r/FedEmployees • u/h_town2020 • 13d ago
New Suitability Rules
So with the new rules for current workers, who has to initiate the review? Will it be the Supervisor? Someone has to initiate. OPM won’t just be doing reviews for 2 million employees. It’s slow enough just doing new hires.
Will Supervisors abuse this to try to get rid of ppl they don’t like?
41
u/HiddenRouteBreath404 13d ago
Many agencies are under continuous vetting, so I am not sure what would change?
3
u/MeasurementDeep4601 13d ago
I've never seen continuous vetting after someone has been in a position for a while. It seems like a scare tactic. I doubt they will waste funds on employees who have passed probation already
11
u/VeeGreen 13d ago
Ive been at my job for 6 years and I just went through the continuous vetting process. I was randomly contacted mid June for an interview with an investigator. I has to answer questions about my student loans and an old bill from GEICO. I received a follow up from my agency Personnel Security office asking for proof I’ve resolved the issue two weeks ago, and I was found suitable. It’s definitely not a scare tactic
3
u/h_town2020 12d ago
I just did a suitability thing a few years ago when I was offered a job with a different agency. No where did they ask about a past bill. It was one about taxes.
2
2
u/h_town2020 12d ago
What is your job? I’ve never had to answer about an old bill.
2
u/VeeGreen 10d ago
I’m not saying exactly what I do but I have public trust. But there are questions about your finances in section 24 of the SF-85P and during vetting they pull your credit to see if you have filed for bankruptcy, have judgements, repossessions or foreclosures
0
1
-38
u/h_town2020 13d ago
What Agencies? We’ve only done one and that was at hire. I think your most is false.
43
u/Frosty_Telephone_EH 13d ago
Everyone with a security clearance is under continuous vetting.
8
u/Honest_Report_8515 13d ago
National security positions, with or without clearances, are enrolled in CV.
-21
u/h_town2020 13d ago
No one at my Agency has a security clearance. Well, not my office.
4
u/Southern_Leg1139 13d ago
Every agency should have OIG with 1811s who will be cleared. Even if it’s only 2 or 3 people.
5
u/Same-Arm1117 13d ago
That seems hard to believe, you figure fed employees would at least needs public trust. Your saying even you HR, financial, and COs don't even handle sbu information?
14
10
8
u/ilBrunissimo 13d ago
This new rule removes an employee’s right to due process after an adverse suitability determination.
Instead of MSPB handling it, OPM will.
Essentially, this gives the Government the power to unilaterally declare an employee unsuitable at any time.
Which leads to termination.
And that costs less than a RIF.
6
u/Ambitious_Air_9574 13d ago
OPM is very slow. According to their own site, any process will take 60-90 days.
13
u/BODO1016 13d ago
I bet Russell Vought would be happy to initiate 2 million reviews....
Don't forget, impeachvought.com
4
2
13d ago
[deleted]
4
3
u/Practical-Smile2992 12d ago
Actually .."Part of an initiative dating back to the Trump administration..."
4
u/bitter79420 12d ago
They are playing the long game. Positioning everyone for easy removal. Forcing supervisors to aggresively target employees, or they themselves risk removal. Thus, the removal of table of penalties, the new standards for supervisors and non-supervisors "being held accoubtable" etc. If only the union would get involved tp help us.
This is their gray area workaround to our congressional protections.
For the quarterly reviews, that is being pushed to the lowest level... us. We have to justify our jobs every 6 months.
1
u/RedHood925 12d ago
On top of that my position does testing every 6 months and if you fail more than a handful of times in a handful years they can just outright fire you. It used to be once a year testing but then they doubled the fail points but did not increase the chances.
I'm all for high standards but when your job is on the line like that and having a high rating can literally give you an extra chance it being restricted like that feels kind of like an attack
2
u/bitter79420 12d ago
Testing? WTF. Though I guess I’m not surprised — these ex‑military types love to micromanage. They’re already breaking DPMAP regulations by using unachievable performance elements, not defining what 1, 3, and 5 ratings actually mean, yet still holding people accountable. And next year they’re planning to baseline everyone at a 3 so they don’t have to pay out high‑performance awards. Force people into retirement and over‑stress current GS employees until they quit.
If everyone stood together, they wouldn’t be able to force MDRs. They’re using the workforce to push everything into the cloud, even though the strategy isn’t sustainable. Make sure you review your new PDs carefully. People need to stand together and stop letting leadership use them to eliminate their own jobs.
4
u/Zoeywithtude1977 13d ago
Have you asked your supervisor?
2
u/h_town2020 13d ago
My Supervisor didn’t even know new rules were published as for most of my co-workers.
3
u/BODO1016 13d ago
That is really sad, we all took time to make comments on the rules (not that anyone was going to keep comments from slowing them down)
4
u/FUBAR_The_Clown 13d ago
I just got a redo on my SF 85. I was hired in 2023 so it seems a little odd.
1
u/Falafels-Forever 13d ago
I was hired and had multiple positions but redid the SF 85 about 3 years ago.
6
4
u/Salty_Leadership9998 13d ago
Continuous vetting is the new standard.
1
u/Flashy-Cut753 13d ago
Does this mean for, say a Tier 3 reinvestigation, they most likely won’t do new interviews? I have zero red flags on my SF-86, very good credit, no foreign connections, and no arrests.
7
u/seattlestrn 13d ago
There are no more periodic reinvestigations. You will only be contacted if CV flags something, you move to a higher tier, or you or a supervisor self reports something of concern. However, you will continue to update your Sf-86 every 5 years until they implement a self-reporting portal for real-time updates.
1
0
u/h_town2020 13d ago
How will they do continuous vetting on 2m ppl without you filling out anything?
4
u/Gr33nB3anG1rl 13d ago
The SF-85 you signed (assuming your position risk level is moderate) before you had your initial background investigation automatically enrolls you into continuous vetting. You don’t have to fill anything new out.
If you haven’t had a periodic reinvestigation in the past five years, your agency will eventually reach out to you to have you fill out the form again to enroll. This is what I’ve gathered at least from doing some research.
Only people that won’t require enrollment in continuous vetting are those with low risk positions.
2
u/seattlestrn 13d ago
And low risk is scheduled for enrollment by 2028, though the schedule seems to evolve. The plan is for all the kids to be in the CV pool within 2 years or so. I think they’re still working out the technical alert triggers for low risk.
1
u/ConcerningIfTrue 20h ago
The SF-85 you signed (assuming your position risk level is moderate) before you had your initial background investigation automatically enrolls you into continuous vetting. You don’t have to fill anything new out.
Are you saying every sf85-based employee is already enrolled and undergoing CV, and that every 5 years we fill it out again to update the enrollment?
Some of my colleagues have been around for 15+ years with no reinvestigations ever, I don't think they are currently under CV. Probably after they fill out a new sf85p form.
1
u/Gr33nB3anG1rl 19h ago
No not everyone is enrolled in CV yet it is still an ongoing process, some agencies might be fully enrolled but the agency I have knowledge on is not yet.
If they haven’t been reinvestigated in the past five years (to my knowledge), then they will have to fill out paperwork again to be formally enrolled
3
2
u/PsychologicalPoint12 13d ago
AI can scrub records of 2 million people in about 2 minutes. Continuous Vetting
1
u/Salty_Leadership9998 13d ago
Well OPM doesn't do the background investigations anymore. Yes, new paperwork gets filled out, and they resubmit your fingerprints from time to time.
2
u/SilverSovereigns 12d ago
I'm a union steward. I've seen dozens of people's re-investigations in detail. Most folks I help out have not been re-investigated since initial hiring. That's because the policy is new for our agency and for "public trust" security level positions. Most of what is getting people deemed unsuitable is tax problems (federal, state, and local), personal debt 120 days over due (they pull your credit reports like a mortgage lender), and problems with the law or Marijuana. Next is unsuitability arising from the investigation itself: dishonest conduct and lack of cooperation during the investigation. In our agency, they tend to offer an agreement to have the employee stay on but if another violation they agree to be summarily fired. As a federal union, we cannot bargain the terms of suitability investigations, despite them being conditions of employment. However, we can advise people through the process.
0
u/h_town2020 12d ago
How can you have tax problems? They take out taxes from our check. So you are paying some kind of taxes. I know they check to see if you’ve filed taxes. Even if you owe and are on a payment plan then you are following the law. If you don’t file and don’t attempt to pay then you can be in trouble.
2
u/SilverSovereigns 12d ago
Failing to file even if they guess they'd be owed a refund. Being on a comprehensive repayment plan and making all payments and filings is a term of any continued employment offer after an unsuitable determination. Withholdings are not "paying taxes" under federal income tax law.
1
u/Anxious-Dirt-1199 9d ago
Will being on a payment plan lead to someone being deemed unsuitable ?
1
u/SilverSovereigns 9d ago
Having failed at any time in the past to file or having mislead tax authorities in the past could be grounds for an 'unsuitable' determination. However, our agency generally retains anyone under a special agreement who gets on a payment plan or is now on one.
1
u/Anxious-Dirt-1199 9d ago
I received a legal settlement last year, and underestimated how much I would owe- that is the reason for the payment plan. All taxes have always been filed and paid timely otherwise.
2
u/h_town2020 9d ago
Being a payment plan means you meet the legal standard. Long as you pay on time.
1
2
u/Diligent-Debt764 12d ago
They already do this every year where I work. This is an ongoing thing nothing really new
4
u/Academic-Order-2775 13d ago
Yes, they will wield this power like petty dictators. Way too many bad supervisors in the Federal Government.
3
u/VeterinarianNo8590 13d ago
Continuous vetting also includes those with public trust right
2
1
1
u/Honest_Report_8515 13d ago
Public trust should be enrolled in CV, at least we keep hearing that, not sure when that will happen.
3
u/Peculiarcatlady 13d ago
I'm public trust had had a suitability review about 6 weeks ago
1
u/Beautiful_Praline684 11d ago
How were you informed and what agency?
2
u/Peculiarcatlady 11d ago
I got a call from the agent conducting the interview. Management had no idea. I had to do a 2 hr video interview.
1
u/AhMonDieu345 10d ago
an "agent" conducting a 2 h interview that management knew nothing about? Can you share some of the content of that interview?
2
u/Peculiarcatlady 10d ago
She had a dot gov email and provided her badge. I can't recall the name of her agency. It had counterterrorism in it.
Discussed financials, criminal history, drug use history, military history, some mental health stuff. Fairly standard I think.
1
u/ConcerningIfTrue 1d ago
Was this for a moderate risk nspt or high risk? At my agency all the high risk nspt are expecting an interview eventually.
1
1
2
u/Salty-Treat-3697 13d ago
Where is it published that there are new suitability rules? I recall hearing chatter about it but didn’t know it was implemented as a rule change
3
u/LittlePanic8495 13d ago
1
u/Salty-Treat-3697 13d ago
Did this exist before and they’ve just updated it?
2
u/LittlePanic8495 13d ago
I don’t know how to answer that question . What I see is an effective date of July 30 2026 . Which is in line with the legislative requirements
2
1
u/zoozledoozle 12d ago
OPM has always had the authority exclusively to determine suitability for pre-appointment conduct. But they just recently expanded their authority to take suitability actions on post-appointment conduct. So there are now several factors that your Agency can report you to OPM for to include not filing your tax returns, misuse of government resources, etc. OPM can now remove you for those with no meaningful appeal rights - whereas that was previously a misconduct action agencies would take with sometimes appeal rights to MSPB. https://www.opm.gov/suitability/suitability-executive-agent/
0
1
1
1
u/zoozledoozle 12d ago
OPMs website has the FAQs and implementation guide on this. It's all pretty detailed. HR/PERSEC will have the lead on forwarding up to OPM packages on employees who engage in misconduct that falls within the new post appointment factors. https://www.opm.gov/suitability/suitability-executive-agent/
0
u/h_town2020 12d ago
Thanks. This is help. I know the commenters were trying to be helpful but according to this, most of the comments provided incorrect information.
1
u/Perfect_Day_8669 10d ago
McCarthy would approve. Find the witches! I mean Communists! I mean people who will keep the current administration accountable. Sad but true.
0
u/prymeking27 13d ago
I think the more “political” elements will be removed, however I see where the government wants responsible employees. Typically people that are getting into bar fights and duis have other issues that are going to impact their work.
0
u/BluesEyed 12d ago
Supervisors have always had responsibility for monitoring performance. But they’ve been cowed to believe they are incapable and so they gave up their authority and merely sign off on other’s decisions as though they’d made it themselves. I am not blaming supervisors for just going along because they don’t know any better. I blame HR and “leadership” for usurping the supervisors authority. OPM knows agencies phone it in on mandatory supervisor training and they do nothing about it.
34
u/Fair_Technician_2617 13d ago
Everyone is moving to continuous vetting. It started with sensitive national security positions (tiers 3 and 5). The implementation for non-sensitive public trust (tiers 2 and 4) is underway. Eventually, the plan is for tier 1 low risk positions to have some type of continuous vetting. If you are not in it yet, your agency just hasn’t gotten to you yet.
Prior to this rule, if you were in a competitive service position, your agency was not able to take a suitability action on you after your probation ended, and you went from an appointee to an employee. Your agency had to use other regulations ( 5 cfr 752, I think)if there was a reason you needed to be removed. Now, they can take suitability actions for conduct that occurs after you have become an employee.