Settlement agreements between former employees and the DoD can be very specific as to terms and conditions and in most cases they are. However, it seems like there is often  a point of contention raised by the party receiving the settlement sometimes months down the road. This was the case with Jaleel Assad. a federal civilian employee working as an Electronics Engineer from October 21, 2013, to December 24, 2016 at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, and from December 25, 2016 to November 5, 2018 at Naval Air Station (“NAS”) Pensacola, Florida.

In March of 2018, Assad filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC alleging discrimination. As work relationships deteriorated according to EEOC records, Assad was suspended for “Conduct Unbecoming of a Federal Employee”. In conjunction with this suspension, as is so often the case, a Security Information File (SIF) was filed suspending Assad’s access to classified information and restricted areas. Some of the allegations leading up to the SIF filing were that Assad was falsifying documents, becoming verbally abusive towards supervisors, and inappropriate conduct. In late 2018, Assad entered into a Negotiated Settlement Agreement with the Air Force to come to full and final terms of Assad’s departure from the organization. The agreement specifically stated the following terms:

  • Assad would be paid a lump sum payment of $18,292.00;
  • The Air Force would process separation documents (SF-50 and SF-52) noting the resignation of Assad was voluntary
  • Assad would be given a neutral job reference by the agency attached to the Settlement Agreement

In turn Assad was to

  • Resign from the Air Force
  • Dismiss his EEOC complaint with prejudice
  • Refrain from reapplying to the Air Force for a period of four years
  • Waive any claim against the Air Force related to his employment
  • Waive any right to seek adjustments to his personnel records.

After separating from the Air Force, Assad applied with two different government contractors, who extended employment offers, contingent on him getting a security clearance. As one may predict, that effort did not end well for Assad, some of which was due to recent incidents involving a civilian job and flags on his records in the Air Force due to the SIF. Assad filed suit with the United States Claims court alleging the Air Force breached their terms of the settlement agreement by not giving a neutral reference as to his rehire, based on alleged conversations during the clearance investigation process.

The court granted the government motion to dismiss based on the opinion the Air Force did not have a duty to amend Assad’s personnel records, including his SIF actions. It would be difficult to undo what has been done in the clearance world even if the Air Force wanted to. Essentially, one agency (Air Force) is separate from another (CAF) as we all should know-there are many instances where inability to obtain a required clearance has spelled the end of a uniformed service career or at the very least, a change in an occupation specialty.

Related News

Joe Jabara, JD, is the Director, of the Hub, For Cyber Education and Awareness, Wichita State University. He also serves as an adjunct faculty at two other universities teaching Intelligence and Cyber Law. Prior to his current job, he served 30 years in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Kansas Air National Guard. His last ten years were spent in command/leadership positions, the bulk of which were at the 184th Intelligence Wing as Vice Commander.