State’s Foreign Service promotion system follows an up-or-out principle,  under which failure to gain promotion to higher rank within a specified  period in a single salary class leads to mandatory retirement for  personnel in certain occupational categories. The Foreign Service Promotion Process Includes Several Boards That Evaluate Promotion Candidates

State’s Foreign Service promotion process includes several types of  boards that evaluate and rank order candidates for promotion, identify  other candidates for possible separation from the Service, and address  promotion process-related grievances. There are  several mechanisms to resolve grievances relating to the promotion  process, including through the convening of reconstituted boards. The boards first screen all candidate files,  and sort them into one of three categories: promotion, mid-rank, or low- rank. First, HR officials told us  they draw a “cut-line” on selection boards’ ranked lists of candidates  recommended for promotion based on the number of available promotion  slots. These  offices respond indicating whether there are any outstanding issues  concerning individual candidates, such as a pending investigation or other  matter, that could lead to their removal from the promotion list. Performance standards boards convene each year to assess low-ranked  candidates for possible separation from the Foreign Service. State Has Developed Procedural Changes to Address Identified Concerns with the Foreign Service Promotion Process

Prompted by concerns identified by the OIG and Foreign Service  Grievance Board in 2010, State took a number of actions to strengthen  procedures governing selection boards and reconstituted boards. In response,  State implemented a requirement that each board member sign an oath  to protect the confidentiality of board materials and report any improper  introduction of information about a candidate. The revised language broadened the circumstances  under which an individual under review may request a board member’s  recusal. Updated Procedures for Reconstituted Boards

State updated its procedures for reconstituted boards in response to OIG  and Foreign Service Grievance Board concerns about the operations of  these boards. Additional State- Initiated Practices to Strengthen Promotion Process Safeguards

In addition to State’s actions taken in response to others’ identified  concerns about the promotion process, we found that State initiated two  additional documentation practices to strengthen promotion process  safeguards. The first is to have selection board members, in addition to  signing final board results, initial each page of the promotable, mid-rank,  and low-rank lists in official board reports, thereby attesting to the  accurate rank order of all candidates the selection board evaluated. State Complied with Many Updated Procedures in 2011 and 2012, but Some Documentation Gaps Existed

We found that selection boards, performance standards boards, and  reconstituted boards complied with many updated procedures in the 2011  and 2012 Foreign Service promotion cycles; however, some selection  boards and reconstituted boards had documentation gaps for certain  internal controls. For example, all 41 selection board reports we reviewed  included a memo certifying final results signed by board members or by  proxy, and documentation indicating that a public member served on the  board. For example,  we found that many selection board member oaths were missing from  2012 selection board reports and some boards did not include  documentation of recusal requests. In the absence of a fully documented  system of controls, there is a risk that intentional or unintentional failures  to implement safeguards, by board members or HR staff, will go  undetected and uncorrected. A failure to implement safeguards, in turn,  increases the risk that promotion results could be intentionally or  inadvertently compromised. Recommendation for Executive Action

To improve and better document State’s compliance with key safeguards  governing the Foreign Service promotion process, we recommend that  the Secretary of State instruct the Director General of the Foreign Service  and Director of the Human Resources Office of Performance Evaluation  to take steps to ensure that selection board, performance standards  board, and reconstituted board reports are complete and fully document  compliance with internal controls, including but not limited to signed oaths  and recusal memos. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) the Department of State’s (State) process for  ranking and promoting Foreign Service personnel, (2) procedural  changes State has made to its Foreign Service promotion process in  response to identified concerns, and (3) the extent to which updated  procedures were consistently followed in 2011 and 2012 and whether any  notable concerns about the promotion process remain. We also reviewed all  Foreign Service Grievance Board filings related to the same universe of  filed grievance cases.
Why GAO Did This Study

States Foreign Service promotion process follows an up-or-out principle, under which failure to gain promotion to higher rank within a specified time leads to mandatory retirement for personnel in certain occupational categories. States OIG and the Foreign Service Grievance Board identified procedural concerns relating to the process in 2010.
GAO was asked to review the Foreign Service promotion process. This report examines (1) States process for ranking and promoting Foreign Service personnel, (2) procedural changes State has made to its Foreign Service promotion process in response to identified concerns, and (3) the extent to which updated procedures were consistently followed in 2011 and 2012 and whether any notable concerns about the promotion process remain. GAO reviewed laws and procedures; analyzed selection, performance standards, and reconstituted board files as well as grievance case files for the 2011 and 2012 promotion cycles; interviewed State officials; and contacted 2011 and 2012 board members to offer them an opportunity to comment on the process.

What GAO Found

The Department of State's (State) Foreign Service promotion process includes convening several types of boards to evaluate candidates for promotion and identify other candidates for possible separation from the Service. State has a separate process to address related grievances. Selection boards review all candidates and sort them into one of three categories: promotable, mid-ranked, and low-ranked. The selection boards produce rank-ordered lists of those candidates recommended for promotion, and a "cut line" is subsequently determined based on the number of available promotion slots. Before announcing promotions, State vets all recommended candidates to determine whether there are outstanding issues, such as a pending investigation, that can lead to their removal from the promotion list. Subsequently, State convenes performance standards boards to assess low-ranked candidates for possible separation from the Service. There are several mechanisms to address grievances relating to the promotion process. For example, State may initiate reconstituted boards to reassess candidates if a board failed to follow the procedures or if the underlying performance information contained omissions or inaccuracies. Employees not satisfied with grievance outcomes can file an appeal with the Foreign Service Grievance Board.
In response to concerns identified by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Foreign Service Grievance Board in 2010, State has taken a number of actions to strengthen its Foreign Service promotion process internal controls. For example, in response to concerns about improper introduction of information about candidates, State instituted a requirement that board members sign an oath to adhere to the promotion criteria and protect the confidentiality of board materials. State also revised its procedures governing recusal requests, thereby broadening the provisions under which a candidate can request an individual board member's recusal from reviewing their file. In addition, State updated its reconstituted board procedures, outlining a set of required documents, such as signed board member score sheets, to be included in each board's official record. In addition to actions taken in response to others' identified concerns, State initiated other practices to strengthen promotion process safeguards, such as including selection board and reconstituted board member recusal memos in the final board report.
GAO found that Foreign Service selection boards, performance standards boards, and reconstituted boards complied with many of State's updated procedures in the 2011 and 2012 Foreign Service promotion cycles, but some board reports had documentation gaps for certain internal controls. For example, all 41 selection board reports we reviewed included a signed memo certifying final results. However, only 29 of 41 selection boards had signed oaths from all board members, and 45 of 122 required oaths were missing from 2012 selection board reports. In addition, some board reports lacked documentation of some recusal requests. The absence of a fully documented system of controls increases the risk that intentional or unintentional failures to implement safeguards, by board members or State Human Resources staff, may go undetected and uncorrected. Such a failure to implement safeguards, in turn, increases the risk that the integrity of promotion results could be intentionally or inadvertently compromised.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State take actions to ensure full implementation of promotion process internal controls. State concurred with GAO's recommendation.