Navigating a background investigation after a difficult job separation can feel stressful, especially when the circumstances involve health challenges and a less-than-cooperative former employer. However, in situations like this, particularly for an SF-85 public trust investigation, the overall context matters far more than any single incident.
One ClearanceJobsblog subscriber writes:
“I recently got a job offer to work as a System Administrator on a government contract working with the Tricare Defense network. However, I’m slightly concerned about the background portion (maybe it’s a non-issue) but at my prior job I was terminated after a long battle with HR and my manager for “performance” and “not meeting standards”
The background on the ordeal is me and my family were involved in a car accident last year in which we got rear-ended at 50 mph, I was in the back seat and sustained a concussion and mild TBI, luckily my wife and kiddo in the car seat were okay. Post accident, I was suffering from Post Concussive Syndrome, and I tried to hang in there at work (memory and focus issues) after a few weeks I approached HR and requested an ADA request or accommodation and wanted extra time or assistance on projects if possible.
Long story short, the request was denied and my only choice was medical leave or ” hanging in there” I regrettably hung in there for everyone’s sake but my own and I did the best I could.
I was terminated for “performance standards and violation of a security standard”
During the corporate background investigation at my new job, the investigator said they could not reach HR or they haven’t responded. They’ve been seemingly difficult since I left. I recall they even fought giving me unemployment, the state adjudicator had to step in, and I explained my story and they ruled in my favor. I honestly regret even working for this company.
My fear is that they’re going to create problems when my background investigation is underway with the DSCA. What’s the best way to handle a situation like this?
This is for a SF85 level I investigation.”
From an investigator’s perspective, the primary focus is not on whether someone has a flawless employment record, but whether they are honest, reliable, and demonstrate sound judgment. Terminations alone are not uncommon, and they do not automatically raise concerns. What matters most is how the situation is explained and whether there is any indication of intentional misconduct or a pattern of issues.
In this case, the circumstances surrounding the termination provide important context. A serious car accident resulting in a concussion and post-concussive symptoms can reasonably affect performance, particularly when those symptoms impact memory and focus. The fact that an effort was made to request workplace accommodation shows initiative and responsibility, even if the request was not granted.
Concerns about a former employer being unresponsive during the background investigation are understandable, but also very common. Investigators are accustomed to situations where HR departments do not respond or are difficult to reach. In those cases, they rely on other sources of information, including the applicant’s explanation, additional references, employment records, etc. A lack of response from a previous employer is unlikely to negatively impact the outcome on its own.
If the topic comes up during the investigation, the best approach is to provide a clear, concise, and professional explanation. Keeping the tone neutral and avoiding criticism of the former employer helps demonstrate maturity and professionalism. A straightforward explanation that acknowledges the performance challenges, briefly explains the medical context, and emphasizes recovery and forward progress is typically sufficient.
Ultimately, background investigations are not designed to penalize individuals for difficult periods in their lives. They are designed to assess trustworthiness. By being honest, consistent, and measured in how the situation is presented, candidates in circumstances like this are often viewed as credible and resilient rather than problematic. Time passed and being forthcoming are mitigating factors here.
While it’s natural to feel concerned, this type of situation is generally manageable and unlikely to be disqualifying on its own. Transparency and professionalism remain the most important factors in ensuring a smooth investigation process.
Much about the clearance process resembles the Pirate’s Code: “more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules.” For this reason, we maintain ClearanceJobsBlog.com – a forum where clearance seekers can ask the cleared community for advice on their specific security concerns. Ask CJ explores questions posed on the ClearanceJobs Blog forum, emails received, and comments from this site. This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
