Are you looking to get promoted? Maybe a change in your federal career? Need tips on resume writing to land a federal job? Or how to increase your salary or get a pay raise? Consider ordering some helpful resources or read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues by visiting FederalDaily.

Author:Faukinos Golmaran
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):6 August 2007
PDF File Size:6.35 Mb
ePub File Size:11.26 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Esq. Pro Se. Applicant has a history of financial delinquency since Despite repeated promises to repay his debts, Applicant had made little progress in resolving his financial delinquencies as of October Although he listed several of his financial delinquencies on his security clearance application SF 86 , he omitted from his SF 86 a arrest for vandalism, a financial judgment awarded a former supervisor, and foreign travel to Canada in In application for a federal position in late Fall , Applicant presented a resume in which he exaggerated his employment qualifications.

His inattention to several financial accounts when he had discretionary funds available to him, and his lack of complete candor with the Government reflect an unacceptable tendency to place his personal interests ahead of his obligations. Clearance is denied. DOHA recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied or revoked. On June 11, , Applicant submitted a response to the SOR in which he admitted the listed delinquent debts indicating the delinquent account in SOR subparagraph 1.

Applicant requested a decision in his case based on the written record. Pursuant to E3. By facsimile on September 8, , Applicant requested DOHA cancel or postpone the hearing as the status of his financial delinquencies had not changed significantly enough to alleviate the Government's concerns in this regard, and he needed more time to establish a financial plan.

Applicant having failed to demonstrate good cause for continuance, he was directed to appear at the hearing as scheduled. At the hearing held on September 11, , the Government submitted twenty-one exhibits, all of which were entered into the record, and called Applicant as an adverse witness. Applicant tendered two documents, which were admitted as exhibits A and B. A transcript of the proceedings was received on September 23, The record was ordered held open following the hearing until October 4, , to allow Applicant to submit additional documentation and for the Government to forward information of any follow-up witness contacts.

By facsimile on October 3, , Department Counsel submitted documentation of her post hearing witness contact with Applicant's supervisor as well as copies of six documents submitted by Applicant for inclusion in the record, including a letter of reference from this supervisor. Applicant filed no objection to the post hearing contact by the Government, which was favorable to him.

Department Counsel's comments as to Applicant's submissions going to the weight to be given the information therein rather than to their admissibility, the six documents were marked and entered as Applicant exhibits C through H. On October 4, , Department Counsel forwarded additional documentation received by Applicant, consisting of a copy of a facsimile message sent by Applicant to his supervisor and records of a debt consolidation program. The Government having filed no objections thereto, the documents were marked and entered as exhibits I and J, respectively.

After a thorough review of the evidence, and on due consideration of the same, I render the following findings of fact:. Applicant is a year-old electrical engineer who has been employed by a defense contractor company A since late May Applicant held an Interim Secret security clearance for his duties at company A until late August , when the clearance was withdrawn.

Applicant seeks a Secret security clearance so that he can continue in his position as an electrical engineer with the defense contractor. After earning his associates degree, Applicant matriculated in the state university in September Applicant quit the job after only three days as he had some course work at the university to complete.

Applicant, who received notice of the judgment, had not satisfied it by September While socializing with fellow students at the state university on the weekends, Applicant between and January consumed alcohol in quantity of four or five mixed vodka drinks or five or six beers per occasion.

After drinking to excess on campus on one occasion in January , Applicant engaged in destructive behavior and was arrested by university police for vandalism and obstruction. The obstruction charge was dismissed. Following this incident, Applicant moderated his alcohol consumption. During spring break of , Applicant traveled to Canada for eight or nine days with other students from his university.

There is no evidence Applicant got in any legal trouble during that trip. As a college student, Applicant overextended himself on credit, purchasing consumer goods such as clothes, electronics equipment when he lacked the funds to pay for them.

Some financial accounts became so seriously delinquent that they were charged off, as follows:. In May , Applicant was awarded his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering. Over the July to late August time frame, Applicant was employed as an associate engineer designing water purification and filtration systems.

That Fall, while pursuing part-time a master of science degree in electrical engineering at the state university, Applicant applied for a position with the federal government at a nearby Navy base. After his former supervisor at company B informed the Navy that Applicant had lied on his resume by exaggerating the length of his stay at company B, Applicant was informed by someone at the Navy it would be best to decline the offer of employment.

Unemployed until he took a tutoring position at the university in January , Applicant did not pay his rent or his utility bills. By letter dated June 11, , the collection agency notified Applicant of the debt balance and requested payment in full.

Seeking a full-time graduate-based internship in electrical engineering for Summer , Applicant filed an application for employment with defense contractor company A on April 11, On the application for employment, Applicant responded "No" to whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, other than minor traffic violations, intentionally concealing his arrest in for vandalism, as he did not want it to affect his chance of being hired.

Applicant responded "NO" to any foreign travel within the last seven years question 16 and to any arrests within the last seven years [" In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense s not listed in modules 21, 22, 23, 24, or 25? For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been 'sealed' or otherwise stricken from the record.

The single exception to this requirement is for certain convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U. Applicant added he had additional debts but he could not locate the paperwork concerning those accounts.

As for any debts currently over 90 days, Applicant disclosed utility debts 6 and 9. He added in the general remarks section of the form question 43 , he had a "good number of debts" that had not been paid as he supported himself through college. The day after Applicant signed the first SF 86, another security clearance application was generated containing the same responses as the earlier form.

In August , Applicant was counseled by his supervisor at company A for violation of timekeeping procedures and failure to coordinate his absences from work with supervisory personnel. On one Friday afternoon, Applicant left work early but failed to ensure that his absence was reflected on his time sheet for that week. For the next year, his supervisor filed his time sheets for him to ensure no recurrence on Applicant's part. Applicant responded positively and cooperatively to corrective action.

Circa June , Applicant commenced repayment of his delinquent rental obligation debt 5. In early September , Applicant entered into an agreement with a debt consolidation company consolidation company X.

Applicant acknowledged his arrest for vandalism after acting in a "somewhat destructive manner," but claimed the university officers used excessive force in arresting him. Applicant attributed the omission of this offense from his SF 86 to clicking, in error, the no box instead of the yes box. As for his failure to disclose the offense on his employment application for company A, Applicant indicated he thought the question posed pertained only to felonies.

Applicant indicated he planned to pay it when he had the extra money, and attributed the omission of the judgment from his SF 86 to misunderstanding of the instructions. Asked about his financial delinquencies, Applicant admitted delinquent debts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.

The unpaid utility debts 6 and 9 he planned to pay when he had extra money. Applicant related he was disputing debts 7, 10 and At the request of the agent, Applicant completed a personal financial statement. Applicant furnished the Department of Defense with a letter dated September 2, , in which he denied any intent to withhold pertinent information regarding his arrest or financial judgment, citing the "confusing and rather temperamental" software used to create his security package.

Applicant was reinterviewed by the DSS special agent on October 15, , this time about his past employment activities and foreign travel. Applicant admitted he had traveled Canada in with French exchange students, but related he did not think it necessary to list travel to Canada on his SF Applicant discussed employment omitted from his SF 86, and indicated he had applied for a position at the local naval base in late , but declined the position when his former supervisor at company B had informed the Navy that he misrepresented on his resume the extent of time he worked for company B.

Applicant only got himself deeper in debt, as follows:. In April , Applicant was given an off-site assignment by his employer. Applicant's supervisor during his nine months on temporary duty was pleased with Applicant's work performance. In late August , Applicant entered into an agreement with another debt consolidation company company Y. In contrast to consolidation company X, company Y was to satisfy the creditors one-by-one rather than making small payments to each of the creditors.

In response to inquiry from Applicant, consolidation company Y informed Applicant that all accounts in the debt consolidation program were still pending, as the company had not reached an agreement with any of the creditors.

Applicant returned to his regular duties at company A in January On February 2, , Applicant drafted letters to the utility service providers to whom he owed debts 6, 7, and 9, apologizing for his lack of communication with them and expressing an intent to repay the debts but for "financial difficulties due to unforeseen circumstances. Applicant related that he needed more time to take care of all the debts he had acquired, and he provided a copy of his payments to debt consolidation company Y since August 30, On May 21, , DOHA issued an SOR to Applicant based on the unpaid delinquent debts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16; his criminal vandalism in ; his omission from his May SF 86 of that arrest, the judgment awarded supervisor B, and his travel to Canada in ; his misrepresentation of his employment qualifications on a resume submitted for federal employment in Fall ; and his improper absence from company A in which led to a reprimand.

On June 11, , Applicant responded to the SOR, admitting most of the outstanding indebtedness alleged, maintaining debt 15 had been paid. Concerning his arrest for vandalism and his failure to disclose it on his SF 86, Applicant admitted not supplying the correct information, for the reason "it was ridiculous for the charge imposed, and the case was dismissed upon [his] agreement to pay the restitution.

With regard to his misrepresentation to the Navy in of the extent of time he had worked at company B, Applicant admitted he implied he worked the entire summer of , as he was motivated to acquire the federal position and "couldn't substantiate 4 days or so. Sometime prior to September 11, , the delinquent balance on debt 17 was transferred to a new VISA card account. On September 11, , Applicant testified he had cancelled the debt consolidation agreement with consolidation company X as his payments went to coaching and retainer fees rather than his creditors.

As for his experience with debt consolidation company Y, Applicant expressed his dissatisfaction, as only one account debt 15 had been paid and he was still receiving bills from the creditor.

Applicant expressed his intent to settle his debts, but he needed more time to do so. With respect to the omission of the vandalism charge, the judgment and foreign travel from his SF 86, Applicant denied any intent to deliberately withhold the information, but acknowledged it was negligent on his part not to list the vandalism arrest.

He attributed his omission of the financial judgment to his failure to understand exactly what the word "judgment" meant, and maintained he did not consider the foreign travel question as applicable to his Canadian trip as he was there for "maybe eight days. While Applicant made no effort to conceal his financial indebtedness from his SF 86, his omission of the vandalism offense, the judgment and the Canadian travel, are found to have been deliberate. The language of question 26 is unambiguous, and it stretches credulity that Applicant, with his level of education, could fail to appreciate that an affirmative response was required.

Applicant was well aware that a small claims judgment had been awarded against him in , and that he had not satisfied the debt as of May Indeed, he had not paid it by September when he expressed his intent to pay it as soon as he had the money.

With regard to his failure to list his foreign travel, question 16 does not limit travel to places requiring presentation of a passport or to travel for extensive periods. Circa early September , Applicant learned he is entitled to financial counseling offered from his employer. Through a credit counseling service at work, Applicant was directed to a new debt consolidation company consolidation company Z.


Security Clearance Frequently Asked Questions

Sykstus Jul 16, Obviously, if no one has had any issues in their past, then completing this form is simple. The issue comes up and people get worried when they do have problems that have arisen in their past and they become concerned with how to address them on the security clearance form. If conduct, behavior, or history was required to be disclosed on the security clearance form but was not, and the government discovers it, that is the quickest way for a security clearance to be denied in the first place or revoked after it is given. As a result, our counsel is to be fully open and candid in answering the security clearance form and to fully explain the issues or problems regarding with whatever issues concern you. You are allowed to add additional explanations and paragraphs to any area in which you have concerns. Disclosure and candor as it relates to a security clearance application is very important.


Changes to the Security Clearance Mental Health Question

Here are the instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser. Answers to frequently asked questions about U. Learn more about security clearance processing timelines, how to fill out the SF86, the criteria for obtaining a security clearance and polygraph procedures in the most comprehensive guide to the security clearance process published on the Internet. A security clearance is a determination by the United States Government that a person or company is eligible for access to classified information.


Federal Career Planning and Development

Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Esq. Pro Se. DOHA recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should be granted, continued, denied or revoked. The SOR was based on personal conduct guideline E and criminal conduct guideline J related to deliberate falsification of a December security clearance application. On October 27, , Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR and requested that his case be determined on the written record in lieu of a hearing.


Security Clearance Frequently Asked Questions


Related Articles