PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF PERFORMANCE-RATING PLANS FOR CERTAIN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 16, 2000
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: August 10, 1950
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For Release 2001/07/25: CIA-RDP gQ, $ 10O Q0A9
1
81ST CONGRESS SENATE I REPORT
2d Session No. 2265
PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF PERFORM-
ANCE-RATING PLANS FOR CERTAIN OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. FREAK, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
submitted the following
REPORT
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was
referred the bill (H. R. 7824), to provide for the administration of
performance-rating plans for certain officers and employees of the
Federal Government, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend
that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The purpose of the bill is to provide for a performance-rating
.-a system for certain officers and employees of the Federal Government
to replace the existing efficiency rating system provided for in title IX
of the Classification Act of 1949.
While some of the aspects of H. R. 7824 were included in S. 2111,
designed to implement the recommendations of the Commission on
Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (the Hoover
Commission) with regard to personnel management, and this commit-
tee held extensive hearings on S. 2111, no identical bill to H. R. 7824
was introduced in the Senate; therefore, in reporting H. R. 7824, the
Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service is adopting the
House committee report in full.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
 Approved
For F~elea@/7~~~9AF?~d~i~iQ~~9~rEs
In addition to the 10 amendments to the bill as originally intro-
duced, the committee feels that an eleventh amendment should be
added to read:
(11) Employees outside the continental limits of the United States who are
paid in accordance with local native prevailing wage rates for the area in which
employed.
The purpose of this amendment is to add to the 10 categories ex-
cluded those employees located outside the continental United States,
whose rates of pay are fixed in accordance with local prevailing native
wage rates. It is not believed that the application of this perform-
ance rating plan to them would serve any useful purpose, and would
involve additional work and expense which cannot be justified by the
results to be obtained.
The bill is also amended by substituting "outstanding" for "excel-
lent" in line 7, page 4 of original bill; and by substituting "satisfac-
tory" for "excellent" in line 6, page 5 of original bill.
These changes in the bill as it passed the House are in line with
the suggestions contained in the attached letter from the Civil Serv-
ice Commission, July 21, 1950, and are for the reasons given by the
Commission in which the committee concurs.
The bill is further amended in line 18, page 4, by inserting "of
tqual jurisdiction" between the words "review" and "for". The
purpose of this amendment is to make clear that when several boards
are organized in one department or agency, their jurisdiction would
be on the same level and that the appellant would not have successive
appeals from one board to another board.
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington 25, D. C., July 21, 1950.
HOn. OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
United States Senate.
DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: In response to a request today from Mr. J. Austin
Latimer, staff director of your committee, the Commission is glad to submit the
following brief report on H. R. 7824, the proposed Performance Rating Act of
1950.
While the Commission prefers the provisions of H. R. 7264, which follow the
draft of the Commission's comments in its report of January 31, 1950, we believe
that H. R. 7824 represents a substantial improvement over the present uniform
efficiency rating system in the Federal service. We urgently recommend, how-
ever, that the two following changes be made in the language of H. R. 7824:
In section 6, we recommend that the word "excellent" (p. 4, line 7, of the
printed bill) be changed to "outstanding." As you know, the present uniform
efficiency rating system prescribes the adjective rating "excellent" as the highest
of five adjective ratings. One serious criticism of the present uniform system
is that an undue proportion of Federal employees customarily receive the
"excellent" rating. We believe that the intent of H. R. 7824 is to reserve the
highest of the three ratings for employees who are in every respect outstanding
in their performance, and that this highest rating should not be degenerated into
an automatic rating for large groups of employees. By using the designation
"outstanding" instead of "excellent", the large number of present employees who
have been rated "excellent" under the existing system would not feel that they
should automatically be given the highest rating under the new system.
We also recommend that the word "excellent" in section 7 (c) (on page 5, line 6
of the printed bill) be changed to "satisfactory". This change would mean that
employees with a "satisfactory" rating would not be entitled to an appeal outside
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-
PERFORMANCE-RATING PLANS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,
their agencies to an efficiency rating board of review. Such employees would,
however, still be able to have their ratings reviewed within their own departments,
under the provisions of section 7 (a). The Commission does not feel that a person
should be in a position to ask an outside board to declare that his work is out-
standing and deserving of special commendation. If this change is adopted, the
number of appeals to efficiency rating boards of review would be substantially re-
duced. At the same time, employees receiving "unsatisfactory" ratings which
would involve a penalty action would still have the right to appeal their ratings
to an outside board of review.
Because of the need for an immediate report, the Commission has not been able
to clear this report with the Bureau of the Budget.
HARRY B. MITCHELL,
Chairman.
In compliance with the amendment to rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate set forth in Senate Resolution 95, Eighty-first
Congress, first session, changes in existing law made by the bill (II. R.
7824) as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics,
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 701 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949
SEC. 701. [(a) ] Each officer or employee compensated on a per annum basis,
and occupying a permanent position within the scope of the compensation sched-
ules fixed by this Act, who has not attained the maximum scheduled rate of com-
pensation for the grade in which his position is placed, shall be advanced in com-
pensation successively to the next higher rate within the grade at the beginning
of the next pay period following the completion of (1) each fifty-two calendar
weeks of service if his position is in a grade in which the step-increases are less
than $200, or (2) each seventy-eight calendar weeks of service if his position is
in a grade in which the step-increases are $200 or more, subject to the following
conditions:
(A) That no equivalent increase in compensation from any cause was
received during such period, except increase made pursuant to section 702
or 1002;
(B) [That his currect efficiency rating is "Good" or better than "Good";]
That he has a current performance rating of "Satisfactory" or better; and
[(C) That the service and conduct of such officer or employee are certified
as being otherwise satisfactory by the department; and]
[(D)] (C) That the benefit of successive step-increases shall be preserved,
under regulations issued by the Commission, for officers and employees whose
continuous service is interrupted in the public interest by service with the
armed forces or by service in essential non-Government civilian employment
during a period of war or national emergency.
[(b) The term "good" as used in this title shall have the same meaning as when
used in the systems of efficiency rating established pursuant to title IX of this Act.]
SECTION 702 (A) OF TIIE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949
SEC. 702. (a) Within the limit of available appropriations and in accordance
with standards promulgated by the Commission, each department is authorized,
subject to prior approval by the Commission (except as provided in subsection
(b)), to make additional step-increases as a reward for superior accomplishment,
but no officer or employee shall be eligible for more than one such additional step-
increase within each of the time periods specified in section 701 [(a)].
SECTION 703 (B) (2) OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949
(2) No officer or employee shall receive a longevity step-increase unless his
current [efficiency rating is "good" or better than "good", and his service and
conduct are certified as being otherwise satisfactory by the department.] per-
formance rating is "satisfactory" or better.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
4 PERFORMANCE-RATING PLANS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
SECTION 4 OF THE ACT or AUGUST 23, 1912 (37 STAT. 413)
[SEc. 4. The Civil Service Commission shall, subject to the approval of the
President, establish a system of efficiency ratings for the classified service in the
several executive departments in the District of Columbia based upon records
kept in each department and independent establishment with such frequency as
to make them as nearly as possible records of fact. Such system shall provide a
minimum rating of efficiency which must be attained by an employee before he
may be promoted; it shall also provide a rating below which no employee may
fall without being demoted; it shall further provide for a rating below which no
employee may fall without being dismissed for inefficiency. All promotions, de-
motions, or dismissals shall be governed by provisions of the civil-service rules.
Copies of all records of efficiency shall be furnished by the departments and
independent establishments to the Civil Service Commission for record in ac-
cordance with the provisions of this section: Provided, That in the event of reduc-
tions being made in the force in any of the executive departments no honorably
discharged soldier or sailor whose record in said department is rated good shall
he discharged or dropped, or reduced in rank or salary.
[Any person knowingly violating the provisions of this section shall be sum-
marily removed from office, and may also upon conviction thereof be punished
by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more
than one year.]
THE ACT OF JULY 31, 1946 (5 U. S. C. 669a)
[That no employee in any civilian position in the executive branch of the
Government of the United States, other than an employee in or under the field
service of the Post Office Department or any employee of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, shall be rated as to efficiency except under a system of efficiency
ratings approved by the Civil Service Commission, and that the provisions of
section 9 of the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, or as may be hereafter
amended, shall apply to all efficiency ratings under rating systems approved by
the Civil Service Commission.
[The Civil Service Commission is hereby authorized to make and publish
rules and regulations for the administration of the provisions of this Act.
[SEC. 2. The provisions of this Act shall be effective upon enactment, except
that, with respect to employees in the field services whose positions are not subject
to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, such of the provisions of section 9
of the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, as require the Civil Service Com-
mission to approve reductions in compensation and dismissals for inefficiency,
or confer the right to a hearing and review of efficiency ratings by boards of
review, shall not become effective until such boards of review in the field services
are established as provided in section 7 of the Act of November 26, 1940 (54 Stat.
1215), under regulations prescribed by the Civil Service Commission, with the
approval of the President.]
TITLE IX OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949
[TITLE IX-EFFICIENCY RATINGS
[SEC. 901. (a) The Commission shall establish and may revive uniform systems
of efficiency rating for the appraisal of the service of officers and employees in
positions in the classes and grades provided by this Act. Such systems shall set
forth degrees of efficiency which shall constitute ground for (1) the recognition of
outstanding performance, (2) the granting of increases in the rate of compensation,
(3) continuance at the existing rate of compensation, (4) decrease in the rate of
compensation of officers and employees who at the time are above the middle rate
for the grade in which their positions are placed, and (5) removal from the position
or dismissal from the service.
[(b) Each department shall rate in accordance with such systems the efficiency
of each officer or employee under its jurisdiction. Ratings shall be open to inspec-
tion by representatives of the Commission and by officers and employees of the
department in accordance with regulations issued by the Commission. Each
officer or employee shall have the right to inspect the detailed report of his own
rating.
[(c) Reductions in compensation, removals from positions, or dismissals from
the service shall be made by the departments whenever the efficiency ratings
warrant.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
 5~gPPP~Q00357
Approved For Release 2001/07/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R R9
PERFORMANCE-RATING PLANS FOR GOVERNMENT [SEC. 902. (a) There shall be established in each department one or more
boards of review each of which shall be composed of three members. One member,
who shall serve as chairman, shall be designated by the Commission; one member
shall be designated by the department concerned; and one member shall be
designated by the officers and employees of the department concerned in such
manner as may be determined by the Commission.
[(b) Alternate members shall be designated in the same manner as their respec-
tive principal members. The boards of review shall meet at the call of their
respective chairmen for the purpose of considering and passing upon the merits
of such efficiency ratings assigned to officers and employees as may be submitted
to such boards of review as hereinafter provided.
[(c) Any officer or employee shall, upon written request to the chairman of
the appropriate board of review of his department, be entitled as a matter of right
to a hearing and a review by such board of review of his efficiency rating. At
the hearing the officer or employee, and such representative as he may designate,
and such representatives of the department as may be designated by the depart-
ment, shall be afforded an opportunity, (1) to submit orally or in writing any
information deemed by the board of review to be pertinent to the case, and
(2) to hear or examine, and reply to, any such information submitted to such
board by other parties. After any such hearing the board may make such
adjustment in any such efficiency rating as it may find to be proper.
[SEC. 903. The Commission shall make a study of efficiency mating systems in
the Federal service and submit a report to Congress on or before February 1,
1950, setting forth its findings as to the operation and administration of such
systems and such recommendations (including specific recommendations for legis-
lation) as it may deem advisable.]
APPENDIX I
HISTORY OF THE EFFICIENCY-RATING SYSTEM IN THE FEDERAI, SERVICE
There are records of efficiency-rating systems in Government departments as
early as 1887, when they were required to be used in promotion examinations.
Presidents Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison both made efforts to have efficiency
ratings made so that advancements to higher-paying positions would be based
on efficiency. A committee, appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905,
recommended the preparation of semiannual efficiency ratings. It was not until
1912, however, that any serious attempt was made to provide for uniform systems
of efficiency ratings.
By the act of August 23, 1912 (37 Stat. 413, 414), the Civil Service Commission
was directed to establish uniform systems of efficiency ratings for all departmental
services in the District of Columbia, and heads of departments were ordered to
rate employees in keeping with such systems.
Under this authority, the Division of Efficiency of the Commission assisted in
planning and installing a rating system in the Division of Dead Letters in the
Post Office Department. Shortly thereafter, in 1914, the system was modified
and extended to all departmental activities of the Post Office Department.
The Division of Efficiency of the Commission became an independent Bureau of
Efficiency by the act of February 28, 1916 (39 Stat. 15), and continued cooperative
efforts with different departments in the establishment of rating systems.
On October 24, 1921, the President directed the Bureau of Efficiency to "pre-
scribe a system of rating of employees of the classified services of the Federal
Government in the District of Columbia." Heads of departments and independ-
ent establishments were directed to apply this system to all employees (Executive
Order No. 3567).
Section 9 of the Classification Act of 1923 (42 Stmt. 1488), authorized the Per-
sonnel Classification Board to review and revise uniform systems of efficiency
ratings, and established standards for such rating systems. The law required a
rating level which must be attained to receive salary advancement within a
grade, a rating level to permit retention in the grade without advancement or
reduction in pay, a rating level to require reduction in pay within the grade, and
a rating level which would require dismissal or demotion in grade. Dismissals,
demotions, and pay reductions required by ratings were to be made by heads of
departments, subject to 'the approval of the Board.
By the act of June 20, 1932 (47 Stat. 416), the functions, powers, and duties
of the Personnel Classification Board were transferred to the Civil Service Com-
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
6 PERFORMANCE-RATING PLANS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
mission, effective October 1, 1932. The following year the Bureau of Efficiency
was abolished by the act of March 3, 1933 (47 Stat. 1519), and its property and
recordswere transferred to the Bureau of the Budget.
Section 7 of the Ramspeck Act of November 26, 1940 (54 Stat. 1215), authorized
the establishment of independent boards of review to hear and decide efficiency-
rating appeals.
Efficiency ratings for employees in the field services were first required by the
act of August 1, 1941 (55 Stat. 614), which directed the Commission and heads of
departments and independent establishments to apply the efficiency-rating
provisions of the Classification and Ramspeck Acts, "as nearly as practicable,"
to all employees paid under the compensation schedules of the Classification Act.
Efficiency ratings as a factor in reductions in force had been previously author-
ized by Executive orders, but their use was required by law under the terms of
section 12 of the Veterans' Preference Act of June 27, 1944 (58 Stat. 387).
The act of July 31, 1946 (60 Stat. 751), requires Civil Service Commission
approval for any efficiency-rating system used for rating employees in the execu-
tive branch of the Government, except the Tennessee Valley Authority and the
field service of the Post Office Department.
The first efficiency-rating s
stem establi
h
d
y
s
e
under the authority of the Classi-
fication Act was developed around a "graphic rating scale." Supervisors made IOU
check marks in black ink indicati
th
i
ng
e
r opinion of services rendered under
different elements or factors on graduated scales. These check marks were
reviewed by higher-level supervisors who concurred in the initial marks or indi-
cated differences of opinion by check marks in red ink. The rating forms were
then routed to central offices, known as boards of review, where codes were applied
to produce a final rating on a percentage basis, specific to two decimal points.
These boards of review were also authorized, in their judgment, to adjust ratings
to conform to a predetermined pattern of distribution.
This rating system was devised to eliminate the personal element from the
ratings. The supervisor did not make the rating-he merely reported his opinion
of performance under a group of factors which applied to the employee's position.
The reviewing supervisor did not make or approve a rating -he merely reviewed
the initial supervisor's judgment as to performance under the various factors.
The board of review did not use personal opinion but merely applied a code of
weights to the opinions of the supervisors.
During the 10 years of its use, the graphic scale system of rating was very
unpopular. No employee was able to obtain an explanation of his rating from
any of his supervisors. Supervisors had difficulty in advising employees how to
improve performance in order to receive a better rating. Everyone was suspicious
of the results at every ratin
i
d
g per
o
.
After a series of conferences with representatives of all departments and inde-
pendent establishments, the Commission revised the efficiency-rating system in
1935. In every possible way, the revised system was the direct opposite of the
graphic rating-scale system. Factors were grouped under three headings: "Quality
of performance," "Productiveness," and "Qualifications shown on job." Each
factor was marked with a "plus" for strong, "minus" for weak, or a check mark
if "neither strong nor weak." Numerical ratings were assigned under each
heading; 1 or 2 if "excellent," 3 or 4 if "very good," 5 or 6 if "good," 7 or 8 if
"fair," and 9 or 10 if unsatisfactory." The numerical ratings were independent
of the factor marks. The final rating was the sum of the three numerical ratings.
Adjective ratings were as follows: 3 to 7 "excellent," 8 to 13 "very good," 14 to
19 "good," 20 to 24 "fair," and 25 to 30 "unsatisfactory." There were no defini-
tions. No adjustments were permitted to roach a desired pattern of distribution.
This system also became unpopular because of the absence of any guide lines
to indicate what kind of performance was excellent, very good, good, fair, or
unsatisfactory. There was almost no basis upon which reviewers of ratings
could discover differences of rating standards. Employees soon learned that
what was considered as "Good" performance in one department was rated as
"Excellent" in a different department.
Numerous changes have been made since 1940 in the rating system for em-
ployees in Classification Act positions. Rating elements have been made more
specific. Supervisory judgments are reported on the rating elements by the use
of symbols designating three evaluation levels. Plus marks now indicate out-
standing performance and not merely a show of strength. A check mark signifies
adequate performance and not "Neither strong nor weak." Numerical ratings
were modified and then eliminated. Final adjective ratings are keyed to the
element marks by a definite standard.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7
 Approved F&r 1DN" 1CR5v 4 84 R M00377
The uniform efficiency rating system has been devised by the Civil Service
Commission (with the cooperation of the Federal agencies through the Federal
Personnel Council), and applies to all Federal employees occupying positions
paid under the compensation schedules of the Classification Act.
Ratings are prepared initially by the immediate supervisor, reviewed by higher
supervisors, and reviewed and approved by an efficiency rating committee which
exercises the authority of the head of the agency. Regular efficiency ratings are
made on a standard form which contains 20 factors that are applicable to non-
supervisory positions and 11 factors that are available for administrative, plan-
ning, and supervisory positions. Only those factors which pertain to the position
of the employee are used for the appraisal of that employee's work performance.
Ina few experiments now being conducted with the approval of the Commission,
the work operations or the duties of the position are used instead of the factors
listed on the rating form.
After the appropriate factors are selected for a particular position, the especially
important ones are shown by underlining. Then a symbol is placed in front of
each pertinent factor indicating whether the employee's performance has (/)
met, (+) exceeded., or (-) failed to measure up to job requirements. On the
basis of these evaluations, a final. adjective rating is assigned.
Five adjective ratings are provided: Excellent, very good, good, fair, and un-
satisfactory. Each employee is notified of the particular adjective rating as-
signed by means of a standard form which tells the significance and meaning of
the rating and what initial stop he may take if he is not satisfied that the rating
is correct. Under the uniform plan, the employee has the right to see his own
rating form, to know the ratings of other employees of his agency, and to appeal
his rating to a board of review.
Up to January 15, 1948, three types of ratings were provided: Regular, pro-
bational, and special. Regular ratings were to be made as of March 31 of each
year, probational ratings at the end of the tenth month of the probational period,
and special ratings when there was no current appropriate rating in record and
one was needed for within-grade salary advancement or reduction in force. After
the cessation of hostilities, when the size of the Government service was being
reduced rapidly, a great many special ratings were made which were based on
short periods of service. Consideration of this problem resulted in a change in
the uniform efficiency-rating system which eliminated special ratings. Effective
January 15, 1948, the system provides for two types of ratings: Entrance and
regular. An entrance rating is given when an employee is appointed or changes
his position. A regular rating is assigned when the employee has been in his
position for 6 months, and annually thereafter on March 31 or in accordance with
an agency plan approved by the Commission which might provide a different
date or anniversary ratings for individual employees.
Another of the recent revisions of the uniform system incorporates the principle
that ratings of "Fair" or "Unsatisfactory" should not be assigned unless the em-
i
f
i
fi
ll
n
orm
ng
y
ca
ployee was given a warning 3 to 6 months prior to the rating, speci
him (a) how his performance fails to meet, requirements, (b) how he may improve
his performance, (c) that he has the opportunity to bring about such improvement,
and (d) that he will receive a "Fair" or "Unsatisfactory" rating if his performance
does not improve to meet required standards.
Prior to 1941, an employee who was dissatisfied with his efficiency rating could
appeal only to his supervisors who had approved the rating. If any hearing was
held, it was before an official, or a board of officials, in his own agency. However,
the act of November 26, 1940, authorized the establishment of boards of review
to consider efficiency-rating appeals.
This act provided for boards having three members-the chairman to be desig-
nated by the Civil Service Commission, one member to be designated by the head
of the department, and the third member to be designated by the employees of
the department in the manner determined by the Commission. Employees are
entitled, as a matter of right, to a hearing and review of their efficiency ratings.
They have the right to be represented, to submit information, and to hear, examine,
and reply to information presented by other persons at the hearing.
Boards of review were established and began operating in 1941. At that time,
only departmental-service employees whose positions were under the Classifica-
tion Act could appeal to boards of review. This right was extended, insofar as
practicable, to Classification Act employees in the field service by the act of
August 1, 1941. Regulations were issued in 1942 whereby field service employ-
ees whose positions were under the Classification tiet were permitted to appeal in
writing even though no boards were established in the field service. The depart-
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384ROO0500090003-7
 Approved
For I~eletlIv1~~C/>n1~-~Qu~~~~!~4~> s
mental service boards took care of these appeals. The right of appeal was extended
to other employees by the act of July 31, 1946, even though their positions were
not subject to th , Classification Act. This law, however, specifically exempted
employees in the field service of the Post Office Department and all employees of
the Tennessee Valley Authority. The right of a hearing and review for field-
service employees whose positions were not under the Classification Act was post-
poned until field boards of review were established. In 1948, the Commission
appointed chairmen of boards in its regional offices and field boards began to be
established. A number of them are now in operation.
Efficiency ratings are used as a basis for within-grade pay increases. Title VII
of the Classification Act of 1949 provides for successive salary advancements
based on several factors, one of which is efficiency ratings. Ratings of "Good" or
better permit periodic salary advancement by successive steps up to and including
the maximum rate for the grade. Periodic within-grade salary advancements
under the law and regulations are made by departments and agencies without
review by the Commission.
Efficiency ratings are likewise a factor in calculating the retention credits which
are used in determining the order in which employees are affected by reduction
in force.
Reductions in compensation, demotions, and dismissals are actions that flow
from efficiency ratings of below "Good" and are subject to approval by the Com-
mission in the cases of all graded and ungraded employees in the departmental and
field services, except employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the field
service of the Post Office Department. Accordingly, specific procedures have
been issued, governing salary reductions, demotions, and dismissals by heads of
departments based on efficiency ratings. These procedures do not apply to em-
ployees serving probational periods.
Under these procedures, the employee is given a written notice, at least 30
calendar days in advance of the proposed effective date of the proposed action,
stating (1) specifically what the performance requirements of his position are and
how he failed to meet these performance requirements; (2) the nature and date of
the proposed action, and, in any case of reduction in pay, the grade and title of
the position and the new salary rate; and (3) that he may make a written reply to
the agency within a specified period which shall be not less than one calendar
week from the date of receipt of the notice, stating why the action should not be
taken. The agency is required to consider the employee's answer and make
such changes and adjustments in the efficiency rating and in the action resulting
therefrom as are deemed appropriate. If these procedures are followed, the
department's action is approved. In the case of a veteran, the approval is subject
to any appeal by the employee under section 14 of the Veterans' Preference Act
of 1944. If the employee has appealed his efficiency rating to a board of review,
approval is subject to the board's decision on the merits of the rating.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090003-7