Early in my cleared career I had a supervisor who considered himself God’s gift to the federal workforce. Among his many self-important daily rituals were an insistence that he be provided certain newspapers at his desk and a demand that his minions transfer discarded classified material from an empty box into a burn bag (apparently placing the material into the burn bag directly was a task too far beneath the GS-15 pay grade).
No doubt all of us have, at some point, encountered similarly demeaning or obnoxious behavior from colleagues. While I managed to keep to myself a desire to strangle this particular individual, many of our clients find themselves unable to exercise similar restraint. This leads to verbal – and sometimes physical – workplace disputes that we then have to mitigate before an Administrative Judge or Security Adjudicator when the client’s security clearance is subsequently placed into jeopardy. For the client, even a favorable security clearance decision can be a hollow victory. S/he still has to return to the same workplace environment, only now branded with the stigma of “security risk”.
Categorizing Workplace Disputes
Under the Federal Adjudicative Guidelines, workplace disputes typically fall under the personal conduct category known as Guideline “E”. It’s a catch-all charge for any situation in which a clearance holder’s judgment, reliability, or similar traits are called into question. Because Guideline “E” is so broadly worded, it is also ripe for use in retaliation or other petty office spats. Unfortunately, this is a particularly common occurrence in the military, where commanders are granted unilateral discretion to suspend a subordinate’s clearance.
In more serious cases – e.g. physical fights or threats of violence – we also sometimes encounter Guideline “J” (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline “I” (Mental Health Concerns). Those charges can be more difficult to overcome, as there are often witnesses to workplace disputes – many of whom are worried about their own career and siding with whomever can best help advance it.
No matter what the reason for the dispute, we always recommend that security clearance holders use great care in how they address it. At the risk of stating the obvious:
- CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY. Make sure you do not use any language that could be misconstrued as an intent to cause physical harm. In today’s post-Navy Yard / post-Fort Hood environment, even figures of speech like the aforementioned “I want to strangle him” can be enough to trigger concerns.
- CREATE A PAPER TRAIL. Filing a formal complaint or grievance not only gives you the opportunity to lay out the facts that you believe are relevant, it also helps to show that you were using appropriate channels of communication if your conduct is later called into question. Many cases are won because of strong documentation. Make sure you keep a copy of everything.
- LOCK DOWN STORIES. Before confronting a colleague or filing any complaint, make sure you involve witnesses who will be objective and can attest to firsthand knowledge of relevant facts. Wherever possible, lock witnesses into written statements early that they cannot later walk-back if the heat of an investigation seemingly threatens their ambition or promotion potential.
- LOOK CRITICALLY AT YOURSELF. Finally, take a hard look in the mirror before taking any action. Is there anything you have done that will be trotted out by the colleague at issue and used as a weapon? Have you in any way contributed to the problem? Don’t underestimate the importance of a risk analysis in reporting a colleague for misconduct. Where the sun shines, it does so broadly and brightly.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
