APPENDIX B PRECEPTS TO THE 17TH SELECTION BOARDS Directives to individual selection boards Bearing in mind the general directives and guidelines, each selection board shall evaluate and rate the performance records of all officers in the class assigned to it in accordance with the following instructions: 1. All boards other than board T.-Each board shall prepare the following lists or recommendations which will complete its considerations relative to the class: (a) A rank order listing of the officers whose performance is considered to be in the upper 20 percent of their class (40 percent for boards E, F, and G). The board will recommend on its rank order list a point above which it recommends all officers be promoted. It will include in its list any officers not meeting the time eligibility requirements for whom waivers are requested. (b) A rank order listing of officers whose performance is considered to be in the lowest 20 percent of their class. This group does not constitute a selectionout zone. It is believed that officers ranked in the lowest 20 percent should receive special attention to determine whether they have been properly assigned, whether they may not require additional training to help them to perform more efficiently, and in general whether there is anything the Department can do to help them improve their level of effectiveness. (c) A list of those officers in each class who have been ranked in the lowest 10 percent. The cases of Foreign Service officers for whom such ratings were made by any prior board, or are made by any future board, while the officers are in the same class will be processed in accordance with 3 FAM 731.4. (d) A list of those officers whose performance is so markedly substandard that in the board's opinion they should be selected out regardless of their previous class standings. The pertinent facts to justify the findings regarding each officer so listed must be set forth in a brief formal statement. (e) A list of any officers in the class whose performance since the convening of the last selection boards is found to have failed to meet the standards required for the efficient conduct of the work of the Foreign Service and who, therefore, are not entitled to receive the regular in-class promotion in accordance with section 625 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended. The pertinent facts to justify the findings regarding each officer listed shall be set forth in a brief formal statement. (f) A list of any officers in the class whose performance could not be rated due to illness, recency of appointment, insufficient documentation, etc. The board should cite specific reasons in each instance. 2. Boards C, D, E, F, and G.-Each board shall make a list of any officers whose performance has been of such superior caliber to warrant consideration for double promotions (e.g., from class 5 to 3, from class 6 to 4, etc.). The pertinent facts to justify the findings regarding each officer shall be set forth in a complete formal statement. 3. Boards B and C.-Each board shall prepare separate alphabetical lists of officers in classes 2 and 3 whose records and outstanding qualifications warrant their consideration for assignment as chiefs of mission, deputy chiefs of mission, and principal officers. 4. Technical board (board T).—A technical board has been established to evaluate and rate the performance of all officers of all classes whose duties are so technical in nature as not to permit performance comparisons with occupants of other officer positions. Physicians, architects, and security engineers are examples of such technical positions. Board T shall prepare the following lists or recommendations which will complete its considerations. In making these recommendations, it is desirable that there be a unanimity of opinion among the board members. (a) Rank order lists (1) by class, and (2) by technical specialties ranging from the highest to the lowest, including on the lists officers not meeting the time eligibility requirements for whom waivers are requested. (b) A list by class and technical category of those officers whom the board considers worthy of promotion. (c) A list of those officers by class and technical category whose performance is judged by the board to have failed to meet the standards required for the efficient conduct of the work of the Foreign Service and who, therefore, are not entitled to receive the regular in-class promotion in accordance with section 625 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended. The pertinent facts to justify the findings regarding each officer listed shall be set forth in a brief formal statement. (d) A list of officers by class and category whose performance could not be rated due to illness, recency of appointment, insufficient documentation, etc. The board should cite a specific reason in each instance. (e) A separate alphabetical listing of officers by class and technical category whose records, qualifications, and expressed desires warrant their consideration for assignment outside of their technical specialty. (f) If in the course of its review of officer dossiers the board considers that an individual officer's file should more properly be considered by one of the regular selection boards, the case should be referred to the Office of Personnel for appropriate determination. 5. General recommendations.-Having completed all other considerations relative to officers being rated, individual selection boards shall finally prepare general recommendations concerning the policies and procedures to be followed by subsequent boards, including possible comments concerning the adequacy of present methods of measuring and evaluating performance. Boards may make specific recommendations or suggestions with respect to training or assignment regarding any officer or group of officers. 6. Disposition of lists and recommendations.--The lists and recommendations referred to above shall be signed and forwarded as provided in part III of the precepts. EXHIBIT III STATISTICS ON CHIEFS OF MISSION (CAREER AND NONCAREER AMBASSADORS) AS OF IAEA, Henry DeWolf Smyth (NC). European Office of the United Nations, Roger W. Tubby (NC). 1 These Ambassadors are not included in the following statistics on chiefs of mission. Chief of mission positions (see attachment A) Number of positions.. Career.. Noncareer.. 106 8 109 Vacancies.--. 6 1 The number of positions varies from the number of posts as 1 chief of mission is accredited to Mauritania-Senegal. Haiti Hungary Panama Vacancies Sierra Leone No diplomatic relations with Cuba, Red China, or Albania. Breakdown of career chiefs of mission (see attachment B) FSO-CA FSO-CM. FSO-1- FSO-2-- Total____. Language ability of Ambassadors This table indicates, by geographical area, the percentage of Ambassadors who are proficient or better in either the primary or secondary language of the country to which they are assigned. This includes those countries where English is the primary or secondary language. 1 The number of positions varies from the number of posts due to instances where one chief of mission is accredited to 2 or more posts. Present example is Senegal-Mauritania. The number of positions from Oct. 1, 1950, to Oct. 1, 1959, inclusive, includes oversea missions to which a chief of mission is accredited. This included HICOG from 1949 to 1955; USRO-Paris from 1954 to 1960; Berlin in 1955; and USEC from 1956 to 1960. The number of chief of mission positions given in 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963 does not include the 6 special missions-USRO, OECD, USEC, IAEA, USUN (Geneva), USUN (New York). Vacancies as of November 1963 were Haiti, Hungary, Panama, Sierra Leone, Yemen, and Yugoslavia. |