We’ve faced RIFs in the past. One FSO dug into the FAM to learn about the legal parameters of reductions in force.

BY DAVID ROBERTS

The U.S. Department of State last effected a reduction in force (RIF) for Foreign Service officers in the early 1990s—before many of today’s most seasoned diplomats joined the Service. The department nearly went through it again in 2017, in response to direction from then-Secretary Rex Tillerson and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney to trim the overall budget by 34 percent. At the time, the department—with support from AFSA—was able to stave off the threat of a RIF by implementing other budget cuts and a department-wide hiring freeze.

So how would a RIF work, anyway? The Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended and implemented by 3 FAM 2580, offers a clear legal framework for implementing a reduction in force.

What Happens During a RIF?

The Secretary of State holds the primary authority to conduct reductions in force within the Foreign Service. This authority is explicitly outlined in Section 611 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which broadly authorizes the Secretary to order a RIF for the purpose, inter alia, of effecting “organizational changes.”

In practice, the Secretary, in consultation with senior staff and the Director General, determines the need for such organizational changes—likely in response to budgetary constraints or as directed by the president. During the 2017 review, for example, the department froze spousal employment as it determined whether a RIF would be necessary.

Prior to making a RIF determination, the department can choose to take other force-shaping measures, like incentivizing voluntary retirements. In the past, most agencies haven’t jumped straight to RIFs, instead implementing hiring freezes and offering voluntary retirement and separation incentives to mitigate the need for involuntary separations.

After determining the need for a RIF, the next step is to identify changes to the organizational structure and the positions affected. For example, a directive to cut personnel by 30 percent would prompt a review to determine which domestic offices and overseas posts could be consolidated and downsized, and which positions should be eliminated.

Following this, the Director General determines how such a reorganization would affect the department and decides how many positions in each competitive class and Foreign Service cone and specialty would be eliminated. The Secretary must then analyze and justify the implications of a RIF to Congress.

A State Department reorganization would not mean that officers encumbering Foreign Service positions identified for elimination would necessarily be severed from employment. The Foreign Service Act requires the Secretary to account for “documented employee knowledge, skills, or competencies; tenure of employment; documented employee performance; and military preference” when executing a RIF and requires these principles to be applied consistently and fairly. Consequently, any employee structure downsizing under a RIF takes place through a competitive process.

What Is the RIF Process?

The RIF process defined by 3 FAM 2584 et seq. looks remarkably similar to the Foreign Service accession process, only in reverse. Foreign Service generalists may be assigned to a “competition group” based on class. The Director General can combine several cones into a competition group or evaluate each cone separately. The rule is slightly different for Foreign Service specialists: The FAM directs that each class within a specialist skill group will constitute a separate competition group. The RIF may be targeted to some or all competitive groups. The Director General could hypothetically determine to RIF 90 percent of medical officers, half of economic and political officers, and no management officers, if circumstances require.

Once the competition groups are established, each officer within the group is assigned a tenure group: Group I, for tenured officers; Group II, for officers serving in limited career extensions granted following expiration of time-in-class limitations; and Group III, for untenured officers. Generalists are then assigned a composite score with points accumulated for veterans’ preference, language proficiency, and the results of each of the five previous promotion selection boards. Additionally, Foreign Service specialists are awarded credit for the number of years it took for them to promote to their current class from a “base class” of FP-7 (for office management specialists, or OMSs) and FP-5 (for all other specialties). Ties in composite score are broken by service computation date, in favor of officers with longer time in service.

The Secretary of State holds the primary authority to conduct reductions in force within the Foreign Service. This authority is explicitly outlined in Section 611 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980.

As an illustration, consider Anne, a tenured FS-2 political officer with 12 years of experience and a 3/3 proficiency in both Arabic and Spanish, and who was promoted to her current rank four years ago and received a Meritorious Step Increase (MSI) last year. Anne would receive two points for her language proficiency and five points for her MSI. She would also accumulate 45 points for her selection board reviews: 15 points for the year she was promoted; 10 points for each of the first two years following her promotion during which she was ineligible; and five points each for this year and the year before her promotion, during which she was reviewed for promotion but not selected. Anne’s total composite score would be 52.

Next, consider Billy, a tenured FP-3 OMS with 18 years of experience in the Foreign Service, after being hired at FP-7. He does not have any language proficiency at the 3/3 level but happens to be a disabled veteran. He was promoted to his current rank this year and promoted to FP-4 three years ago. This OMS would accumulate 10 points for his status as a veteran and 36 points for having reached FP-3 in 18 years. He would also accumulate 50 points based on his five most recent selection boards. Billy’s total composite score would be 96.

Finally, consider Corrie, a tenured FS-2 economic officer with 10 years of experience and a 3/3 proficiency in Mandarin. This officer was promoted to their current rank two years ago and happens to carry a disabled veteran status. Corrie would receive one point for language and 10 points for veterans’ preference. They would then accumulate 45 points for selection board reviews: 15 points for the year they were promoted; 10 points for each of the last two years during which they were ineligible for promotion; and five points each for the two years before they were promoted. Corrie’s total composite score would be 56.

Once composite scores are assigned, registers are prepared for each competition group. On each register, members are ranked in descending order based first, on tenure group, and then by composite score. Then, among officers with the same composite score, ties are broken by service computation date. Returning to our illustration, Billy probably would not compete on the same register as Anne and Corrie—but Anne and Corrie, as FS-2 political and economic officers, could be listed on the same register. In that event, Corrie would be listed higher on the register by virtue of having a higher composite score.

A few interesting implications can be drawn from this analysis. First, untenured officers and officers on career extensions are at a distinct disadvantage when competing against tenured and nonextended peers. Second, the composite score calculation tends to reward performance and potential rather than time in service, which only factors in when composite scores are tied. Finally, language proficiency and especially veterans’ preference are distinguishing factors. Officers who could qualify for either should take the time now to test on language skills and ensure any veterans’ preference is appropriately noted in their records.

What Happens If I Am Selected for Reduction?

After the registers are prepared and published, there is no statutory or regulatory provision for qualitative review of officers’ records, as there is during a promotion board. Instead, the Director General will determine how many positions from each register need to be cut and then select those positions in the inverse order of the register. The cuts need not be uniform across classes and occupational codes.

Once the Secretary directs a RIF, the Director General typically provides a general notice of the RIF, including information on the number and the competition groups from which employees will be released, and a deadline for inclusion of additional information in affected employee profiles. Then, once the Director General has executed the RIF, each employee to be separated should receive a specific notice at least 120 days—or as little as 30 days, if the RIF is caused by “circumstances not reasonably foreseeable”—prior to the effective date of separation. Affected members can then file grievances under Chapter 11 of the Foreign Service Act or file appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board. Such grievances are limited to cases of reprisal, interference in the conduct of an employee’s official duties, or other prohibited personnel practices; and filing a grievance will not delay the effective date of separation.

Additionally, it is worth noting that federal employees who are involuntarily separated under a RIF maintain certain re-employment rights, including hiring preference for federal jobs. The full scope of these rights is beyond the scope of this article, but suffice to say that a RIF need not be forever, as the needs of the government may change.

For more on potential RIFs, please see the AFSA update elsewhere in this issue of the FSJ as well as AFSA’s resource page on RIFs at https://afsa.org/reductions-in-force.

David Roberts is a third-tour Foreign Service political officer, part of a tandem, currently serving in Pretoria. The opinions in this article are his own.

Read More...

• “The Foreign Service Act of 1980,” The Foreign Service Journal, December 1980
• “Who’s In Charge Here?” by Shawn Zeller, The Foreign Service Journal, December 2007
• “US embassies told to prepare for staff cuts as Trump overhauls diplomatic corps, sources say,” by Daphne Psaledakis and Humeyra Pamuk, Reuters, February 2025