Emelin Valerio, CSC Docket No. 2023-355
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of October 12, 2022, CSC Docket No. 2023-355: examination eligibility, denied. Emelin Valerio appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that, per the substitution clause for education, she did not meet the minimum requirements in ex
Commission decisions · Meeting of October 12, 2022
Emelin Valerio appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services which found that, per the substitution clause for education, she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the open competitive examination for Claims Reviewer Health Services (S0556D), Statewide.
- Matter
- Examination eligibility
- Decided
- October 12, 2022, item B-34
- Outcome
- Denied
- Examination
- S0556D
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-034 10-12-22 ED.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be denied.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
BackgroundEmelin Valerio appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that, per the substitution clause for education, she did not meet the minimum requirements in experience for the open competitive examination for Claims Reviewer Health Services (S0556D), Statewide.
The subject examination had a closing date of June 21, 2022 and was open to residents of New Jersey who met the open competitive requirements. These requirements were graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and one year of experience in the evaluation and/or verification and eligibility determination of applications for financial or medical assistance, benefits or other services or, in credit investigations. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience as indicated on a year for year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience per the substitution clause for education. Thirteen candidates appear on the eligible list, which has not yet been certified.
Appellant's argumentThe appellant indicated that she possessed 62 college credits, which prorates to two years of experience. As such, she was required to have three years of applicable experience. She listed four positions on her application and resume: Administrative Assistant 5 with Optimized Manpower; Manager of Emy’s Business Center; Manager of a Mini-market; and Senior Personnel Banker/Assistant Manager with Bank of America. The appellant was credited with two years, nine months of experience in the first position, and thus was found to be lacking three months of applicable full-time experience involving the evaluation and/or verification and eligibility determination of applications for financial or medical assistance, benefits or other services or, in credit investigations.
On appeal, the appellant explains the duties of her first position, and states that she qualifies for the examination based on this experience and her college credits.
CONCLUSION
RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the open competitive examination announcement by the closing date.
AnalysisThe appellant was correctly deemed to be ineligible for the subject examination since she lacked the required experience per the substitution clause for education. Based on her college credits, the appellant was required to possess three years of applicable experience. She was credited with experience in the only position which was applicable, that of Administrative Assistant 5 with Optimize Manpower. Her remaining positions did not have the announced experience requirement as the primary focus. As the appellant was in the first position for two years, nine months as of the June 21, 2022 closing date, she lacks three months of applicable experience. Moreover, as there is a complete list, there is no basis to relax the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) and accept any experience the appellant may have gained after the closing date.
An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services, that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date, is amply supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.
ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's monthly archive. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.