58 APRIL-MAY 2025 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 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. 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 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=