Security Clearance Denial

Contractor Uses Remote Clock-In Capability to Falsify Timecards

Federal contractor companies are constantly looking for IT professionals to fill critical positions to support their contracts with government agencies. This in-demand career field is fast moving with constant changes in requirements. This puts pressure on IT specialists to keep up with the pace and sometimes leads to taking shortcuts or using their expertise to manipulate information systems to their advantage. That is exactly what a contractor clearance applicant did which led to his clearance eligibility getting denied by the DoD. Here are the highlights of his appeal to the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA):

The applicant worked two 40 hour a week jobs, one during the day with a federal contractor and one at night as IT Help Desk support representative. For the night job, he used the company’s remote clock-in system to clock in and out during times where he wasn’t actually working, but rather his shift was being covered by a coworker. The applicant claimed this practice was normal among IT support professionals. This was discovered by the company when the applicant was not working during the time he had clocked in and the coworker who usually covered for him had been moved to a new location. The company confronted him about this and terminated his employment.

He went to work at another government contractor site where he had to clock in using his common access card as well as via email. Again, he falsified his timecards claiming hours worked when he did not and was terminated by this employer as well. The applicant subsequently landed a new job that required clearance eligibility and he did not disclose any derogatory information about his previous employments on the SF-86 or the fact that he was terminated. Of course, the background investigation brought all of this to light, and he was denied eligibility based on employment misconduct and deliberately lying about it on the form. Needless to say, the DOHA judge was not swayed by his appeal and upheld the denial.

Comments are not currently available for this post.