Lying on a Suitability for Employment or Application Screening

Posted by Lindy Kyzer on 30 Aug 2012 at 01:44 pm | Tagged as: Cleared News

Think it’s not a big deal to provide false information on an employment application? Think again.

If you’ve applied for government jobs, even those without security clearance, you’ve filled out some form of suitability determination. Even if you’re not accessing classified information in the scope of your work, the government likes to have some idea of your trustworthiness…and any previous run-ins with drugs, alcohol, firearms and explosives, in particular.

Even if you’re just filling out a job application, lying can pose serious consequences – just ask Terrance Lee King, a Denver man who is facing up to five years in a federal prison and a $250,000 fine for lying on a security-badge application for the Denver International Airport. On a fingerprinting and badging application, King indicated that he had never been convicted of any disqualifying criminal offenses, even though that was clearly not the case.

Investigators have thus far not found any “terrorist motives” – although they have found that King is a pretty big idiot. As this story breaks, King is already serving time in state prison for violating parole on prior convictions for a weapons violation and drug possession, reported Denver’s Channel 7 News.

It’s a good reminder that not all offenses are created equally, and when suitability determinations screen applicants for drug, alcohol and weapons violations, there’s good reason. King’s case seems to be a clear-cut issue of lying to try to get a job, not human error or confusion.

Questions on Clearancejobs.com frequently include whether or not an individual needs to include a specific incident on his or her SF86. And while we rarely advocate for including more information than necessary, if you’ve ever had a run-in with the law, especially one involving weapons, drugs, or alcohol, you’re better to list and mitigate from the get-go than discover months later you were, in fact, arrested that one time in college you barely remember.

26 Comments »

26 Responses to “Lying on a Suitability for Employment or Application Screening”

on 30 Aug 2012 at 4:03 pm # Typingitout

EVER means EVER on the SF-86….
on 30 Aug 2012 at 5:11 pm # Investigator

Could not have said it better myself Typingitout!!
on 30 Aug 2012 at 5:20 pm # Investigator

Also, did anyone else see the news story about the eldery man who worked a Wells Fargo Call Center for the past 7 or so years getting fired for a crime he committed back in 1963? Wells Fargo found out abou tit and terminated him becasue of it even though it happened 49 years ago. Apparently he was at laundry mat with a friend and got bored so he decided to cut dime size cardboard circles out for fun to see if they would work in the washing machines and dryers. A police officer came in an saw him and arrested him. He was charged with operating a coin changing machine by false means. This offense falls under the new FDIC Act that is suppose to weed out guilt of identity theft and mortgage theft. Wells Fargo thought he was a risk and did not want to get fined by the FDIC for keeping this guy employed.
on 30 Aug 2012 at 5:43 pm # Fed Investigator

But I listed all that stuff during my last investigation, why do I have to do it again? Don’t you guys already have all this? This is a waste of time.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 2:03 pm # Darrow

I interview people everyday with with Ph.D.’s from Princeton and law degrees from Yale. In just about every interview I get, “I didn’t understand the question so I put down what I thought what you guys were looking for.” Or, “Oh, sorry for not listing that, the question wasn’t clear.” Strangely, I get this stuff from smart military officers who go through this stuff every 5 years.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 6:51 pm # Fed Investigator

Oversights are a bitch.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:15 pm # BW an Investigator

I leave out everything on my SF 86 that nobody has discovered yet
on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:17 pm # BW an Investigator

Really, I do think the “Confront” stuff may be the dumbest thing we have ever done. I’m confused, cause I just ask the question???????
on 31 Aug 2012 at 8:34 pm # Darrow

Don’t be fooled by the cutting-edge DOS-based technology we use, the method used for these investigations is WWII-era at best.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 2:27 am # Contractor

I think my subject may be lying when he told me he couldn’t actually recall the exact dates of his prior investigations. They should definitely deny his clearance.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 11:25 am # BW an Investigator

YOU LIE!!!! Your last investigation said you moved from that house in 09/2009, not 08/2009 like you said. Why are you trying to hide those 30 days–NOW tell me the truth. DOHA Result: Subj lied about 1 resi date–clearance denied. Let’s see, does that scenario really matter? NO, so why waste time on this BS.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 11:47 pm # Fed Investigator

Because if you dont have a zero tolerance policy, the Investigator will field adjudicate.

I hate it is much as the next guy but I understand it.
on 04 Sep 2012 at 10:02 am # Darrow

Yeah, minor discrepant dates would certainly uncover the following:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/us-army-racism-iraq-afghanistan
on 04 Sep 2012 at 11:20 am # BW an Investigator

This is nothing new. I personally put out numerous gang members from the service. Unfortunately, the military is just a reflection of society and they can never catch them all before enlisting.

I don’t believe the picture was meant to be Nazi. If you look back in history that symbol was worn by our military and it did not signify what it is known for now, but I could be wrong. But, the military has all of the same negative issues as the general public, just a smaller scale.
on 04 Sep 2012 at 5:18 pm # Darrow

These guys are part of groups we point blank ask people about and is asked on the security questionnaire, namely groups designed to overthrow the United States by force. We don’t ask about tattoos. Military recruiters ask the recruits themselves the meaning of their tattoos. Geez, why does LAPD have experts in the gang unit who study all the gang symbols when they can simply ask the “suspected” gang member what they mean?!

The flag in the photo of the Marine snipers is an SS symbol. And while there were no Marines who fought in Europe in WWII, this is disgraceful to the memory of American fighting men in Europe. Here’s a more credible news source on this photo: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/09/marine-corps-says-snipers-posted-with-nazi-ss-symbol-in-afghanistan/
on 04 Sep 2012 at 7:32 pm # BW an Investigator

I stand corrected–I had not read the intent of their symbols.

I agree–gang tatoos are not hard to decipher for those of who had been trained. I think if it looks suspicious, treat it as such.
on 05 Sep 2012 at 6:58 am # Contractor

Unfortunately I think a lot of these people don’t view themselves as being involved in a group trying to overthrow the United States government, rather in their skewed views they feel as though they are SAVING the United States…
on 05 Sep 2012 at 3:58 pm # Darrow

Fed Investigator wrote:

“Because if you dont have a zero tolerance policy, the Investigator will field adjudicate.
I hate it is much as the next guy but I understand it.”

If this were really the case than why do we not get SPINs on these issues alone rather than as an ancillary issue to another? Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.

I’d be begging for those SPINs. I’ll take everyone of ‘em from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic Ocean.
on 05 Sep 2012 at 6:11 pm # Contractor

Still missing me some old-school SPINS. Those really were the days…

I’m going to spend about 1.5 hours tomorrow getting through JUST the residences and employments of a case I have right now- just fixing the paperwork (based on a review of the paperwork and all the messages on the case). Then I’ll probably spend another 1.5 hours on the numerous issues. I really wish I could just spend the time on the issues. Can’t wait to type that one, either.
on 06 Sep 2012 at 12:25 am # Fed. Investigator

Darrow,

My guess is that review is better suited to decide what adjudications needs/wants. I’m only speculating but quite frankly, I’ve worked with more than one Investigator that just didn’t seem all that bright, to put it nicely. I assume it’s a protection for Investigators, allowing us to not have to rely on individual, subjective ideas of importance on a case but a more dogmatic approach, based on systematic all or nothing rules.

Does that make any sense? Im not sure it’s clear to myself, I might have to add some i-notes later.
on 06 Sep 2012 at 8:14 am # Very Special Investigator

Fed,

Or is that really a protection for the employers, as they hired basically anyone and train them to standards regardless of whether or not they actually know what they are doing?
on 06 Sep 2012 at 10:43 am # BW an Investigator

Fed,

I taught we’s all brite people.
on 06 Sep 2012 at 10:43 am # BW an Investigator

Very

Have a clearance will travel–with or without experience.
on 06 Sep 2012 at 10:11 pm # Fed. Investigator

I is hilee edumacated.
on 12 Sep 2012 at 12:10 am # skittles

I bet the moderators get a good chuckle out of some of the conversations that go on in here. I know I do!
on 12 Sep 2012 at 9:35 am # BW an Investigator

Skittles,

Change your name to Chuckles. Both are horrible candies

Security Clearance Jobs Blog

Defense jobs, security clearance jobs, and intelligence jobs, industry news, and security clearance advice for the security cleared professional