Based on that, I would answer “no” to question no. 12 since this was a code 317 not code 312. The difference is that code 312 is resignation with pending termination… in a word, it is a code for involuntary resignation. Either way, this will be your call. Good luck.
I disagree, regardless of what the “code” is on the SF-50, if he resigned in lieu of being terminated then he is required to answer yes to the question #12 on the OF-306 as well as on the SF-85P Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions in Section 12. If he does not and it comes out during the BI then we have a new issue concerning a lack of candor. So even though the issues of why the clearance was revoked may have been mitigated, not so with the lack of candor.
Just be completely honest and over report. It is what it is, you cannot control the outcome. Look for jobs in your field that do not require a clearance and move forward. Your statements here reveal that you are under stress and not rational. This in and of itself can affect suitability.
You’re right . . . I missed that you were not yet working for the FBI but the point remains because you ALREADY HAD A CLEARANCE. Then, after filing out another SF86, you went back to Jamaica and made the same mistake. You omitted the drug on your first time through, got caught and then used again after.
You have shown poor judgement and you still think that feeling bad mitigates it. It doesn’t, time and actually taking responsibility for your actions may mitigate this issue but not right away. I don’t know if you can qualify for a public trust. If I were you, I would be looking in the private sector while pursuing this.
I disagree. SF-50 is the official personnel record. The codes do carry weigh, at least in the eye of law. The candidate, in my opinion, is not required to report this. The form (OF-306) was written by OPM. According to OPM, resignation is a “separation initiated by an employee” and Resignation-ILIA (in lieu of involuntary action) is a “separation initiated by the employee under circumstances that meet the definition of ‘involuntary separation’…” (OPM Chapter 31. Separations by Other than Retirement). Additionally, Title 5 of Federal Regulations (CFR) has specific definition of involuntary separation. Finally, if the candidate were to be terminated/fired, as a career tenured employee, the candidate would’ve been entitled to due process as afforded to the candidate under Title 5 (written proposed notice, response, appeal, etc.). Since he did not, and he left on his own accord; thus, I do not believe he meets the threshold of involuntary resignation according to the plain meaning of the form.
Nonetheless, we can agree to disagree on this.
Agree to disagree since I have seen many go out the door on the resign or be terminated practice just because the agency wants to avoid the possibility of appeal to MSPB. That does not change the fact of the circumstances that led to the “voluntary” resignation. We can argue semantics all day long, but when supervisors, co-workers or others are contacted and reveal the true reason behind leaving employment then flags are raised for an adjudicator.
1 Like
Hello again,
I have a question (maybe 2). So you know my clearance was revoked in August, 2018. I have been applying for positions with a Public Trust or lower from USAJobs and have interviews coming up. Once agency, TSA, provided me an SF86 to complete. I plan on being completely truthful but my question(s) is…considering my reinvestigation dragged up the events from 2007, 2008 and the interview with the FBI agent in 2009, do I need to go into all those details? Other agencies looking to interview me are the Dept. of Treasury and FEC. Interested in your thoughts.
I will take a stab at this, you more than likely will not pass muster or get a Public Trust because your clearance was revoked and it was less that a year ago. Whenever you fill out a Public Trust application it asked if you EVER have had a clearance revoked.
So, do I have any options? I just received a conditional offer with TSA but now I shouldn’t even fill out the SF86?
If your being asked to fill out an SF86 I will ask you if you EVER had a clearance revoked. time and changes in behavior mitigates. You were revoked less than six months ago. Have the reasons for your revocation been mitigated?
Can you please clarify? My two encounters with marijuana were in Jamaica ten years apart. To mitigate that use of marijuana, I would have removed myself from a situation and location where marijuana was omnipresent and integral to their daily life and culture. As being on vacation in a different country, I was not aware that the US drug scheduling laws were in effect overseas and thus prohibited me in its usage, clearance or not.
Greetings, not an expert… BUT have many cleared pals. Just approach each application and security process the same: BE HONEST AND CANDID. Sooner or later, it will work out. I have pals with multiple duis, bill issues, and assault charges…they passed. Hang in there! What do you have to lose? As long as you are honest, nobody can say u were otherwise. Trying to hide stuff is not the way to passing.
Good Luck!
Even though the OP clearance was revoked less than a year ago?
Ill leave that for Marko or Ed
Me?
@Byrdysbak . . . The problem is that last August, the government decided that your access to classified information “is not in the interest of national security” . . . That was last August, not ten years ago, six months ago. The reasons for that have nothing to do with smoking marijuana.
You smoked while cleared and you lied about on your SF86. This is why you were revoked. You failed to hold to the standards expected of someone granted the privilege of a clearance.
The first thing that you need to do to have a chance of overcoming this is to understand what you have done in the first place.
1 Like
I lied on my SF86 in 2008…not the SF86 I submitted in 2015. I was 100% honest on the 2015 SF-86. As I mentioned above, I did not realize that in reporting to the FBI in 2008, it was not equivalent to reporting in an SF 86 for a re-investigation. The language catching my attention was “did you EVER use drugs other than previously listed” – and as such, I thought I already reported all my drug incidences. The other question in the SF 86 regarding drug use was, “have you used drugs or substances in the last 7 years”. I answered “no” and this was true. It was after I submitted the 2015 SF-86 that I went back to Jamaica and used it again. I didn’t go there for the purpose of using marijuana. It happened, it was stupid and when confronted by the special investigator, I admitted to it. I truly believe my honesty basically got me fired. How do I explain, mitigate, whatever, that, while I admit it was wrong to not reveal my marijuana usage in Jamaica in 2007 on my 2008 SF-56 for a job interview (but came completely clean to the investigator) but this is revealed with a name check during my 2015 reinvestigation which is conducted in 2016 because of the halt with investigations due to the OPM breach. I think this is a cheap trick to get a FTE due to budget cuts especially with staff in my job series. I didn’t lose a job, I lost my career when I would have remedied everything a very long time ago, had I known my career would be taken away from me and I would be escorted out of the building.
Please don’t tell me I’m under stress and not rational. I did not leave that FBI interview in 2009 thinking to myself, “hmmmm, should I go back to the NRC and tell them what just happened?” I’m thinking now, yes, that’s exactly what I should have done. But I didn’t know that back then.
You knew the consequences of your actions, you knew that you were using with a clearance, what more can we say? Your actions costed you your job, not necessarily your career. Your saying that being honest was the reason for dismissal, it was not, it was the fact that your using while cleared. If you had lied, you probably would have continued to smoke and eventually lose your job, or worse.
You sound like my 17 year old daughter . . . She lies to me but comes clean when I push her and then she thinks that there shouldn’t be any repercussions. Why does it matter that you only lied in 2008? You didn’t get caught until now. It’s pretty clear that “other than previously listed” refers to the form that you are currently filling out, not all of the forms that you filled out in the past.
This isn’t rocket science and they aren’t trick questions.
Why? Can you please explain it?
Why what? What do you want explained from a month old post?