The Defense Department has provided relatively few details–but
some hints–as to what types of employee misconduct would
warrant being deemed a “mandatory removal offense” under its
new National Security Personnel System.
Creation of such automatic firing offenses–which among other
things essentially take decisions on discipline out of the
hands of managers and supervisors who normally exercise some
discretion in such matters–was among the more controversial
provisions during the comment period after the rules came out
in proposed form earlier this year. Unions and others
complained that the department had failed to specify what
types of offenses would fall under the policy and expressed
concerns that employees could commit such offenses without
knowing it.
In response, DoD promised to communicate the offenses that
would fall under the policy, including through an announcement
in the Federal Register and other communications with
employees. However, the specific offenses will not be defined
until implementing guidance on NSPS is issued. DoD said that
in general, though, these types of offenses would be likely
candidates:
Purchasing, using, or transporting weapons or materials for
the purpose of committing, attempting to commit, or aiding
and abetting terrorism.
Committing, attempting to commit, or aiding and abetting an
act of sabotage against the Department of Defense that
resulted or could have resulted in loss of life, significant
financial loss or adverse impact on military readiness.
Soliciting or intentionally accepting a bribe or other
unauthorized personal benefit in return for an act that
compromises or could compromise national security.
Employees involved in the Personnel Reliability Program
failing to safeguard the assets for which they are
directly responsible and such failure results in loss,
theft, sabotage, unauthorized use, destruction,
detonation, or damage.
Intentionally engaging in activities that compromise or
could compromise the information or financial
infrastructure, including major procurement fraud, of
the Department of Defense, when the employee knew or
reasonably should have known of the compromise or
potential compromise.
Despite DoD’s moves to better define MROs, that
authority remains a sticking point between the
department and unions representing employees. The MRO
provision is one of the topics being challenged in a
union lawsuit against the NSPS rules.
