Joyce Aromolaran, CSC Docket No. 2026-277

BackgroundJoyce Aromolaran appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the Supervisor 1 MVC (PS9784T), Motor Vehicle Commission promotional examination.

The closing date of the examination was February 21, 2025. The experience requirements were five years of experience applying, disseminating, interpreting and analyzing regulatory information, one year of which must have been as a lead worker performing one or a combination of the following functions: review and analysis of driver records; driver testing; damage and/or insurance claim evaluations or adjustment work; receipt, review, analysis/evaluation and/or response to customer inquiries and/or complaints; vehicle safety/compliance inspection, performing varied vehicle inspections; or other similar work areas related to the administration of motor vehicle regulations. Additionally, an Associate’s degree or 60 college credits could have been substituted for up to two years of the above experience. A total of 162 candidates applied and 104 were determined eligible. A number of certifications have been issued and their disposition is not yet due. The list expires on October 29, 2027.

On the appellant’s application, she indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree and 12 credits towards a Master’s degree. Additionally, she indicated that she was a Senior Technician for the Motor Vehicle Commission from February 2023 to April 2024, a Case Manager and Counselor for the Kintock Group from May 2006 to May 2016, and a part-time Substitute Teacher for the Elizabeth Board of Education from January 2004 to January 2010. Additionally, her resume indicated that she was a Case Manager for BOP and MICA clients from September 2005 to September 2020, and a Front-End Supervisor for Kmart Corporation from February 2010 to 2011. Personnel records indicate that she was a Senior Technician MVC from February 2023 to the examination closing date, a Technician MVC from November 2015 to February 2023, and a Technician Trainee MVC from May 2015 to November 2015. Agency Services credited the appellant with the equivalent of two years of experience based on her education and two years and one month of general and lead worker experience based her Senior Technician MVC experience but determined that she lacked 11 months of general experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents her Bachelor’s degree, her non-profit Case Manager experience, and her Drug and Alcohol Counselor certification and Treatment Counselor experience. Additionally, she indicates that she started working for the Motor Vehicle Commission in 2014 as a part-time clerk and became a full-time clerk in 2016. Further, the appellant provides that she was appointed as a Senior Technician MVC in 2022. Also, she notes that she worked as a Snow Representative for the Department of Transportation since 2020, including currently being a supervisor. Moreover, the appellant indicates that she is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Business Administration.

Additionally, the appellant states that she believes she was determined ineligible because she unintentionally omitted information on her application. She notes that during the time that the subject examination was open she was caring for her brother who had cancer and passed away on February 18, 2025. The appellant asserts that she has a strong record while serving as a lead worker as a Senior Technician MVC, and she accidentally omitted her Technician MVC experience. She claims that her Senior Technician MVC experience proves that she has the required three years of general experience. The appellant emphasizes that one cannot be appointed as a Senior Technician MVC without first serving as a Technician MVC. Therefore, she argues that she should not be determined ineligible based on a clerical error as she contends that it would be unfair to delay her career goals.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) requires applicants to possess all the requirements specified in an announcement for a promotional examination by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn this matter, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination. Specifically, a review of her application and resume indicates that she only listed her Motor Vehicle Commission experience from February 2023 to the February 21, 2025 examination closing date. Under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g), the Civil Service Commission (Commission) can accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals. However, N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. For example, information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given position that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying and is accepted. However, any documentation indicating work in a setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. Thus, the Commission can only consider information provided on appeal regarding the positions listed on the appellant’s original application. See In the Matter of Diana Begley (MSB, decided November 17, 2004). Therefore, the appellant’s Technician MVC and Technician Trainee MVC experience, which started in May 2015, cannot be considered since it is an amendment to her application after the closing date. It is also noted that agency records indicate that her Senior Technician MVC experience, as stated on her resume, started in February 2023 and not 2022 as she states on appeal. Concerning the appellant’s education, she received the maximum credit for possessing the equivalent of two years of experience based on having at least 60 college credits. However, the subject announcement does not indicate that candidates receive additional credit for possessing a Bachelor’s degree and/or pursuing a Master’s degree. Further, the appellant’s Snow Representative experience cannot be considered as it does not relate to the administration of motor vehicle regulations as required. Similarly, the appellant’s experience prior to State service is also not applicable for the same reason. In order for experience to be considered applicable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004).

Moreover, while the Commission can appreciate that the appellant was going through a difficult time, this does not relieve her from the requirement to submit a complete accounting of her experience with her application. As the eligible list is complete, there is no basis to relax the rules as this would be unfair to the eligibles who timely submitted complete applications.

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.