after being accepted ,obtaing a security clearance and working at the base 7 months an issue came up with her security clearance. A credit report in error showed she owed money on a vehicle. She was able to show the vehicl is paid off. The DoD restored her security clearance withthat evidence prior to a hearing, and she is back to the contracted work. She waswithout work for 3 months ,so applied for unemploymnet. The Califonia EDD turned down her equest for unemploymnet funds for that period, citing she was on leave for misconduct. This does not seem reasonable ,false and unfair. Should she appeal the EDD denial?? She fears her Contract employer will fire her for contesting their position of misconduct.
You’re right, this isn’t false or unfair. She wasn’t unemployed, she was on leave/ suspended/ etc., but she was still employed (obviously). Do you know what unemployment means?
If she was on leave without pay, she was unemployed - ask any federal wild land firefighters who go through this annually.
There are many reasons for unemployment denial and we don’t know the whole story of her application. This forum is normally used to discuss/help others with clearance issu)es/information related to the cleared world (and sometimes public trust positions.
1 Like
Did her HR write any statement to clarify it was their error and as a result she was placed on leave without pay?
If that’s the case can she request backpay for the mistake committed by the HR? If not, can she work it out with the HR to rectify their record with the state unemployment department? because without the unemployment benefit, this may impact her finances and may also impact her credit down the road (for example, incurring credit card debts to pay for her living expenses during this time). Further, if the state unemployment agency has a record of her on leave for misconduct, this may impact her future reinvestigation/clearance, no? In short, I think her security office/ HR needs to put something in the writing that she was placed on leave for paper work error instead of misconduct.
This seems to vary from employer to employer and from state to state. I used to be part of an employee association that represented people at a major defense contractor in the east (trying to be vague here) and over a period of some fifteen years that employer only ever challenged one unemployment claim that we heard of. Other companies are much more likely to challenge unemployment claims.
Sounds like a cheesy employer to say the least.