If you lie about something on your own 5 year security update regarding not paying your taxes, bankruptcy, a DWI, drug use, etc., you could have your Q-Clearance removed.
What happens to a person with a Q-Clearance who knowingly lies about someone else who has a Q-Clearance with comparable but untrue allegations? In other words, what happens to employees that purposefully weaponize Q-Clearance information against another employee with false information?
11 comments:
To my understanding, it is a "condition of employment" to provide accurate information regarding Q-5 yr review.
If the testimony is validated as false, then termination of assignment can occur.
Look into the guidelines, or call Staff Relations.
No way to know.
Even when I've been truthful about people who lost their clearance and job for lying about their direct involvement in a cover-up regarding a security incident, when they apply for a federal job and clearance, they get a clearance and the job.
Maybe the answer is that they profit?
Lying to a federal investigator is a serious no-no.
So it entirely depends on the situation. Is the interviewee is honestly telling the investigator that the clearance candidate was observed behaving a certain way, was investigated for something or rumored to have been, drives a brand-new Ferrari on his minimum-wage job, has foreign travels to questionable places, etc., those are legitimate issues and the onus is on the investigator and the adjudicator to explore and determine if they are indicative of a risk to national security. If it is a demonstrably false and malicious statement, potentially the interviewee could face criminal sanctions, but realistically it is more likely they’ll be dismissed as not credible.
If there are externalities — like interviewing an ex-spouse, DOE has generally viewed ex’s allegations with skepticism because of the other relationship conflicts.
And what some clearance candidates think is an egregious falsehood by an interviewee is in fact their own cognitive dissonance over how they have rationalized their own behavior and history.
A false or incorrect statement by a disinterested party will likely be dismissed as not credible, and the matter could end there. Conversely, if a person or persons knowingly make false statements with the intent to do harm, discredit, or to mitigate an undisclosed situation, they could be charged with a criminal offense.
You can go to jail.
"what happens to employees that purposefully weaponize Q-Clearance information against another employee with false information?"
They run for office.
"They run for office."
Good one! We need humor in these COVID-19 times. Take Care.
OPM investigators like to check the boxes. It takes more than one "uh-oh" to make them not check the box and look further. Investigations for SCI are a bit more stringent.
The security people are not total idiots and will look for consistent story from several people. If one person says something completely opposite they could look at it with suspicion and want to know more which could lead them figuring out that the person is lying. This guys have generally been around the block a few times and know that these kinds of things can happen.
2:08 In Richardson’s case, they win too.
It doesn't take a direct Q-Clearance review request from a NNSA contractor to put in motion, additional Q-Clearance review criteria by the DOE.
If an employee has a "letter of warning", a "suspension", etc., from the contractor, that sets in motion, additional DOE Q-Clearance scrutiny from the DOE.
To be clear, a "letter of warning" or "suspension", etc., can simply be an employee raising an unflattering concern against the contractor's conduct. There are plenty of examples to support this. Google it.
Post a Comment