European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - March 19, 1992, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 4 c the stars and stripes thursday March 19, 1992 delays Hurt other work sources say to initiate corrective actions and that corrective actions had not been initiated a Grimmett has refused to be inter by Joseph Owen and David Tarrant staff writers the failure of the . Army Europe civilian personnel system to Correct overgrazing in its own ranks for years hindered Job Grade correction efforts in other subordinate offices according to sources who know the system Well. Usa eur evaluated civilian personnel office positions in 1986 and concluded that More than �?o40 key supervisory positions in subordinate pos were overgrazed a according to a May 1991 defense department inspector general report. Investigators found no evidence of action taken to downgrade the positions in 1986 and 1987, and concluded that the current director blocked attempts to carry out the reclassification after he took Over in october 1988. The inspector general which released its report under the Freedom of information act blacked out names in the study. The current director is Archie Grimmett a it was so big that the co directors just did no to want to do it a said an army personnel source who asked not to be identified. The inaction on the 40 co jobs left lower ranking co officials with no leverage to initiate needed classification changes of other civilian jobs throughout Usa eur the source said. Based on at least one estimate by the then usar eur chief of staff maj. Gen. . Fiala in 1987, overgrazing was costing Usa eur about $20 million annually in overpayment. One former Usa eur Deputy personnel director thought so Little of the 1986 evaluation that instead of processing a stack of forms that would have reduced the grades of the 40 co jobs he used it As a Footrest in his office for a few years the source said. In a letter dated july 18, 1988, a few months before Grimmett was hired Usa eur requested an update from outlying offices on the key supervisory positions and concluded a there were still Many overgrazed supervisory positions in subordinate pos a according to the inspector general a report. The report blames the director for later ignoring evidence of a significant overgrazing of supervisory positions in subordinate civilian personnel  four witnesses gave testimony to the inspector general that the paperwork necessary to reclassify the jobs to the Correct Grade Levels was prepared and presented to Grimmett for signature. A three of the witnesses testified that the last time they saw the package of downgrade letters it was sitting on the window silly in the directors office the inspector general report said. Grimmett testified to the inspector general that he a had never seen any documentation that called into questions the Grade Levels of any supervisory positions the report said. The report concluded that despite the directors testimony Quot the preponderance of evidence established that he was briefed provided documentation to sign viewed by the stars and stripes on this subject or any other civilian personnel Issue until March 30 a despite several requests for an interview Over the last month. Army civilian personnel services in Europe have undergone a Radical consolidation and reduction in staffing in the past year. No formal Usa eur study has determined whether the consolidation reduced or eliminated the number of overgrazed co positions sources said. However a Usa eur statement issued tuesday said that an army wide study conducted Between january and july 1991 showed that 11 of 82 positions or 13 percent audited in Usa eur were misclassified and that More than half were graded too High. A actual errors in the classification process were the Factor in Only six cases a the Usa eur statement said. The other cases involved changes in Job duties that were not accurately reflected in the Job  Page 1 accuracy rate of 83-86 percent a the report said. A that Falls substantially below both the department of army and Usa eur accuracy  usage urn a goal is to classify accurately at least 95 percent of its civilian positions a slightly higher than the army a 90 percent accuracy Standard. Although the inspector general report did not attempt to measure the Cost of overgrazing a former Usa eur chief of staff indicated As Early As 1987 that overgrazing was draining the command of millions of dollars. In an aug. 24, 1987 memo maj. Gen. . Fiala chief of staff at Usa eur from 1984-88, stated that both department of army and Usa eur Survey teams a found that about 14 percent of the civilian positions in Usa eur Are misclassified and most Are graded too High. The annual Cost to Usa eur is about $20 million in  it Over the course of at least five years Fiala a 1987 statement could indicate that overgrazing May have Cost Usa eur $100 million or More in overpayment. The Dod report was prepared following allegations by the former Deputy director of civilian personnel for Usa eur of improprieties in the classification of civilian positions within the command. Robert h. Thornhill was fired in january 1990 after he refused to accept a reassignment to the United states. Thornhill said he thinks he was dismissed because he was a whistle Blower. The Usa eur civilian personnel director Archie Grimmett has refused to be interviewed by the stars and stripes on this subject or any other civilian personnel Issue until March 30, despite several requests for interviews Over the last month. However in its statement released tuesday Usa eur said the recent army wide study indicates improvement in the commands Job grading accuracy. The civilian personnel evaluation Agency study conducted Between january and july 1991, audited 82 positions throughout the command and found that 11, or 13 percent were misclassified. Of those misclassified positions seven were graded too High and four too Low. In addition the pea study found that the 87 percent grading accuracy in Usa eur exceeded the army wide average of 83.7 percent the statement said. The army wide audit was conducted to help measure the accuracy of the Grade Levels of the hundreds of thousands of . Government civilians employed worldwide. Because it would be difficult and time consuming to look at every government civilian Job the army As Well As individual major commands periodically examines a much smaller Pool of positions As one Way of gauging the accuracy of Job ratings Overall. The defense departments inspector general report investigated six allegations involving improper handling of civilian Job classifications in Usa eur. Names of both military and civilian personnel immediately involved in the cases were blacked out by the inspector general before the report was released publicly. The allegations substantiated in the report included the following a evidence of jobs that remained overgrazed Long after commanders or managers were ordered to Correct the problem. One Job in Frankfurt remained overgrazed for four years after the department of army demanded that it be downgraded. In that Case the department of army Headquarters rendered a decision on Jan. 11, 1985, that the position of chief of the technical services office of the Frankfurt civilian personnel office should be classified As gs-12 instead of gm-13. After Usa eur officials appealed the army reaffirmed its decision in a letter dated july 5,1985. However the inspector general report said it could find a no documentation that would indicate that Usa eur initiated any action to implement the army classification decision after the army a second letter. More than three years later Usa eur sent a letter to the commander of the Frankfurt military Community dated july 15,1988, stating the need to downgrade the position within four pay periods or two months. A no explanation for the three year delay by Usa eur was provided or uncovered during the investigation a the report said. The Job still was not immediately downgraded. The Frankfurt personnel office and the Frankfurt military commander appealed the decision resulting in an additional six month delay. The delay said the inspector general was unwarranted. A command interest or intervention is not sufficient reason to disregard the time Frame prescribed Quot in army regulations concerning classification. The downgrading of the Frankfurt Job finally took place on Jan 29, 1989 some 100 pay periods and thousands of dollars after the first army letter to downgrade the position. A the record revealed that it took four years to implement an action which according to army regulation 690-500.501, required implementation not later than four pay periods after receipt by Usa eur in 1985,�?� the report said. A a evidence that a commander upgraded positions even after he was told that he did not Nave the authority to do so. In september 1988, Usa eur turned Down a request by the commander of the Stuttgart military Community activity to upgrade two senior positions. Usage urn a approval was needed because the positions had previously been classified by the Headquarters when they were initially established. What Usa eur did not know was that Stuttgart had already elevated one of the two jobs in its request a that of Community operations manager a from a gs-12 to a gm-13. The upgrade occurred aug. 12, six weeks before usage urn a letter denying Stuttgart permission to upgrade the position. The situation was investigated by both the Vii corps and Usa eur inspectors general offices. Both sets of investigators upheld the actions of the Stuttgart commander saying he had unrestricted authority to upgrade the positions by virtue of a directive from Gen. Crosbie e. Saint usage urn a commander delegating classification authority to All subordinate general officer commanders. But saints directive was dated feb. 6, 1989 a almost six months after the Stuttgart commander upgraded the position. The defense department inspector general report rejecting the conclusions of the Vii corps and usar eur reports found that the Stuttgart Community commander had acted improperly by upgrading four positions without getting usage urn a approval. The Stuttgart commander had a not Only disregarded the Usa eur communications denying permission to upgrade the positions but he a had also not complied with the provisions of army regulation 690-500.511,�?� the defense department inspector general said. Overgrazing occurs when civilian managers or military commanders mis classify a civilian Job said various civilian personnel experts. Although it is not an exact science determining the pay level of a government Job requires managers or personnel specialists to evaluate the duties and responsibilities of a Job against established classification standards and to assign it a proper pay Grade experts said. If an audit later shows that a Job has been rated too High and needs to be downgraded the effect on the employee is eased by pay Ana Benefit Protection provisions covered by civil service regulations for . Employees or by Tariff agreements for non-. Citizen  classifiers Are for the most part conservative people honest people and they try to do a Good Job recognizing that classifying is not an exact science a said Thornhill the former Deputy director of civilian personnel for Usa eur. A but the jobs go up because of commander pressure. That a where it comes  according to the commands statement local civilian personnel offices usually identify overgrazing through individual position reviews As Well As organizational surveys. The local personnel office will work with managers to rewrite Job descriptions if needed and then change the position to a lower Grade. A should appropriate action not be taken at the local level and Noula Usa eur be made aware of the problem Usa eur would direct corrective action the statement  studies such As the recent army wide review identify overgrazing a Susa eur follows up to ensure corrective action is taken a the statement said. All but three of the cases of mis classification identified in the recent army review have received corrective action a even though the final deadline for completion of required corrections is not until May a it said. Although Usa eur still suffers from the overgrazing problem it is better off than most other army commands according to a knowledgeable source who demanded anonymity a a it a a system wide problem. To Point the Finger Here 1 think is an injustice a the employee said. Saint has tried to restrict overgrazing in the command but has had limited Success according to the source. A a it a among the Best in the army a the employee said of the Usa eur system a but there Are  the recent army wide audit credited Usa eur with having an outstanding position management program which is used to improve the Job Structure a it an organization. It encompasses such things As the number of supervisors and the ratio of senior specialists to lower Grade specialists the commands Public affairs statement Saia. The command of Usa eur a established a Strong position management policy in 1988 and has continued to Issue guidance requiring commanders and supervisors to take aggressive action to eliminate waste in the civilian position Structure a the statement said