What if one has worked for private companies almost exclusively only giving directory information? That is they instruct supervisors to forward inv41 directly to hr for explicitly only putting directory information on the form. This is in relation to a tier one investigation
Why do you keep insisting that is the process when it usually is not?
What is the process? I havenât started it and am getting conflicting information from hr. Can someone please elaborate so I can understand
As people have told you a hundred times, you arenât going to get any information about what is an internal process. The information HR is willing to provide to Joe Smith is much different than what they will provide to a federal investigator with a release and a badge.
1 Like
HR doesnât work for the people doing investigation. Of course youâre going to conflicting information.
You are oddly concerned about how investigators are going to get their information.
One of my former employers doesnât even respond to inquiries, being locally owned spot.
Do you think I stress about that? Nope, Iâll let them figure it outâŚ
2 Likes
I think the real problem comes when the investigators go into the field and speak directly to supervisors or co-workers. They can then say pretty much whatever they want, and its veracity will generally not be challenged. I believe that I was denied a security clearance in part because of derogatory remarks by coworkers and a supervisor at a casual, non-professional job I held while attending school.
The real problem can arise when BIâs go out and interview the supervisor or co-workers directly. At that point, they can say pretty much anything, and it will be taken at face value.
I had a problem when a former supervisor stated that I wouldnât be eligible for rehire, although I continued to be employed at the same agency, albeit under a different supervisor, for a few years thereafter. As a result of the first supervisor and the BI not getting their dates correct, I believe that my BI was seriously compromised.
Are you saying you were gainfully employed but couldnât get out because of that one supervisor.
Is this because you needed a security clearance? For jobs not requiring clearances, what do you think the outcome would be? I may be entering a similar situation with government employment.
1 Like
The misinformation provided by that former supervisor concerned work in one unit of the USGS, an agency which has virtually no involvement with nor requirement for security clearances. After leaving him, I had continued to work satisfactorily in other areas of the USGS, for another two or three years. I was being investigated for a summer intern job in the IC.