sort of evidence necessary to determine a disparate impact case of this sort. We are vacating the Agency’s final decision and remanding this matter to the Agency for further investigation relevant to the disparate impact claim.

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we hereby VACATE the Agency’s Final Decision (with the exception of affirming the timeliness dismissal of promotion claims prior to 2018) and REMAND the matter for further processing in accordance with the following Order.

ORDER
1. Within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the Agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation addressing Complainant’s claim of discrimination under the disparate impact theory and issue an updated ROI to Complainant.
2. Among other things, the updated ROI shall contain the necessary statistical data to allow a decision maker to determine whether Complainant can establish a prima facie case of disparate impact analysis discussed above with respect to individuals with Middle Eastern names, as well as individuals with names that could be mistakenly identified as Middle Eastern. Evidence shall also be gathered with regard to the Agency’s justification for the challenged practice.
3. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the completion of the supplemental investigation, the Agency shall issue a new FAD to Complainant with appeal rights to this Commission. The FAD shall contain a thorough analysis of Complainant’s complaint under disparate impact theory.
The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance in digital format as provided in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision.” The report shall include a copy of the new ROI and FAD with appeal rights, and it shall be submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).
###

EEOC: @StateDept Failed to Provide Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason for Not Promoting Complainant

September 13, 2021 By in Discrimination, EEOC, Foreign Service, FSOs, Promotions, Realities of the FS, State Department, Trends, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , ,

 

Via EEOC: Terrie M. v. Dep’t of State,  EEOC Appeal No. 2019002167 (Sept. 22, 2020).
Agency Failed to Provide Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason for Not Promoting Complainant.
Complainant, a Consular Section Chief at a U.S. Embassy, alleged, among other things, that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex when it failed to promote her.  The Commission found that Complainant established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, and the Agency failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.  Complainant was qualified for a promotion, as evidenced by her Employee Assessment Reviews, and responding management officials acknowledged that Complainant was eligible for the promotion.  Moreover, Complainant asserted that the prior curtailments of her overseas assignments due to her high-risk pregnancy impacted the ranking she received in the promotion process.  Therefore, Complainant had raised an inference that her sex was a factor in her non-selection for promotion.  The Commission found that the Agency failed to overcome Complainant’s prima facie case because the evidence was not sufficient to provide a specific, clear, and individualized explanation as to why Complainant was not selected for promotion.  While the Agency explained the general mechanics of the promotion process, it failed to provide an individualized explanation for Complainant’s specific situation.  The Agency was ordered, among other things, to retroactively promote Complainant, with appropriate back pay and benefits, and investigate her claim for damages.  Terrie M. v. Dep’t of State,  EEOC Appeal No. 2019002167 (Sept. 22, 2020).
Excerpt:

In the instant complaint, Complainant has alleged that because she is a woman who got pregnant  twice and had to curtail her assignments as a result, she was disadvantaged in the selection for promotion process. To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n.13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, a complainant must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she is qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Based on record evidence, we find that Complainant has established a prima facie case of sex discrimination. First, Complainant belongs to a protected group as she is female. Complainant is also qualified for promotion to the FSO-03 position. HDR1 also acknowledged that Complainant was eligible for the promotion; and the evidence shows that Complainant was a high-performing FSO as demonstrated by her EARs. Moreover, Complainant has asserted that she believes her prior curtailments of her assignments overseas due to her high-risk pregnancy impacted the ranking she received in the promotion process. Therefore, Complainant has raised an inference that her sex was a factor in her non-selection for promotion.3 Because Complainant established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, the Agency now has the burden of producing a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for not selecting Complainant for promotion.

Here, DDHR1, corroborated by DDHR2, explained that Complainant was not selected for promotion because she had been mid-ranked by the Selection Board. To support this explanation, the record only includes the same generalized information about the rules governing the selection process that the Commission had previously found insufficient, and which resulted in the complaint being remanded for a supplemental investigation. The record does not include pertinent documentation reviewed by the Selection Board and information regarding comparators. Also missing from the record are comparative data related to Complainant’s protected class or affidavits from Selection Board members; and thestatement of the Agency’s reasons for mid-ranking Complainant that led to her consequent non-selection for promotion. Moreover, the supporting testimony provided by DDHR2 does not add relevance to the instant complaint because, as Complainant stated, DDHR2 had only been in her position since June 1, 2018, nearly four years after Complainant’s non-promotion incident. DDHR2 herself indicated that she had no personal knowledge about Complainant or her non-promotion. In fact, the extent of the Agency’s explanations for its actions is that promotion decisions are based only on the documentation in the candidates’ Official Performance Folder for the most recent five years and at grades FS-02 and above, on the security incident records. The two DDHRs also stated that PE staff does not have information related to, nor will they address, personal or assignment decisions of employees, and only from the material submitted by the employee to his/her eOPF could this information be known.

We find that the evidence presented by the Agency is not sufficient to provide a specific, clear, and individualized explanation as to why Complainant was not selected for promotion in 2014. The Agency explained the general mechanics of the promotion process but failed to provide an individualized explanation for Complainant’s specific situation. See, e.g., Koudry v. Dep’t of Educ., Request No. 0520100196 (Apr. 13, 2010) (discrimination found where agency merely explained the mechanics of selection process, provided list of candidates deemed best qualified, and summarized applications of selectee and complainant, but failed to provide statements from selecting officials explaining how complainant’s qualifications were evaluated compared to selectee’s qualifications). The record does not indicate how the Agency determined which 76 candidates were selected for promotion or why Complainant was not one of the 76. Merely indicating that the Selection Boards rely only on information in candidates’ eOPF for making promotion decisions is not enough. Moreover, we add that the record also does not identify how or why the 76 candidates selected for promotion in 2014 received their scores and rankings. Simply stating that candidates who are mid-ranked do not receive scores is inadequate.

Moreover, nothing in the record provides a basis for dispelling Complainant’s belief that the staff of HR/PE had access to her curtailment memo as well as access to her personnel files which contained information about her pregnancy and presumably communicated with post leadership about the curtailment. Neither did the Agency refute Complainant’s assertion that the Board may have been aware of her pregnancy because the panel works closely with HR on promotions; and that the Board was also aware of the gaps in her tours and the shortened lengths of her tours because that was reflected in her personnel and evaluation files. As the Agency never presented any testimony from the Board members who reviewed Complainant’s promotion materials, we are left with only Complainant’s unrebutted assertions.

We note DDHR2’s statements that the Board notes are only retained for one year after dismissal of the FSSB and, therefore, were no longer available. In that regard, because Complainant filed her EEO complaint within a year of her non-selection for promotion, those statements should have been made available to the Investigator, given there was an ongoing EEO complaint being processed on this selection. See EEOC regulations at 29 C.F.R. Section 1602.14 (requiring employers to retain “all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition”

ORDER (D0617)
The Agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions: I. The Agency will promote Complainant to FS-03 retroactively to the date she would have been promoted in 2014 absent discrimination, within thirty (30) calendar of the date this decision is issued.5 II. The Agency shall pay Complainant back pay with interest from the date in 2014 when Complainant would have started in the FS-03 position. The Agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest, and other benefits due Complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501, no later than sixty (60) calendar days after the date this decision was issued. The Agency will ensure that all tax consequences are taken into account. Complainant shall cooperate in the Agency’s efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits due and shall provide all relevant information requested by the Agency. If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay and/or benefits, the Agency shall issue a check to Complainant for theundisputed amount within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the Agency determines the amount it believes to be due. Complainant may petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute. The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision.” III. The Agency will conduct and complete a supplemental investigation on the issue of Complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages and will afford her an opportunity to establish a causal relationship between the Agency’s discriminatory action and her pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses, if any.  ….

The order is accompanied by a “Posting Order” which required the State Department to post the EEOC Notice signed by agency representative in DOS Washington, DC offices – in both hard copy and electronic format within 30 calendar days of the decision dated September 22, 2020, and to remain in place for 60 consecutive days in “conspicuous places”.  Anyone saw this posting order anywhere in the obscure corners of the Intranet?
Having seen the State Department  and the federal government negotiate on claims for damages like this, we would not be surprised if the negotiations for damages would run on not just for weeks, but months, even years. The goal is not really to find an agreement — the government has lawyers with limitless hours billable to Uncle Sam — the goal appears to be to negotiate up to the point where the complainant is exhausted that he/she would take whatever deal the government offers. Someday, somebody should calculate the costs when the government drag on these negotiations, as opposed to expeditious settlement when it is found to be in the wrong.
Read in full below:

Click to access 2019002167.pdf

 

A Third of U.S. Diplomats Eyeing the Exits? An FSO Responds

August 30, 2021 By in Foreign Service, FSOs, Leadership and Management, Org Life, Promotions, Realities of the FS, Staffing the FS, State Department, Top Ranks, Trends Tags: , ,

 

Below is a piece by Zed Tarar, a career member of the U.S. Foreign Service currently serving in London. This was published on Medium with the following Disclaimer: “Zed Tarar is a career U.S. diplomat. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect those of his employer or the U.S. government.”
Excerpt below from Analysis | A third of U.S. diplomats are eyeing the exits:
….While the headaches of finding fulfilling postings with progressively greater responsibility are well understood and documented, the knock-on effects are less discussed. When employees feel that rewards are unlinked to performance and recognition processes lack fairness and transparency, they leave, according to research. Here again the Viewpoint Survey paints a striking picture, stretching back to at least 2010 and remaining consistent: only two in five State employees believe promotions are based on merit. Such a staggering loss of confidence in the most basic talent management principle should give senior leaders pause. Yet, the diplomatic service maintains the same promotion and assignment system designed in the early 1980s, save for a few cosmetic changes and a move to managing paperwork on the cloud. Career diplomats will be quick to clarify that the issue is fairness and transparency. Knowing a better-suited colleague is headed to the job you wanted in Senegal is welcome; what “crushes morale” is the apparent randomness of postings and seeing poor performers given increasing responsibility and high-profile assignments.
[…]
If the 2,800 survey respondents in the retention study are to be believed, we may finally have a measurable negative consequence. Should up to a third of serving diplomats leave public service in the next few years, it may finally spur senior leadership within State to implement the organizational reforms needed. As it stands, the study’s findings seems to be attracting little attention from the top echelons of the department: a recent piece in Politico notes, “a senior State Department official responded that frustrations about promotions notwithstanding, only about 3 percent of these officials actually end up leaving the department annually.” In other words: how bad can it really be if people are choosing to stay?
Read more below:

U.S. Senate Confirms 203 Senior Foreign Service Promotions

July 1, 2021 By in Confirmations, Foreign Service, FSOs, Promotions, U.S. Senate Tags: , , ,
13 Going on 14 — GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27

 

On June 24, the U.S. Senate confirmed 203 nominees for Senior Foreign Service promotions:

2021-06-24 PN357-1 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Deanna Hanek Abdeen, and ending Ellen K. Tannor, which 203 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 13, 2021.

Nominees: PN357-1 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)All Information

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor:

Nominee

  • Deanna Hanek Abdeen, of VA
  • Begzat Bix Aliu, of VA
  • Jorgan Kendal Andrews, of VA
  • Mary Emma Arnold, of VA
  • Jennifer L. Bachus, of VA
  • Lance M. Bailey, of VA
  • Nicholas R. Berliner, of VA
  • Tobin J. Bradley, of DC
  • Katherine Ann Brucker, of DC
  • Robert G. Burgess, of DC
  • Michelle Ann Burton, of WA
  • Kelly S. Cecil, of FL
  • Ricardo Cifredo Colon, of VA
  • Angela Colyvas-McGinnis, of MD
  • Kathryn Taylor Crockart, of NC
  • Jill E. Darken, of IL
  • James R. Dayringer, of MO
  • Marc Douglas Dillard, of VA
  • James Edward Donegan, of VA
  • Kurt D. Donnelly, of VA
  • Abigail Lee Dressel, of CT
  • Patrick M. Dunn, of VA
  • David S. Elmo, of VA
  • Gabriel Escobar, of TX
  • Yuri P. Fedorenko, of MI
  • Tara Elizabeth Feret, of VA
  • Julie Davis Fisher, of VA
  • Kathleen A. Fitzgibbon, of VA
  • J. Robert Garverick, of VA
  • Jennifer Gavito, of MO
  • Ellen J. Germain, of NY
  • Carolyn B. Glassman, of CA
  • Ryan M. Gliha, of AZ
  • Michael Gonzales, of MD
  • Robert F. Hannan, of VA
  • Keith Lee Heffern, of VA
  • Christina Maria Huth Higgins, of VA
  • Melanie Harris Higgins, of VA
  • Elizabeth K. Horst, of DC
  • Paul R. Houston, of VA
  • Bryan D. Hunt, of VA
  • David R. Johnson, of MN
  • Mark Coolidge Johnson, of VA
  • Karen D. Kelley, of HI
  • Martin T. Kelly, of FL
  • Angela M. Kerwin, of VA
  • Cynthia A. Kierscht, of VA
  • Margaret Kurtz-Randall, of NY
  • Helen Grace LaFave, of NH
  • Daniel J. Lawton, of VA
  • Panfilo Marquez, of CA
  • Paul Overton Mayer, of VA
  • Joshua D. McDavid, of WA
  • John W. McIntyre, of TX
  • Deborah Rutledge Mennuti, of DC
  • Jonathan Robert Mennuti, of DC
  • Mario McGwinn Mesquita, of VA
  • Herro K. Mustafa, of CA
  • George M. Navadel, of TX
  • J. Robert Post, of DC
  • Timothy Meade Richardson, of MD
  • Karen Hideko Sasahara, of VA
  • Jonathan L. Shrier, of NY
  • Michael H. Smith, of ME
  • Willard Tenney Smith, of VA
  • Thomas D. Smitham, of MD
  • Howard T. Solomon, of MI
  • Linda S. Specht, of RI
  • Ellen Barbara Thorburn, of FL
  • Christina Tomlinson, of VA
  • Pamela M. Tremont, of VA
  • Hale Colburn VanKoughnett, of DC
  • Lesslie C. Viguerie, of VA
  • Peter H. Vrooman, of NY
  • JoAnne Wagner, of VA
  • Eva Anne Weigold Schultz, of VA
  • Aleisha Woodward, of VA
  • Marta Costanzo Youth, of MD
Continue reading →

@StateDept FS Promotion Statistics 2014-2017: Counselors (FE-OC) to Minister Counselors (FE-MC)

February 22, 2018 By in Foreign Service, FSOs, Functional Bureaus, Promotions, Realities of the FS, Snapshots, Staffing the FS, State Department, Top Ranks, Trends Tags: , , , ,

Posted: 2:20 am ET

 

Below is the comparative look of the State Department Foreign Service promotion statistics from 2014-2017 for Counselors (FE-OC equivalent to One-star rank (O-7)) to Minister Counselors (FE-MC equivalent to Two-star rank (O-8)). The average length of service of FSOs promoted from OC to MC in 2014-2017 is 25 years.

The number of FSOs who competed for promotion annually from 2014-2017 ranges from 215 in 2014 to 246 in 2017.  The number of FSOs promoted to from OC to MC was highest in 2016 at 61 FSOs or 24.3%, and lowest in 2017 at 29 FSOs or 11.8%.

That’s less than half the previous year, and that’s notable.

The FE-OC Counselor rank is the first rung in the Senior Foreign Service. The maximum time-in-class (TIC) limits for career generalist and specialist Senior Foreign Service members in this rank is seven (7) years. If FE-OCs are not getting promoted to FE-MCs because the promotion numbers have been shrunk, and they hit their time-in-class, they become subject to mandatory retirement upon expiration of their TIC and their time-in-service (TIS) limits.

Limiting the promotion numbers has been called a “stealth RIF” by old timers who remember the decimation of the career services in the 1990’s.

Via state.gov 11/24/17  FS Promotion Statistics

Again, please note that these numbers only include State Department Foreign Service numbers, and do not include USAID, Commerce, and Agriculture. For  those not familiar with the FS system, conal competition recognizes potential and competency in the primary career field. Members recommended for functional promotions demonstrate full proficiency across the six core competencies in a breadth of positions in their primary functional field (cone).

Per 3 FAH-1 H 2320 with the 2005 Selection Boards, classwide competition replaced multifunctionality.

The Department’s goal in instituting classwide competition is to assist the Department in expanding the pool of officers with broad vision and deep experience who are prepared to assume leadership positions in the future. Diplomacy in the 21st Century engages issues that are increasingly global in nature and/or scope, rapid changes in technology which are changing the way we do business, crises requiring effective and rapid response, the continuing need to promote actively democracy and respect for human rights, and threats to our safety and security that continue to surface. It needs broad-based and flexible officers, with leadership skills and the demonstrated ability to plan, organize, administer, and evaluate programs in both the members primary career field and across functional lines, who can transform resources and policy into results, while managing people effectively. While conal competition recognizes potential and competency in the primary career field, classwide competition builds on conal expertise by recognizing potential and competency across functional lines. The Board is asked to rate each employee in the classwide competition based on the relative strength of that members Performance Folder and demonstrated ability to perform effectively at the next higher level.

#

Foreign Service Promotion Statistics 2014-2017: Minister Counselors (FE-MC) to Career Ministers (FE-CM)

February 21, 2018 By in Foreign Service, FSOs, Functional Bureaus, Promotions, Realities of the FS, Snapshots, Staffing the FS, State Department, Top Ranks, Trends Tags: , , , , ,

Posted: 3:05 am ET
Updated: 12:37 pm PT

 

Below is the comparative look of the State Department Foreign Service promotion stats from 2014-2017 for Minister Counselors (FE-MC equivalent to Two-star rank (O-8)) to Career Ministers (FE-CM equivalent to Three-star rank (O-9)). FE-CM is the highest regular senior rank in the Foreign Service.  On November 16, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed four nominees to the rank of Career Minister (see PN 2100). Promotion stats below (also published annually in State Magazine) only covers the State Department; we don’t have data for USAID, Commerce (Foreign Commercial Service), or Agriculture (Foreign Agricultural Service).

Four FSOs were promoted to this rank in 2017, the same number promoted in 2015. The number of promotions to this rank ranges from 4-6 FSOs in 2014-2017, so there’s nothing that appears particularly striking in these numbers. If you’re seeing something we’re not seeing, email us. We’ll try and do the other ranks; there are notable numbers there.

Via state.gov 11/24/17  FS Promotion Statistics

Note that an extremely limited number of career diplomats attain Career Ambassador rank (FE-CA equivalent to Four-star rank (O-10)). Per 3 FAM 2320, the Secretary may recommend to the President the conferral of the personal rank of Career Ambassador on a limited number of career members of the SFS of the class of Career Minister whose careers have been characterized by especially distinguished service over a sustained period and who meet the requirements of 3 FAM 2324.2.  Conferral of the personal rank of Career Ambassador is made by the President, and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(click on image for larger view)

#

Senate Confirms Four Foreign Service Lists Including Two Pretty Thin Promotion Lists (Updated)

February 12, 2018 By in Confirmations, Foreign Service, FSOs, Functional Bureaus, Promotions, Realities of the FS, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends, U.S. Senate Tags: , , , ,

Posted: 3:43 am ET
Updated 2:04 pm PT

 

On January 30, the U.S. Senate confirmed four Foreign Service lists including two promotion lists that look pretty thin.  Are these all the names of FSOs/FSSs who got promoted, 98 in all? There were no promotions to the Career Ambassador (CA). or the Career Minister (CM) ranks, hey? How normal is that? 

According to State/HR’s count from last year (PDF), there were  19 Career Ministers in the entire Foreign Service at the end of FY2017. Unless there’s a separate list floating around, we’re not seeing the CA/CM promotions. There could also be a reduction in the Minister Counselor (MC) and Counselor numbers given that the count published by State was dated September 30, 2017 (Department of State Facts About Our Most Valuable Asset – Our People (September 30, 2017 Counts) and we have no idea how many departures by rank had occurred between October to January 2018.

Update: On November 16, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed four nominees to the rank of Career Minister (see PN 2100). 

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Career Minister:

  • John R. Bass II, of VA (current ambassador to Kabul)
  • John D. Feeley, of DC (will retire effective March 2018)
  • Judith G. Garber, of VA (current Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment and Science (OES)
  • Sung Y. Kim, of VA (current ambassador to Manila)

With the promotion of 4 career employees into the Career Minister rank, the State Department now appears to have 23 Career Minister rank members (4 new promotions, 19 FSOs, 0 FSSs). See PDF. That’s the same low number as in 2012, but will dipped to 22, same as in 2009, when Ambassador Feeley retires in March 2018. The lowest dips occurred at 19 both in 2008 and 2017.

With the promotion of  33 career employees into the Minister Counselor rank, the State Department now appears to have 447 Minister-Counselor rank members (33 new promotions, 384 FSOs, and 29 FSSs with Minister-Counselor rank).  See PDF.

With with promotion of 64 career employees into the Counselor rank, the State Department now appears to have s 611 Counselor-rank members (64 new promotions, plus 431 FSOs, and 116 FSSs with Counselor rank). See PDF.

This is our best guess at this time given the published numbers available and the congress.gov data.

2018-01-30 PN1434 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Alyce S. Ahn, and ending Michele D. Woonacott, which 90 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 8, 2018.

2018-01-30 PN1435 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Priya U. Amin, and ending Erik Z. Zahnen, which 118 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 8, 2018.

2018-01-30 PN1433 Foreign Service |Nominations beginning Marc Clayton Gilkey, and ending Mark A. Myers, which 6 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 8, 2018. (5 PROMOTIONs)

The following-named Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of Agriculture for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor:

Marc Clayton Gilkey, of CA

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor

Deanna M. J. Ayala, of MN

Darya Chehrezad, of CA

Morgan A. Perkins, of MD

Stanley Storey Phillips, of MT

/4

2018-01-30 PN1436-1 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Angela P. Aggeler, and ending Mari Jain Womack, which 93 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 8, 2018. (93 PROMOTIONS)

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor:

Angela P. Aggeler, of DC

Peter H. Barlerin, of MD

Colombia A. Barrosse, of VA

MaryKay Loss Carlson, of VA

Julie J. Chung, of CA

Karen Kaska Davidson, of TX

Kelly Colleen Degnan, of DC

Chayan C. Dey, of FL

John E. Fitzsimmons, of MD

Eric Alan Flohr, of FL

Anthony Godfrey, of VA

Peter T. Guerin, of NM

Lisa Kennedy Heller, of VA

Nicholas Manning Hill, of NY

J. Baxter Hunt III, of VA

Henry V. Jardine, of VA

Lisa A. Johnson, of VA

Steven C. Koutsis, of MD

Kamala Shirin Lakhdhir, of DC

Karin Melka Lang, of VA

Jeanne Marie Maloney, of VA

Ervin J. Massinga, of WA

Brian David McFeeters, of VA

Karen E. Mummaw, of VA

Richard Carl Paschall III, of VA

Lisa J. Peterson, of VA

Jo Ann E. Scandola, of DC

Mark Toner, of MD

Frank J. Whitaker, of SC

Michael L. Yoder, of VA

Andrew R. Young, of CA

David J. Young, of VA

Stephen Arthur Young, of FL

/33

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor:

Begzat Bix Aliu, of VA

Robert Lloyd Batchelder, of VA

Andrea Renee Brouillette-Rodriguez, of VA

Rachel L. Cooke, of VA

Susannah E. Cooper, of MD

Jason Richard Cubas, of FL

Abigail Lee Dressel, of CT

Marion Johnston Ekpuk, of VA

Jill Marie Esposito, of VT

Daniel J. Fennell, of FL

Eric Vincent Gaudiosi, of MD

William Robert Gill Jr., of VA

Ryan M. Gliha, of AZ

David J. Greene, of DC

Keith Lee Heffern, of VA

Elizabeth K. Horst, of MN

Martin T. Kelly, of FL

Angela M. Kerwin, of VA

William H. Klein, of CA

Kimberly Krhounek, of DC

Christopher A. Landberg, of DC

John David Lippeatt, of VA

Gregory Daniel LoGerfo, of VA

Ian Joseph McCary, of NY

David Ray McCawley, of CA

John W. McIntyre, of TX

Heather Christine Merritt, of VA

Mario McGwinn Mesquita, of VA

Marcus Robert Micheli, of CA

Andrew Thomas Miller, of VA

Mark David Moody, of MO

Joyce Winchel Namde, of VA

Scott McConnin Oudkirk, of VA

Jonathan G. Pratt, of CA

Jose Kieran Santacana, of DC

Jennifer L. Savage, of FL

William Steuer, of TX

Donn-Allan G. Titus, of FL

Christina Tomlinson, of VA

John E. Warner, of VA

Kami Ann Witmer, of PA

/41

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, and a Consular Officer and a Secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

Paul Avallone, of FL

Philip Karl Barth, of VA

Wade L. Boston, of VA

David L. Duncan, of UT

Vida M. Gecas, of VA

Glenn E. Harms, of VA

Joy D. Herrera-Baca, of VA

Tuan Q. Hoang, of WA

Jason R. Kight, of VA

Jacqueline Levesque, of VA

Luis A. Matus, of VA

Chanda C. McDaniel, of MO

William I. Mellott, of AZ

Thad Osterhout, of VA

Michael C. Ranger, of VA

Paul L. Schaefer, of VA

Robert A. Solomon, of PA

Mark A. Wilson, of VA

Mari Jain Womack, of TX

/19

#

Snapshot: @StateDept’s Professional Development Program Principles For #FSOs

January 18, 2018 By in Foreign Service, FSOs, Functional Bureaus, Leadership and Management, Professional Development, Promotions, Realities of the FS, Snapshots, Staffing the FS, State Department, Top Ranks, Trends Tags: , , , ,

Posted: 3:49 am ET

 

Related to our previous posts on the State Department’s new FSO Professional Development Program (see @StateDept Rolls Out New FSO Development Program, and Promotion Rules to Get Into the Senior Foreign Service and AFSA: FSOs Will Now Compete in a “Scavenger Hunt” to Be Considered for Promotion Into the Senior Foreign Service), see a snapshot of the new PDP principles rolled out by the State Department on the last working day of 2017:

The Professional Development Program (PDP) is designed to enhance leadership and adaptive capacity, fuel professional development, and develop the experience and skills of employees over the length of their careers. It is also designed to meet Service needs at various grade levels. Service needs continue to evolve based on U.S. interests, international challenges, and the evolution of diplomacy to encompass inter-agency and “crisis response” responsibilities. The principles outlined below encompass this dual objective of employee and Service needs. No single career path — no specific set or sequence of assignments, no particular promotion timing — determines success. Professional growth and career advancement come from taking on challenges and demonstrating accomplishments across an array of Service-needs assignments to broaden experience, widen perspective, deepen expertise and language proficiency, and amplify leadership and adaptive capacity. Employees should use assignments and training opportunities to challenge themselves and to integrate competencies and skill sets for positions of greater responsibility irrespective of rank or grade.

The PDP has four principles that an officer must develop and demonstrate over the course of his or her career, from entry through tenure and up to consideration for promotion at the Senior Threshold. Officers considered for entry into the Senior Foreign Service should demonstrate:

1) Operational effectiveness, including a breadth of experience over several regions and functions;

2) Leadership and management effectiveness;

3) Professional language proficiency; and

4) Responsiveness to Service needs.

 

OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Mandatory Requirement | A minimum of 15 years in the Foreign Service, to include service in a mix of completed domestic and overseas assignments with demonstrated regional and substantive expertise, including service in two separate bureaus after tenure. Those entering the Foreign Service after January 1, 2017, must serve at least one tour in a global affairs bureau or in a global affairs position.

(Note: Superhard language training held in-region may be counted toward regional expertise. “Domestic assignments” refers to Department positions in Washington and elsewhere in the United States, not details or long-term training.)

Mandatory Requirement: Completing one of the following two electives

1) Professional Development (one tour/one academic year, cumulative, after tenure). Such assignments would be drawn from the annual list of training opportunities and details managed by the HR Bureau’s Professional Development Unit (HR/CDA/PDU), including long-term training opportunities such as Senior Training programs at the War Colleges; academic study; Transatlantic Diplomatic Fellowships; Commands and Staff Colleges; Inter-American Defense College; National Intelligence University; and details such as NSC; DHS; Pearson Fellowships; USTR; Treasury; and USTDA.

2) Out-of-Cone Assignment (one year, after tenure). Such assignments would include a position with a skill code other than your primary skill code.

 

LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS

Mandatory Requirement | Significant and substantial leadership responsibility (one tour, after tenure). Such assignments would include positions that assign work, develop and set priorities, counsel employees, evaluate performances, resolve disputes, effect minor disciplinary measures, interview and recommend candidates for positions within a unit, and supervise other employees who perform such responsibilities. Positions such as Deputy Chief of Mission, section heads, unit chiefs, and office (or deputy office) director positions could be examples of positions that fulfill this requirement. Leadership effectiveness entails executing and achieving policy and programmatic results through people.

Mandatory Requirement | In accordance with the Procedural Precepts, FS-03s must complete Basic Leadership Skills (PK245) for promotion to FS-02; FS-02s must complete Intermediate Leadership Skills (PT207) for promotion to FS-01; and FS-01s must complete Advanced Leadership Skills (PT210) for promotion into the SFS.

(Related post: Burn Bag: Does @StateDept Really Care About Leadership Training?)

 

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Mandatory Requirement | One language at the 3/3 level (or at the 3/2 level for a hard or superhard language) tested after tenure, or one language at the 4/4 level (tested either before or after tenure).

 

SERVICE NEEDS

Mandatory Requirement | A completed tour at a 25% or greater hardship differential post from entry into the Foreign Service OR a completed tour at an unaccompanied post from entry into the Foreign Service AND

Another completed tour at a 20% or greater hardship differential post after tenure.

Note: The standard definitions for “tour completion” apply:

10 months for a 12-month TOD

20 months for a 24-month TOD

30 months for a 36-month TOD

 

The term ‘global affairs bureau’ means any bureau of the Department that is under the following —

  •  Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment (E);
  • Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (T);
  • Under Secretary for Management (M);
  • Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs (IO);
  • Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R); or
  • Under Secretary for Civilian, Security, Democracy, and Human Rights (J)

Global affairs positions refers to diplomatic policy and support: components funded under this category are the bureaus and offices of the following:

  • Administration;
  • Arms Control, Verification and Compliance;
  • Budget and Planning;
  • Chief of Protocol;
  • Comptroller and Global Financial Services;
  • Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor;
  • Economic and Business Affairs;
  • Energy Resources;
  • Information Resource Management;
  • Intelligence and Research;
  • International Criminal Justice;
  • International Security and Nonproliferation;
  • Legal Adviser;
  • Legislative Affairs;
  • Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs;
  • Political-Military Affairs; Population and International Migration;
  • Public Affairs;
  • Secretary of State;
  • Under Secretary for Management;
  • Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

#


Burn Bag: 2017 S-III Selection Board – Who Volunteers … Who Volunteers as Tribute?

June 25, 2017 By in Diplomatic Security, Foreign Service, FS Groups, Functional Bureaus, Org Life, Promotions, State Department Tags: , , , , ,

Via Burn Bag:

“Given the lack of action by either the DG, HR/PE or AFSA, it is evident all support cronyism and undue influence on the 2017 S-III Selection Board given that a single individual has been chosen by HR/PE to represent DS 50% of the time over the past 6 years. This, despite other qualified candidates volunteering time & again. This wreaks of favoritism, undue influence and undermines the credibility of the Foreign Service promotion process.”

via giphy

#

Related item:

3 FAM 2326.1 Selection Boards
3 FAM 2326.1-1 Composition:
f. All selection board members must be approved by the Director General and must not serve on a selection board for two consecutive years.