AlfredDreyfus wrote on Nov 12
th, 2009 at 9:51pm:
No, Anonymous00, I am indeed an American, albeit one for whom the rules of grammar and punctuation are command rather than suggestion. Perhaps that makes me an anachronism in the era of "like," "so I go," "ummmm," and other colloquia. Alas . . .
BBernie, I might have hoped that your BI investigators would have been decent enough to examine your answer to your SF-86 and then give you a chance to explain any "derogatory" information. I'm assuming you were dinged for your answer to the question, "Have you ever left a job under unfavorable circumstances?" which at best is amenable to many interpretations. Suppose you were the object of mistreatment by a boss, or a coworker, and for that reason you decided to leave of your own accord and without any adverse personnel action. Are these circumstances unfavorable to you? I would suggest they are not. Perhaps the conduct of your boss/coworker was improper and caused you grief, but when I think of unfavorable circumstances I think of someone who is obligated to resign in lieu of being fired for misconduct of some sort, or at least seriously poor and unremediated performance. Suppose you are subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, and rather than litigate or file a complaint you leave to take a better job. Is this unfavorable? Suppose you have some other quarrel with your employer, and you offer to resign in exchange for a large severance package (in effect, an out-of-court settlement against your former employer). Is this an unfavorable circumstance? Perhaps for your former employer, but not for you! In other words, it does not seem fair to adjudicate you as having been dishonest or lacking candor without giving you the opportunity to explain your answer to a vague and ambiguous question that is in regard to a potentially complex fact pattern. Would you agree, and would you provide more detail if possible?
Thank you sir.
Well, I am not blaming anyone but myself. I screwed it up and I accept full responsibility for it. I was not as familiar with the SF-86 as I should have been, and that is certainly no excuse for omissions/misrepresentations. Having said that, I did not intentionally fill the questionnaire out to mislead. I had a genuine desire to complete the form honestly, in good faith, but felt that stating every problem I ever had with an employer as being unnecessary if the problems never amounted to any form of disciplinary action and/or reprimands. Performance problems? sure. I didn't feel a need to mention it. Personality conflicts with the boss? sure. Again, I didn't feel a need to mention it. Grievances filed? Yes. So, looking back on it, in addition to the SF-86, I should have completed a statement outlining every problem I ever had with an employer (just to cover me), and I had several. That was the problem, I didn't provide any CYA for myself. It was a definite mistake on my part to try and skirt around these issues and I understand why it was determined to be dishonest and deceptive. My issue with all of this is what I was told by the polygrapher after I was polygraphed which was that if there were any discrepancies with my background, I would most likely be called back for another interview. Well, that never happened. And I never knew my application was in the tank for an entire 6 month period up until I received that dreaded letter in the thin envelope. And during all that time, I was providing answers to follow-up questions thinking that everything was on track, because I never had any indication whatsoever that a problem was encountered. From reading the copy of my investigation, there was a problem with me from the beginning so I am unsure why it dragged on as long as it did. I believe it was because the background investigation went through to completion for a full blown SSBI Single Scope BI -- which was quite extensive -- but from reading the report, the only people that appeared to have been interviewed were people who had no use for me at all, which is not what I have a problem with, however.