Erring on the cautious side

I had to fill out an SF85P and the Supplemental (even though the position was listed as low risk/non-sensitive). My agency has an internal security person conducting the investigation (who is not in my state). On the SF85P I listed a termination with explanation, which was at-will and I was told I was not a good fit for the position, which was true. On the Supplemental Questionnaire, it asked if I had been reprimanded, etc. for misconduct. Since the question seemed very broad, I decided to disclose this at-will termination because I did not want to be accused of lying or dishonest about my past. I also felt that since I disclosed it on the eQIP, I needed to disclose it on the supplemental. (Just copy pasted, so they matched.)

For those experienced, did I shoot myself in the foot? I have seen some posts that say only answer the question, no more no less. In this instance, I contacted my HR and they said they don’t have a classification for the termination and they don’t reveal the basis if there is one. It seems every HR is different. I wanted to err on the side of caution. Of course, I explained the termination and situation. My hope is that security person is experienced enough to make the determination that this was not misconduct and sees I was trying to err on the side of caution with the question.

I would say that is leaving by mutual agreement. Meaning you would never mutually agree on the cause or guilt. It’s a crappy position to be in even when one resigns a position. And we have zero control over what an ex employer will say…if they have an axe to grind…it will grind. But ethically they are limited in what they can share. Does that constrain them? Anybodies guess.

Thanks. So, in your honest opinion, the disclosure is not the end-all-be-all? The adjudicator will still consider everything along with the disclosure and may even determine it does not fall into the category asked? I have seen many many many posts about people lying on their SF forms, which has caused them more problems than if they had just told the truth. I wanted to be forthcoming so as not to incur anyone’s wrath or allegations that I was dishonest. This former employer told me that they don’t discuss past conduct, reasons for termination, or anything. Just a simple explanation that I was not a good fit. I am still able to be reemployed, just in a different position besides the one I held.

Absolutely. Some dont want to report a DUI, or work dispute. But being untruthful…is a much steeper hill to climb. Humans have disagreements all the time. Work included. State the facts, to include what you feel could damage you. Being forthcoming at “jumpstreet” speaks to your willingness to address tough issues. We don’t always get things right. Honest mistakes or bad decisions are different than malicious intent. We all make bad decisions. There are times we all cut corners knowing it isnt proper, knowing it can bite us. It’s best to acknowledge them, learn, move on.

1 Like