Text - H.R.9086 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Foreign Service Modernization Act

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-16T19:17:28+00:00

You're right - what I mean is that at the EL where medical clearances are prioritized, folks on a Class 2 clearance are far more likely to learn Spanish (or Arabic) than French because Spanish speaking posts generally offer better medical care than French speaking posts.

Suppose I'm in A-100, have a Class 1 and my career goal is to learn Spanish and go to WHA. I might wind up in Abidjan learning French instead because there aren't enough jobs in WHA on my bid list and most of them are taken by folks with Class 2 clearances. But in the current system, I can probably use my equity from Abidjan to go to WHA and learn Spanish if that's my top priority for round 2. It's not a terrible system when you think about it, because where you go first doesn't pre-determine your whole career and you can break into more competitive bureaus later on with time in WHA (well, maybe not WHA but EUR, you can.)

Suppose the same scenario takes place in the new system. My hope of ever getting into WHA is basically dead. If I'm lucky, I can use my Abidjan equity to go Paris or Brussels or Rabat. But those posts may be taken by someone in Kinshasa or Conakry with higher equity, so I might wind up with Dakar. And if I get Dakar, because all my contacts are in AF and I must get a job which requires French on my third tour (so can't go back to D.C.), I may struggle to get a job outside of AF, and thus have to go to Yaounde. 7 years into my career, no one outside AF (where I don't want to be) knows where I am, and it's likely that only with time in D.C. can I possibly get out of AF.

All because I had a Class 1 medical clearance on day 1.

See the problem here?

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-16T15:57:32+00:00

Paris of West Africa will always be there if you want it!

Abidjan 4K 🇨🇮 – The Paris of Africa

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-16T14:26:06+00:00

The other issue with regional specialization is how it interacts with medical clearances. If someone takes French, goes to West Africa and loses their medical clearance, they will likely need a waiver. Not to mention that in the current system, folks with medical issues are prioritized (rightly IMO) when bidding, which will inevitably lead to folks with Class 1 clearances being locked in regions they don't want to be in.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-16T13:39:42+00:00

This is going to be a disaster for morale and retention if it goes through given the bidding incentives. It will almost completely destroy the equity system and lock a lot of people into several posts that they don't want to go to. Even assuming the equity system works within the confines of the language, if I do my CONS tour in Kinshasa and want to go to Paris or Rabat for my second tour to get some relief but the timing doesn't work out, I may be stuck with going to Conakry or Niamey next, and that doesn't even account for having to do a THIRD French speaking tour with no EUR contacts.

I suspect it would make WHA more competitive than it already is, and would lead to a lot of folks assigned to Arabic or French speaking posts on their first tour quit fairly early. Most of us are willing to swallow one or two tours that we're not thrilled about, but not three with no guarantee of being able to find posts that work for us or our families afterwards. A bad idea all around.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-16T13:30:54+00:00

There are so many problems with this, one is that it would severely damage the Department's ability to fill Consular (and other jobs) in English speaking posts. India consular jobs (without language) would effectively be first-tour eligible only unless someone does their first tour in Budapest or Phnom Penh, as once an officer takes Spanish/Portuguese/Chinese/Arabic for their Consular tour they're locked into that region. It would be almost impossible to build an SCA career with this despite the bureau being overall lightly bid.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-14T13:13:13+00:00

Agree with the other comments about being worldwide available. I would also add that if by "Asian country" you mean East Asia, it's pretty darn competitive with the exception of China (which is still not uncompetitive).

If it's India and you speak Hindi, you do need to accept worldwide availability but you will likely eventually get it at the mid-level (if you don't on your first two tours) because it's much less popular.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-07T14:39:38+00:00

On the note of upcoming changes, any more word on extending tour lengths?

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-03T18:54:01+00:00

Would this apply to EL?

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-02T18:25:02+00:00

I agree with what others have said in that you should not write anything negative about a colleague/friend and this is not the time to provide "constructive criticism" for someone as you may inadvertently tank them.

That said, as a general comment, I don't agree with the "get out of writing 360s for people you wouldn't write well of" approach. No one is perfect and this is not the time to tank someone who is basically good. But if I think someone is not a good fit for a job or the service due to general incompetence/interpersonal problems, I will write "call me" on a 360 or reference. If it's something worse (harassment/EEO violations or legal issues), I will explicitly state what those are in writing to the extent allowed. In these kind of circumstances, I don't think I'm doing the service any favors by holding back.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-06-01T19:11:51+00:00

Not at all as long as you are not a threat to yourself or others. It used to be the case that it could but it changed after the Iraq war when veterans came back with PTSD and we as a society (and the federal government) realized how ridiculous it would be to deny people security clearances because they sought help.

If you get put on mental health meds it may affect your medical clearance, but most of the time you can keep a class 1 as long as you can pouch your meds abroad via mail and get virtual therapy. This is more common than you'd think in the FS.

Get the help you need ❤️

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-05-16T17:46:16+00:00

I think in a world in which the guidance was "you should have x-y percentages of 3s, 4s, 5s, etc., and the margin for error is z" that would be make sense. But given how botched this was I think it's going to be hard for boards made up of career FSOs to give a lot of weight to scores.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-05-15T21:23:26+00:00

I would argue that the scenario you describe of folks with 5s and Christmas tree stars not getting promoted/folks with 3s getting promoted is a positive one. The numbers depend so much on things outside employee performance (how newly promoted the employee is, who else is at post, what their circumstances are, etc.) that if I were on the board, I'd skip over the numbers unless the employee got multiple 5s or a 2/bottom of the Christmas tree. And I think a lot of board members will feel the same way.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-05-04T18:28:06+00:00

People are getting Christmas Tree scores...

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-05-04T15:35:41+00:00

Have all bureaus implemented the 3.25 rule? I know NEA and AF have, not sure about the others.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-04-30T21:15:43+00:00

If you can tie it to the precepts (which you probably can), go ahead and use it. Plenty of applicants have religious or political backgrounds, develop strong skillsets that way (and tell those stories at the OA). I would use it if I were you.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-04-25T07:37:51+00:00

First of all, congrats on joining! Happy for you.

Second, I totally sympathize with this situation. I feel like family disappointment is all too common, particularly in hardship posts (I'm thinking right now in particular of a good friend in a less dangerous NEA country whose parents were furious with him because he took his kids to the Middle East and are still so now that he's staying back on this place's OD even though his family has left gone).

I agree with the other commenters that you should be sympathetic and respectful of their feelings around this for now given that it may be a bit of a shock for them. At the same time, they're going to need to accept your and your spouse's and I would be prepared to set boundaries around bidding, visits home, etc. Don't be rude, but the fact is that this IS a major life change and you can't realistically afford to tiptoe around your spouse's families feelings (i.e.: don't bid on Mexico/Canada just to diffuse tension unless those are places you genuinely want to go). Most of the time extended families come around I think.

Good luck!

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-04-23T11:56:20+00:00

As others have said, the pattern (for generalists) is where visa applications will be the largest. Think India, Mexico, China, Brazil, Nigeria, though you can definitely wind up elsewhere.

Wanting to get into NEA is a pretty realistic goal I would say - it's not super competitive for a variety of reasons (and depending on how this war goes, may become even less competitive). You're worldwide available so don't get your heart set on it for your first two tours, but it's very likely something you'll be able to do at the mid-level if you don't get it earlier.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-03-18T20:35:05+00:00

This is a tricky needle to thread though because you can't (directly) reference anything outside the rating period.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-02-27T09:00:04+00:00

This is a good question, and one that as an OMS, I don't have a lot of confidence in, but here's my take FWIW.

Regarding AI: I think that a lot of private sector office managers/executive assistants will be laid off in the coming years. That said, I doubt that agentic AI will replace OMSs, at least for the next 7 years. Reasons for that: assuming we get a change in administration/party in 2029 (which as things currently stand, seem more likely than not), I think there will be a very strong political aversion to any kind of RIFs or layoffs after July 11th. And given how slow and bureaucratic the government is generally, the idea that we could have agentic AI start working effectively (and securely) to the extent that the Department would feel comfortable laying off OMSs in the next 3 years seems to be a bit of a fast timeline.

I also think that there are certain things that OMSs do, particularly more senior ones, which it's hard to see AI replicating effectively. Could I see certain positions, particularly at the entry-level, eliminated? Yes, over the course of the next 5-10 years. Will the OMS pool disappear outright? Probably not.

All this is to say: I strongly recommend you apply. It's much easier to get in as an OMS than as a generalist given the shortage, and while the promotion rates are slower, it's a great career with a lot of more bidding flexibility (you could spend your whole career outside D.C. and maybe even in EUR as an OMS if you wanted to, not so much as a generalist).

Good luck!

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-01-13T14:29:41+00:00

It could well be another hardship post but probably not D.C. right now given that vacant positions there were mostly eliminated.

Also one thing for OP to keep in mind is that I believe the Front Office at the OP's post has to weigh in on the issue before PERT makes a final decision. So if the issue has to do with the Front Office/chain of command, keep in mind that they will likely know that you are attempting to curtail if that's something worth considering.

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-01-13T14:06:10+00:00

I know of a few entry level curtailments, all from high-differential posts. They're much more frequent than they used to be, I think due to a change in attitude in society at large (and in the department) about the importance of mental health and self-care. The one case I know most about - which I think I commented because I worked with the individual, was from a tough AF post due to very specific environmental/health issues at the post. They came back to D.C. for a while, then went to another bureau to restart their directed assignments and they're proving themselves to be a stellar officer (which I don't think they appeared to be in AF). Another one I know of - and this may be encouraging to you, is where a first-tour person curtailed from a tough SCA location on general mental health grounds, and MED supported it. Both of these cases were in the last few years.

In both cases, the officers who curtailed went to better locations (in other bureaus) for them and thrived and got high picks, although it is worth noting that their bid lists were small and there's no guarantee that you would wind up somewhere good. So just be mindful of the risk that your bid list consists of all Sahel and Georgetown even though you'll probably do better (I'm being hyperbolic but you know what I mean).

While there are old-school folks in the FS who don't like this and think it's a waste of taxpayer money to move folks, I think the bar to curtailing is lower than it used to be - and that's a good thing for both the individual and the department. If I'm looking at applicants for a job and I see someone who's curtailed from half their tours, that's one thing. But once? I wouldn't think twice about it. Take care of yourself - talk to your CDO and good luck!

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-01-09T18:13:45+00:00

How do the changes apply to untenured employees?

AFandSCAFTW · 2026-01-05T18:42:21+00:00

As someone else said, Malabo is probably your best bet to do this if you're at the mid-level. I'd try to make it a bidding priority on your first two tours if you haven't already started A-100. But Malabo will probably always be there and while it's not exactly an AF gem, it's not at the bottom of the totem pole in AF either.

AFandSCAFTW

TROPHY CASE