Fired or laid off performance issues

on sf86 section 13a employment activities I wrote laid off due to budget cuts for one of the employers five years ago. thats what I was told by that employer but i have a suspicion that i was laid off due to unsatisfactory performance. i was not able to pick the skills for the technology they were using although i tried my best. i have clearance interview next week should I clear this with the investigator or keep quite.

Can you contact the old work site? Supervisor? HR? If they classified it as a budget cut, or if they communicated that to you in writing…then it was budget cuts. Now, you may very well have been on the bubble, not performing at the best use of your skill set…and they may very well had a budget chop and you were the logical one to drop. But how they categorized it officially…is how you need categorize it.

Hide nothing. Being let go from a job you had difficulty with is not really a clearance issue if you are honest about it. Hiding, shading, or misrepresenting it, however, is a big clearance issue.

I think as long as you were not “terminated for cause” then it is not a problem either way. Did you receive any kind of letter informing you were laid off, ie, let go due to lack of work or lack of suitable work or something like that?

Hopefully you have solid employment history in the five years since this happened, so it could be old news by now.

1 Like

Is terminated due to performance issues can be termed as “terminated For a cause”

No, I think the issue that would be of concern to investigators is if you were fired because you were mischarging, were accused of some gross violation of company policy, had a run-in with a coworker, things like that. They’d want to dig into those circumstances.

I used to work at a place where people were let go for performance issues, but they knew that was the reason (at least at that company). That’s not what I mean when I’m talking about being terminated for cause.

Another thing to consider is whether or not you were able to collect unemployment benefits. In some states, you can only collect unemployment if you were simply laid off, and the employer won’t challenge it. So if you were collecting unemployment, you could say, look, when I was let go from that company, they said it was due to budgetary reasons, and they never challenged my claim for unemployment, so I never had any reason to believe it was for anything that I did wrong (ie “for cause”).

1 Like

Keep in mind they are collecting info regarding the whole person. If everyone gives a glowing recommendation of you, yet three jobs terminated for cause…they want to see if there is some negative info there, if the jobs claim you were violent…you have a problem. Simply not being able to do trigonometry when you just don’t have a math mind…not the same thing. I would simply be honest and say “I tried my best but could not master the excell sheet requirements or whatever you have.”

1 Like

Thanks amberbunny I had my interview yesterday don’t know why the investigator was in such a big rush she was more interested in my trips overseas which city I stay how long I stay I Visited My home country 4 times in the last 6 years I listed only my Wife’s mother on the form overseas my whole family Is in US she asked me what about your cousins back home etc she asked me to email her their details later she asked me why I still have dual nationality I told her I am ready to renounced my other citizenship if required but she said she can not make that decision it’s my choice . She check my passports both US and expired foreign each and every page.
When I told her that I want to update one of my employers contact details and residential history she said don’t worry about it. In all that rush I forgot to mention about my performance issues laid off situation should I email this info to her now or it’s too late

Send a note fast. Better for you to address, as opposed to her finding it.

The real problems come when investigators ask “developed” informants whether or not they would recommend the applicant for government employment. The “developed” informants are (at least in my case, which involved a casual campus job) absolutely not in any position to be formulating recommendations of that type.

If you lose the popularity contest, you’re through!

1 Like

If you lose the popularity contest, you’re through!

I mean, I could see it being unpopular when you say things like, “The best intelligence community employee is a compromised IC employee!” and “What do we call it when every employee of the Agency’s Office of Security and Office of Personnel drowns in the Potomac? A great beginning!”

Whatever the reason, looks like the IC dodged a bullet by not hiring you.

Where did the original post state they made these claims? Help me out here.

Just used the ol google machine to search their username, and the first thing that popped up was stuff on the antipolygraph page (don’t worry, I didn’t go down any rabbit holes).

Just trying to get more context when someone claims that ‘informants’ were questioned during their clearance process. I used to work in a prison and we had inmates inform on other inmates. Hopefully they won’t be questioned during my TS process.

Oh. Wondered what you were speaking too. Your link shows he was removed from that site. Having sat for 4 poly’s over almost 10 years I can honestly say they are not fun. At all. Frustrating, angering, exasperating and they are for all the marbles…your ability to pay mortgage, feed family etc. That said I’m not a fan of the Antipoly page. I think they give out reckless commentary at times not giving full weight to actually caring what happens to applicants failing to clear based on polygraph. At times they come across as wanting everyone to fail…to drive change in polygraph acceptability with government. This post is likely to draw fire. So, I agree with them that they are crappy experiences. But as long as Government accepts them…

I doubt very much they’ll speak with any inmates. they will however go through your chain of command at the institution.

Actually they made a very serious mistake. At any rate, I didn’t start making statements of that type until years after I learned just how entirely screwed up their recruitment practices were.

Oh, BTW, if you’re serious about getting any job with a security clearance, you really need to stay well away from the site!

I didn’t make any such comments here. Any jerk can Google anybody or anything, and then make statements out of context based on what they find on Google.

But they spoke with your ‘informants.’ Why wouldn’t they speak with mine?

Anyone seriously applying for a federal job requiring a polygraph is well advised to stay away from that site! I have some doubts about the person who runs it, since he seems to prefer to hide out in the Netherlands.

Mine weren’t prison inmates, although they were just as dubious as far as why they were interviewed.