Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Federal Career Planning and Development

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?

Join this active discussion with others climbing the same challenging career ladder.

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.com.

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
biggerjets  
#1 Posted : Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:01:12 AM(UTC)
biggerjets

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/22/2007(UTC)
Posts: 7

I am in the midst of attaining a position at a govt. contractor that requires only a secret clearance. They are willing to get me on board and keep me busy until the clearance goes through;however, I am a little unsure about my ability to obtain one. 5 years ago I was charged with 4 felonies of theft....3 were dropped and 1 was reduced to a misdemeanor. I have never been convicted of a felony and that is the only blemish on my criminal history. Since then, I have turned my life around and been consistant in holding a job, returning to school, etc. What do you guys think on the possibility of this disqualifying me from a secret? All other aspects are clean: Credit/financial, foreign activities,etc.
elgallo2  
#2 Posted : Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:14:15 AM(UTC)
elgallo2

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/19/2005(UTC)
Posts: 633

I guess it could be a problem if you were applying for a position at Ft. Knox! :>)

Seriously since the charges were either dropped (no need to disclose because for all intents and purposes they never occurred) or reduced to Misdemeanor which I am not sure they are interested in.

I have a Secret clearence and had a misdemeanor gun violation which I disclosed and it posed no problem.
RONDALW  
#3 Posted : Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:41:26 AM(UTC)
RONDALW

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/21/2005(UTC)
Posts: 62

Actually, as a former investigator who conducted these types of investigations, it depends on the entire circumstances of the offense and exactly what you will be contracting to perform.

For example, if you were a bank employee who purloined with funds and now you are contracting to manage accounts for the Gov't, it could be a problem. If the offense has nothing to do with theposition for which you are being contracted for then most likely with all things considered, it will not be a big problem. The problems arise when someone tries and hides a background problem.

Hopes this helps....
biggerjets  
#4 Posted : Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:20:26 AM(UTC)
biggerjets

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/22/2007(UTC)
Posts: 7

yes...your responses do help....the charges were when I was 19, am now 24 for stealing construction equipment...basically young and stupid!!The position in limbo is an analyst position. Do you think that this will be a problem in the future when trying to attain a TS for advancement?
RONDALW  
#5 Posted : Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:18:42 AM(UTC)
RONDALW

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/21/2005(UTC)
Posts: 62

Once you pass initial, the follow-ups only cover the 3-5 year (depending on agency) period after initial clearance.
SCUBA411  
#6 Posted : Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:01:30 PM(UTC)
SCUBA411

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/16/2006(UTC)
Posts: 137

Bigger Jets,
Yes your being charged with felonies can be a problem. If you do receive your Secret Clearance the TOP SECRET based on a SINGLE SCOPE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION will be more indepth. Do not follow the well meaning advice of not disclosing, as these things are easily found out. Answer the questions honestly and thoroughly.
martyb  
#7 Posted : Friday, February 23, 2007 6:53:06 AM(UTC)
martyb

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/3/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,507

I agree with Scuba. I have held a Top Secret clearance for almost 30 years in DOD. You don't want to not disclose this information, then have it hanging over your head for the rest of your career, wondering if it will be found out & come back to haunt you. Just because you get a clearance doesn't mean it's a done deal. There will be periodic reviews. I just had to have a sit-down interview with an investigator a few months ago & go over my history, even though I've held my clearance since 1977. They can & will still go back and interview people who know you. The best policy is to be upfront and let the chips fall where they may. If it works out, then you are in the clear, not having to worry about it. Best of luck.
Forum trolls to 0%
kv96ic28  
#8 Posted : Friday, January 04, 2008 9:40:13 AM(UTC)
kv96ic28

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/4/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1

LOSS OF A SECURITY CLEARANCE BECAUSE OF A FELONY CONVICTION:

THE EFFECT OF 10 U.S.C. § 986, THE “SMITH AMENDMENT”


On October 30, 2000, Congress enacted a new law, known as the “Smith Amendment”, which prohibits the Department of Defense from granting or renewing a security clearance to any person who had been “convicted in any court of the United States of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”[2] That Amendment, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 986, provides that “in a meritorious case the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the [above stated] prohibition.”

The Smith Amendment resulted from a newspaper article published in USA Today generally critical of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).[3] The article selected thirteen out of several thousand DOHA decisions issued between 1994 and 1999 to bolster the story. Senator Bob Smith picked up on the story to start an investigation of the entire DOHA appeals process.[4]

10 U.S.C. § 986 was subsequently implemented by the Department of Defense by a Memorandum dated June 7, 2001, from the Deputy Secretary.[5] It included convictions in either a Federal or State court, and also included any sentence of more than one year regardless of the amount time actually served. The DoD Memorandum further provided that the decision of whether a particular case was sufficiently meritorious to justify a request for waiver, would begin with the appellate authority of the DoD component concerned. In the case of civilian contractors’ employees, that appellate authority is DOHA.

Government employees of the Department of Defense holding security clearances are also subject to the Smith Amendment. Review of their appeals go instead first to the Central Adjudication Facility (CAF) of the Military Department employing them, and then to the Military Department’s Personnel Security Appeal Board (PSAB). Whether such Boards are applying a different standard than DOHA for recommending waivers is not known because there is no public record of those Boards’ decisions.

The DoD Memorandum requires that all cases must first be fully investigated and adjudicated in accordance with Executive Orders, DoD Directives and regulatory guidance to develop a record upon which to evaluate whether a waiver is meritorious. In cases coming before DOHA, the applicable directive is DoD Directive 5220.6. The DoD Memorandum further requires that before a waiver can even be considered, there must first be a decision, “without consideration of” 10 U.S.C. § 986, to grant or renew the security clearance of the person involved. If sufficient reason is found to grant or renew the clearance, the authority responsible for making that decision, either DOHA for contractors’ employees or the CAF for Government employees, may then recommend to the Secretary of Defense or to the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, that the case merits a waiver of the Smith Amendment.

The DoD Memorandum applies both to initial determinations to grant clearances and to reinvestigations. It does not apply to conversions, transfers or reinstatements of current DoD security clearances for either government employees or defense contractors’ employees.

DoD’s Memorandum is further implemented by DOHA by its Operating Instruction No. 64, dated July 10, 2001.[6] That Operating Instruction directs DOHA Administrative Judges to initially determine whether 10 U.S.C. § 986 applies to the facts of a particular case. If the judge so determines, and further determines, without consideration of 10 U.S.C. § 986, that there would have been a decision to grant or renew the security clearance, the Administrative Judge must then include, without explanation, a statement either recommending or not recommending a waiver of 10 U.S.C. § 986.[7]

Operating Instruction No. 64 further directs that if a case is appealed to the DOHA Appeal Board, and it would have granted a clearance but for the Smith Amendment, it too shall include, without explanation, a statement either recommending or not recommending a waiver of 10 U.S.C. § 986. Finally, the Operating Instruction provides that in any case in which an Administrative Judge or the Appeal Board, recommends consideration of a waiver, the Director of DOHA shall, within his sole discretion, determine whether to forward the case to the DoD Deputy General Counsel for further consideration of a possible waiver by the Secretary of Defense, “together with such rationale as may be requested by the Deputy General Counsel.”

Between December 14, 2001 and October 23, 2002, there were 20 cases identified in which eleven different Administrative Judges recommended a Smith Amendment waiver.[8] All of these cases overwhelmingly satisfied the mitigating conditions of Security Guideline J, concerning criminal conduct.[9]

Seven of the cases in which an Administrative Judge did recommend a waiver were appealed.[10] In all of those cases, although the employee would have otherwise been granted a clearance, the three-member Appeal Board did not recommend a waiver.[11] Because DOHA Operating Instruction No. 64 precludes either an Administrative Judge or the Appeal Board from offering any explanation for its decisions, the appealed decisions offer no insight as to why the Administrative Judge recommended a waiver, and the Appeal Board did not.

The record to date is dismal. Prior to the enactment of the Smith Amendment, a felony conviction had always been one of the reasons for denying a security clearance. A judge or other deciding official, however, was permitted the discretion to consider other mitigating factors to outweigh the prior conviction. Historically, mitigation was sparingly applied and in only the most meritorious cases. The Smith Amendment removed that discretion entirely.


Today, no one wants to appear “soft” on security, but the byproduct of that attitude is that many people who erred long ago, and who have rehabilitated themselves and become good and productive members of society are now losing their clearances and their jobs solely because of the Smith Amendment. Many years of meritorious service to the government count for naught. The result is that the government is losing the services of good people valuable to our national defense.


There is no known instance of a person previously convicted of a felony, who having been later granted a security clearance, was found to have committed any act endangering the national security. Yet in response to a sensational newspaper article, the government is now losing the services of talented long-time, loyal employees and contractors.



Loredrin  
#9 Posted : Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:10:51 PM(UTC)
Loredrin

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/29/2007(UTC)
Posts: 199

Hey RONDALW,

Just wondering why there have been so many people posting, that they are getting denied initial secret clearance. When the only thing they have on their record is a bankruptcy? Some 5-10 years in the past.

Makes no sense to me that someone can have a criminal record (yes even if it is just a misdemeanor) and get one. But someone who had to file bankruptcy, but has no criminal record, cannot.

Bankruptcy can be out of a person's control. Such as my case where my job went to mexico. And my income went from $750 a week, down to $250 a week. Other people get hit with tons of medical bills. There are so many circumstances where bankruptcy is out of someone's hands. You don't find many instances where someone did something criminally that was out of their hands.

Also it seems that several people with bankruptcies don't have a problem getting the clearance. Sure seems like (to someone who hasn't been through it yet) that not everyone is held to the same standards.

[This message was edited by Loredrin on January 06, 2008 at 09:01 AM.]
patient_girl  
#10 Posted : Sunday, January 06, 2008 3:00:45 AM(UTC)
patient_girl

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 273

There are several reasons why bankruptcy can be a problem. First, many investigators are concerned that the potential employee may do unethical things with govt info in order to make money on the side or be black-mailed. Second, for some investigators, the bankruptcy indicates that the potential employee makes poor decisions, has poor judgment, is irresponsible and that could be a reflection of poor character/integrity. So, it may indicate a poor choice for an employee.

In contrast, an old misdemeanor could be just a ONE time poor decision as opposed to the idea that bankruptcy shows a PATTERN of poor decision making/judgment.

BTW, I say the above despite the fact that I have an old BKRY from 1998.
Loredrin  
#11 Posted : Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:16:07 AM(UTC)
Loredrin

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/29/2007(UTC)
Posts: 199

Guess that's what I'm asking is. Do they take the reason for the bankruptcy (perm laid off from a high paying job, or huge medical bills)into consideration? Or do they just flat out deny you for having it?

I guess I could understand if someone went out and got 20 credit cards maxed out. Then filed just to be rid of them. But I had no control over my job going to mexico.

Also didn't have tons of credit cards (2). It was mainly my house that caused me to file. Couldn't keep up with the payments. Since about 65% of my former income was gone.
patient_girl  
#12 Posted : Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:24:55 AM(UTC)
patient_girl

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 273

My bankruptcy was due to poor financial/legal advice. I was told that it would help my finances. It did not. The investigator wanted to know the dollar number of debts (which was low - less than $3000).

Then, the investigator considered how I have dealt with finances since the bkry.
Loredrin  
#13 Posted : Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:37:05 AM(UTC)
Loredrin

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/29/2007(UTC)
Posts: 199

So bankruptcy does not equal an auto-rejection?
They do consider the factors involved?

I've not had any new credit at all since then. Pay for everything with a check or debt card. I've gone to the good old "If you can't pay cash for it, then you can't get it." way of thinking.

And I'm guessing you got your clearance? (Think you mentioned it in another thread, but don't remember the outcome.)
RONDALW  
#14 Posted : Sunday, January 06, 2008 5:08:04 AM(UTC)
RONDALW

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/21/2005(UTC)
Posts: 62

Yes, all factors are considered during background. Be honest, disclose details and lead the investigator to the true facts. Remember it is the agency that makes the final decision on the clearance. However, there are certain laws that prevent the agencies from granting clearances and/or privliges in particular areas.
patient_girl  
#15 Posted : Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:06:07 PM(UTC)
patient_girl

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 273

it was not an auto rejection for me. Yes I did get clearance. It took 2 1/2 years though!!
ashton2112  
#16 Posted : Friday, January 11, 2008 1:52:03 AM(UTC)
ashton2112

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/11/2008(UTC)
Posts: 15

If you don't mind me asking,how long between your bankruptcy and the time you applied for the secret?. I am just distraught over the possibility I may loose a dream job because I had a chapt 7 in 2001. I suspect that I will eventually get a clearance, but if it doesn't happen within a couple months I'm toast...
patient_girl  
#17 Posted : Friday, January 11, 2008 3:46:11 AM(UTC)
patient_girl

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 273

bkry was 1998 and clearance was granted 2005
PERSEC  
#18 Posted : Friday, January 11, 2008 3:56:00 AM(UTC)
PERSEC

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/29/2007(UTC)
Posts: 613

Disclose the information and you will be okay.

First: The smith amendment (about convictions) only applies if the person spent > 365 days in jail. If he spent 364 days in jail, he can still get a clearance without a waiver.

Second: The adjudication weight is the SAME for secret and Top Secret. Yes, that's true. The only difference is the depth of investigation. That means they only try to find out more for a TS than they would for a secret. Stealing a car holds the same weight in denying a clearance whether its secret or TS.

If they found all negative factors and you get a secret, assuming the investigation for a TS doesnt discover any more negative information, you would be able to get a TS the very next day if a new investigation was adjudicated.

The secret clearance updates are every 10 years, TS are every 5.

75% of the process in honesty, the other 24% is time between now and the incident and the other 1% is the smith amendment.

Just thinking of it that way.

I've been doing clearance for a few years now and I've seen quite a few bankruptcies go through, a few stolen cars, a few felonies, etc.

I can point you to a few cases of people thrown out of the military being granted clearances a few years later and one who did time in the brig for attempted manslaughter during the korean war.

they got theirs. Be honest on everything and get yours.
scoutguner  
#19 Posted : Monday, March 24, 2008 11:16:02 AM(UTC)
scoutguner

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2

I'm getting ready to go active duty from the Army Guard, but 8 years ago I was charged with AGG Stalking. Adjucation was withheld. The Guard had done a check on me and It does not appear to be a problem, because they let me deploy twice knowing the case. I now need to get a clearance and I'm not sure if I will be able to get one. Could anyone give me an answer?
RadWaste50  
#20 Posted : Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:45:01 AM(UTC)
RadWaste50

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/10/2001(UTC)
Posts: 46

If it has been eight years of clean living it might be time to go to court and have this conviction expunged from your record.


quote:
Originally posted by biggerjets:
I am in the midst of attaining a position at a govt. contractor that requires only a secret clearance. They are willing to get me on board and keep me busy until the clearance goes through;however, I am a little unsure about my ability to obtain one. 5 years ago I was charged with 4 felonies of theft....3 were dropped and 1 was reduced to a misdemeanor. I have never been convicted of a felony and that is the only blemish on my criminal history. Since then, I have turned my life around and been consistant in holding a job, returning to school, etc. What do you guys think on the possibility of this disqualifying me from a secret? All other aspects are clean: Credit/financial, foreign activities,etc.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 1.831 seconds.