Thread: HSI going from age 37 to 40

Rumor I heard. Anyone else hearing this?

Probably refers to those with active military service being allowed to have a 3 year bump to max retire age.

Originally Posted by jayqubed

Rumor I heard. Anyone else hearing this?

Isn't that a law under the retirement systems? Are they getting a waiver or something?

Originally Posted by thisguyjc24

Isn't that a law under the retirement systems? Are they getting a waiver or something?

An agency head can grant a waiver up to age 40...usually only done for those positions that have difficulty meeting hiring needs. Border Patrol, FAMS and Bureau of Prisons are a few examples where this has happened in the past.

Seems unlikely a major 1811 agency would need to raise the hiring age given the typical applicant pool these days. Veterans are different story now and no waiver would be needed for eligible vets (nor would 40 be a cutoff age for them).

And that's an OPM waiver that wouldn't be long term. OPM is nuts about it. You wouldn't see that across the Board. Too many bad 6c scenarios there.

Unfortunately I don't think this is correct except for the military and Fed LEOs. I passed my test and interview with HSI and was recently notified that I had been removed from the selection process because I had exceeded the age limit if 37 even though I was found eligible when I applied. I have college and 13 hrs of police exp including SWAT and K9 so yea this rule really sucks. Yes the head of agency can give waiver but if you read the announcements it states that you have to meet all the requirement s of the position announcements which stated appointed before age 37 unless verernan preferred or previous Fed LEO.

As I said, the head of the agency can initiate a waiver, but OPM must concur. THAT is the lengthy and difficult part. Hiring issues, the need to ramp up a new agency, etc., can motivate OPM, but Congress wanted a 'young and vibrant' LE workforce and OPM is not going to push that age past 37. (Equaling a minimum 20+ year max retirement) 57 is the benchmark now but 60 seems positively ancient.

Originally Posted by Zim

Unfortunately I don't think this is correct except for the military and Fed LEOs. I passed my test and interview with HSI and was recently notified that I had been removed from the selection process because I had exceeded the age limit if 37 even though I was found eligible when I applied. I have college and 13 hrs of police exp including SWAT and K9 so yea this rule really sucks. Yes the head of agency can give waiver but if you read the announcements it states that you have to meet all the requirement s of the position announcements which stated appointed before age 37 unless verernan preferred or previous Fed LEO.

This really sucks. I am sorry this happened to you. It seems the Fed loses many good applicants and officers with the age cutoff. It seems so silly that 2 years added to 57 for example would be such a problem for retirement.

Originally Posted by Zim

I have college and 13 hrs of police exp including SWAT and K9.

13 hrs?. And both SWAT and K9 with less than 2 days of experience? Must have been a very special type of LE assignment. Of course we all know what you meant but I couldn't resist. Trying to shed at least a little humor on your unfortunate situation. Sorry to hear about that.

Originally Posted by finaljustice

This really sucks. I am sorry this happened to you. It seems the Fed loses many good applicants and officers with the age cutoff. It seems so silly that 2 years added to 57 for example would be such a problem for retirement.

This has been explained many times, on this and other forums. The gist of it is that it's not as simple as it seems. The age limit exists primarily because of the mandatory retirement date. If you're going to add a few years to allow someone to get the job, you need to add those years onto the other end, as well. That means adding it for the rest of the agent force who are going to get booted out the door at 57 but who may want to keep working. That means more money spent and - potentially - the liability of having many more 57-60-year old field agents running around.

As DMClark notes, Congress has determined that there is a need for a young and vigorous work force and around that has crafted a number of very positive retirement benefits around most law enforcement and firefighter positions. Given that the minimum retirement age for Federal employees not covered by these special provisions is generally 57 these days, agencies are properly wary of extensions. Overused they make a very strong case that the law enforcement personnel in that agency or all agencies would be well served by doing away with the special provisions and should be covered by the general retirement rules. That year or two is not silly, because once you move the mandatory retirment age for LEO's past the MRA for civilians in a significant way you make exactly that case. Everybody knows someone for whom they could argue an exception, but the good of the whole argues against making them.

Prior covered service is not a waiver, because the retirement computation begins with the start of the previous covered job. However, agencies may well look at the ROI depending upon how many years of service it will gain from a transferring applicant as opposed to a totally new hire.

Military service is waived for something like 3 years. In the old days, when DM and I were authorized home storage for our horses, this was actually a rule. You had to be on board by 35, with the exception that with military service it was 37. That went away for a while but is now back. Key to remember is that military time can count as service time for retirement and that with buy back, a veteran can reinstate their social security quarters. Social Security being a key part of a FERS retirement. This is an exception in law, and even it is limited.

It does suck for the applicant who ages out of the process; but the process is already full of highly qualified applicants for whom no waiver or other consideration must be made. Folks new to the process often believe the sole purpose of the process is to weed out the unqualified. The process certainly does that fairly well, but in the end it also weeds out a large number the very well qualified in favor of others who have just a little something more. It has to, because the number of positions that can be hired is fixed and usually only represents the tiniest fraction compared to the number who will apply for those vacancies.

Whose the idiot congressman that keeps saying almost no fed law enforcement is physical in nature? And easier than waiting tables? He'd probably raise it to 70.

Originally Posted by BPA2FAM2ICESA

Whose the idiot congressman that keeps saying almost no fed law enforcement is physical in nature? And easier than waiting tables? He'd probably raise it to 70.

It's probably every federal employees favorite congressman out of California. The one and only Darrell ISSA.

No, this idiot is a dem.. Can't think of his name..

Originally Posted by BPA2FAM2ICESA

No, this idiot is a dem.. Can't think of his name..

Lawmaker urges end to early federal retirement - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com

Rep. John Duncan Jr., R-Tenn

"Almost no federal law enforcement today is physical in nature. Early retirement in most federal law enforcement can no longer be justified," he said. "Working as a waiter or waitress is more physically demanding than most federal government positions for which we now grant early retirement."