Past Federal Employer Lied on INV 41

I submitted a Sf-85 for low risk awhile back, and found out why my job offer was rescinded through my background investigation FOIA Report.

I was working for DoD, and was never interview for position. I was selected base off my resume, and accepted the job to get in the system. While working there, I realize the workplace was a hostile environment. The only thing that was keeping me from quitting, was I needed health insurance for medical expenses. It was a stupid Admin position working with LNOs that were high school mentality. I costly faced harassment and management never did anything about it.

The deputy director (supervisor) of this very small installation lied on the INV41. Every time I complained about the harassment to the higher GS employees, they always took the military side of the story. I never did get frustrated at all, always did my work and completed on time. When face with harassment, I ignored the folks in my office. I handle everything professionally. The only mistake I made, I wish would have reported to EEO instead of trying to resolve at lowest level. I also never discuss any confidential informational at all. I dont see any reason why they would mark No for security clearance or employment. This is a complete lie, I would never do such thing.

The individual marked

  1. mental or emotional stability.
  2. other matters

The funny thing the individual answer

  1. I was terminated base off false allegations, and my sf-50 states terminated during probation period. My former supv marked, LEFT EMPLOYMENT VOLUNTARILY/EMPLOYMENT NOT ENTIRELY FAVORABLE (Please explain in item 6)
  2. yes for rehire

Item 6: at times has difficulty working/dealing with other. Gets frustrated easily when instructions are not clear.

DCSA marked me as 07B, 11O, 12O

From looking at the suitability matrix for 11O, 12O
I don’t understand how the individual at DCSA, can look at me as disloyal and dishonest. When I completely disclose the true by providing a copy of my sf-50, a statement of the termination letter of the incidents, and of course my side of the story.

Then the DCSA employee, question my qualifications for the job.

I explained my side of the story in the eqip, but maybe they didn’t believe. Would this prevent me from obtaining a MRPT, for a biologist position with FWS.

I am not sure if this is considered retaliation, since I never filed an EEO complaint. I can’t afford a lawyer, and I tried contacting the Army Employee Relations. They are very useless. My next step is contact the EEO office, but they might tell me in order for this to be retaliatory you must filed a complaint in the past.

I will say that I have learned something over my many years, there are always 3 parts to the truth. Your side, their side and in the middle is the truth. I have dealt with people who said the problem was not them, it was everyone else. When the smoked cleared, it was not entirely true. There were problems on both sides. While I can’t say this is true for your situation…


@thor The investigator is going to interview about 6 people from that agency who does like me. The only thing I did wrong was that I never reported the issue to EEO, since I was on probation period. It is my word against 6 people who is out to get me. I already know since its 6 people vs 1, that 6 will be more believable.

Has any investigator dealt with this? I already explained the agency side of the story, but I need to defend my integrity. Especially when my supervisor states I should not be considered for a government security or employment.

I have worked with people who did not like me at all, period. However, when it came to work, they said I did my job. I have also been in the same situation, people I could not stand at work, but when asked about their work ethic, I would say they were fine. I was honest and said we would never hang out after work or be friends, but we were always professional about working relationships.

I can’t comment on your situation, but if they are interviewing 6 previous coworkers from the same job, they found something, as that is way more than is normally needed.

@thor that’s what I am assuming the investigator will gather as much negative information as they can. You also got to remember those assuming whatever the root of the issue was. People have weird tendency to have a black and white world when I’m reality, there is so much grey. There’s a “need” for justification and a “need” to place blame. Sometimes things happen without an explanation as to why. I find it totally missed up that DCSA assume I have issues related to 07B, 11O, and 12O. If I had the money for a lawyer, I would take them straight to court and for my former employer for libel.

From looking at the suitability matrix, I am being accused of one of the following

  1. Evidence indicating issues of disloyalty or terrorism
  2. Qualifications (Health)

They better have some pretty damn good evidence to even accuse me of disloyalty or terrorism, because I am neither disloyal or a terrorist.

I think there are poor background investigators, investigation is poorly designed, or its designed to discriminate against certain ethnicity with minor problems. There are a lot of good people who have minor problems, that fail for nothing. Then there are bad people that somehow pass. When I see these news articles, I always wonder did the background investigator do their job correctly?

I don’t have much to add other than good luck and I hope it works out for you but I do have a question if you don’t mind. Where did you happen to come across the DCSA suitability matrix? I’m expecting my FOIA/PA request shortly and I think that should help me understand things better.

Everyone is out to get you, supervisor, coworkers, investigator.

Tough life.

1 Like

The investigator’s job is gather information. Both positive and negative.

They don’t need a lot of good evidence. The assumption is ALWAYS in the interest of national security. It only takes a little bit of evidence to turn that tide.

Yes, I have no doubt that some ethnicity have more issues to overcome. But, the complaint shouldn’t be with the process but with the causes or justifications for taking these issues seriously.

You have no right to a security clearance or any particular job with the government. None of us do. That’s simply not how this works. The guidelines that are in place for adjudication are largely based on past experience. People with problem “X” are a bigger risk than people without problem “X”.

It’s really pretty simple. When you apply for a clearance, you agree to work within these guidelines. Right now, you’re showing that you do not want to do so. That, in itself, is a pretty big flag.

@EdFarmerIII I wonder what would you say in the courtroom, when dont have any evidence. Those are some serious assumptions, especially when someone is loyal to their country and protecting national security interests.

different burdens of proof and different presumptions of innocence

You didn’t mention if you had any discipline issues at this job. Was anything documented against your work performance or attitude.

There is no courtroom, this isn’t a criminal or even a civil action. This is a national security action. As I explained, you don’t have the same rights as you would in those situations. The standard here is very different.

The burden is on you to show that it “is clearly in the national interest to allow access to classified information.” Again, to be clear, the burden is on YOU. If there is anything that introduces doubt, they are supposed to deny access.

Now, you haven’t told us ANYTHING about WHY they consider you a risk.

You should look up the word “assumption” . . . I made no assumptions in my previous post.

Very interesting the moderator only promotes ideas who the moderator agrees. Staying away from this website, especially since the moderator can see recently used device and location of users on here. I don’t see any point of moderators collecting this data, and using it to find out the background investigation of user on this site to discriminate against people.

All: Read the posting guidelines and keep it civil. When you start making personal attacks or repeat previous posting over and over again it will be deleted. If you ask for feedback you may not necessarily agree with it. Does not mean it is wrong.

1 Like

Now the mods are out to get him/her/it.

Very tough life.

1 Like