An applicant for a position for a position of trust recently received a revocation letter for a low risk position they applied to with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In a thread at the ClearanceJobsBlog, they note that they omitted the full charges based on advise from an attorney, and only included the Probation Before Judgement (PBJ) misdemeanors.
The position was for a Tier 1 non-sensitive position soil data processing technician and the applicant noted eight years of prior service with NOAA and NASA.
The charges in this case the applicant notes were huge: attempted rape, assault, and fourth degree sexual contact. The applicant claims the charges were false and originated out of a failed relationship. They noted positive references including from NASA and a pastor.
Unfortunately, failing to disclose such serious charges will not be looked at lightly by adjudicators. Even for a SF85/Tier 1/Low Risk position (the lowest classification in the personnel investigations categories, and the minimum required for any federal employment with low risk and for any volunteer work with the federal government), the cornerstone of the processing of establishing a trusted workforce is ensuring honesty.
It’s impossible to speculate, but the charges were likely mitigatable. Lying about them, unfortunately, is not. As the government moves the Non Sensitive Public Trust (NSPT) population into Continuous Vetting, understanding the importance of honesty and self reporting is growing more significant. A criminal defense attorney, or one not familiar with the security clearance application process, may certainly advise failing to list charges. Applicants in the midst of a criminal investigation are often advised to avoid the clearance process entirely until their criminal charges are addressed. Taking an attorney’s advice or getting assistance with the process can be helpful, but who you talk to matters. And regardless, ultimately the applicant is responsible for reading the form carefully, understanding the questions, and responding honestly.
‘Under advisement of an attorney’ is not going to work as an excuse for lying. It may be used as a part of an appeal, but ultimately the whole person concept will need to apply – and lying about a major offense is always difficult to overcome.
This question was posed from a subscriber at ClearanceJobsBlog.com, where you can read and discuss government security clearance process, how to get a security clearance job, and background investigations issues.
Much about the clearance process resembles the Pirate’s Code: “more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules.” This case-by-case system is meant to consider the whole person, increase process security, and allow the lowest-risk/highest-need candidates to complete the process. This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
