The Foreign Service Journal, January 2005

JANUARY 2005 • AFSA NEWS 3 T here are some perennial concerns among members of the Foreign Service. One is the status of women in the Service. It’s a subject of interest to me, because when I joined, women were required to resign uponmarriage. That rule was struck down by a court in 1972. I often brag that I was the first ForeignService careerwoman to give “legitimate” birthwhile onactive duty, havingmarried shortly after the rule was voided. I alsobecame the first femaleFSemployee toreceive training ina two-year language—Japanese. So,whenanAFSA memberwrote tome stating that “recent promotions show that only a quarter of those promoted into and within the Senior Service are women,” I was intrigued and decid- ed to check the facts. Well, the statement is true. However, it’s meaningless. The more relevant ques- tion is: are women being promoted into and within the Senior Foreign Service at the same rate as men? And the answer is yes, almost always, for the past three years. Here are some illustrative statistics: Generally, if womenmake up 25 percent of the class, they receive 25 percent of the promotions. With the exceptionof the 2002 and2003OCcategory, women are receiv- ing a commensurate share of the promotions. Althoughwomenwere underrepresent- ed in theMCpromotioncategory in2002, theywereoverrepresented in2003. Economists might call this a “market” correction. The same member asserted that women do not get the same “cushy” posts as men when they are nominated for chief of mission positions, so I checked. Of the 148 ambassadors listed, we found that 99 aremembers of the career Foreign Service. (While consistent with the historical average, AFSA’s historical and current position is that a much higher percentage of chiefs of mission should come from the career service.) Of the 99 ambassadors who are career FS, only 23 are female. One of them is from the Foreign Agricultural Service, so that leaves 22 percent who are State Department women. Assuming that chiefs of mission are drawn from the ranks of OCs andMCs, as of Aug. 31, 2004, there were 853 at the OC andMC levels, of whom 222 (or 26 percent) were women. So, women are underrepresented in the ranks of chiefs of missions drawn from the career service at State. AFSA did not try to make any subjective evaluation of the relative importance of the countries in which we have female ambassadors. The 23 career female COMs are assigned to: Albania, Angola, Burma, Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Laos, Lesotho, Madagascar, Micronesia, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Panama, Suriname, Syria and Turkmenistan. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions as to whether or not women are relegated to the less cushy posts. ▫ V.P. VOICE: STATE  BY LOUISE CRANE How are FS Women at State Faring? PROMOTIONS OVER THE THRESHOLD, FROM FS-01 TO FE-0C Year Total # at Grade Total # Promoted FS-1s, M FS-1s, F FS -1 (M) Promoted FS-1 (F) Promoted 2002 1,120 92 810 (72%) 310 (28%) 67 (73%) 25 (27%) 2003 1,135 87 813 (72%) 322 (28%) 64 (74%) 23 (26%) 2004 1,172 95 833 (71%) 339 (29%) 70 (74%) 25 (26%) PROMOTIONSWITHIN THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, FROM FE-OC TO FE-MC Year Total # FE-OC Total # Promoted FE-OCs, M FE-OCs, F FE -OC (M) Promoted FE-OC (F) Promoted 2002 460 55 332 (72%) 128 (28%) 45 (82%) 10 (18%) 2003 456 51 319 (70%) 137 (30%) 29 (57%) 22 (43%) 2004 468 49 336 (72%) 132 (28%) 37 (76%) 12 (24%) MILITARY RESERVISTS AND OFFICIAL PERFORMANCE FILES Filling the Gaps A longstanding practice at the State Department has been to account for anyperiodof leavewithout pay with a “gapmemo” in an employee’s offi- cial performance file. Since there are sev- eral reasonswhy youmight bemissing an Employee Evaluation Report in your OPF, the gapmemohas always beendelib- erately non-informative. Whether you were sick, had anEER removed as a result of a grievance, took LWOP to finish your master’s degree, or were called up to fight for your country, the gap memo merely stated that no EER was available for the period in question. The gapmemo obviously didmilitary reservists agreat disservice, quite apart from the fact that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act explicitly states that a federal employ- eemay not be disadvantaged in his or her careerbyanabsence fromthenormal place of work while called to active duty in the reserves. This is particularly important todaywith somanypeople being calledup to serve in harm’s way. As a result of concernexpressed toman- agement byAFSA, HumanResources has now agreed that the gap memo for mili- tary reservists will state that the individual was absent on active military duty. Furthermore, those who request it may have theirmilitary evaluations included in theirOPFs. The inclusionofmilitary eval- uations is entirely optional, because we understand that not everyonewill want, or in some cases, be able to have their mili- tary evaluations included in theirOPFs. If you do, make sure to send copies to HR/PE. If you have any questions about this issue, please contact James Yorke by e-mail: yorkej@state.gov. ▫ The inclusion of military evaluations is entirely optional.