David Dean

Mark, I see where you are going, but we are not dealing with policy. We are dealing with federal statute, Code of Federal Regulations, and federal court cases. What we have accomplised in the past 13 years is a result of CAFC and MSPB decisions. These take precedent over any policy. Granting veteran preference cannot be construed as discrimination under the auspices of the many civil rights statute. Stakeholders are not our problem. The correct application of federal staute, Code of Federal Regulations, and federal case law is our only concern, and will remain our concern. The whinners cannot get past it is the law. If they do do not like it change. What we see as discrimination in the Pathways Program is currently being vetted at MSPB an CAFC.

Veteran preference was not intended mesh with civilian needs. Until the law is changed veteran preference will remain as it is now, just that preference confered by statute. If you wish I will provide you a list of cases. Veteran preference has become firmly embedded in federal hire procedure since my case Dean v. OPM, Nov 04, 2010.

The so called Outstanding Scholar Program and the Federal Career Program screwed us from 1987 until 2010. It will take years for us to gain equality with non-veterans insofar as federal hiring is concerned. I returned to school for a PhD. I was a 2013 PMF finalist. I applied for approximately 100 positons. The only response I received was an intend to passover. They just cancelled the job. OPM, other agencies and I are going to have a lengthy conversation this matter.

I am a retired Army Military Police Office and a retired GS-0233-13 in Labor Relations. Most federal managers do not belief bull horns will hook. During my tenure as in labor relations I inquired of a GS-14, ‘baccker chawing, non-veteran, good old boy with a GED why he did not hire veteran, he replied, ” I ain’t got nuthin again vet, but no body ain’t going to tell em who to hire.” Apprantely that concenus has changed in the fedral hiring arena.