Security Clearance not Granted after Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory QNSP information (Personal Conduct Guideline E) regarding the Individuals QNSP misrepresentations about completing a Bachelor’s Degree in 1997, and about “bills or debts turned over to a collection agency”
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/PSH-22-0139.pdf
17 comments:
Is this a LLNL manger?
Obviously they made a mistake. This individual clearly demonstrated the prerequisite duplicity necessary for an upper management position.
How much discretion and independence does the LSO have on whether or not to report “derogatory information” about an employee to DOE if they receive contract management pushback on such matters?
To anyone reading the judge's ruling, this guy is a liar, a debt denier, and a prevaricator when called out. No Q for you, dope. Make better life choices.
To anyone reading the judge's ruling, this guy is a liar, a debt denier, and a prevaricator when called out. No Q for you, dope. Make better life choices.
2/07/2023 5:32 PM
Agreed but you have to admit this guy is what they are looking for in management. I bet anything that there is going to be pushback buy some higher ups who will see this setting a bad predicament for management recruitment.
Well, he might be denied a Q clearance but his transgressions would still be allowed in a run for public office, and if he gets an important enough political assignment, voila, a security clearance would be issued.
“Well, he might be denied a Q clearance but his transgressions would still be allowed in a run for public office, and if he gets an important enough political assignment, voila, a security clearance would be issued.”
Some Lab political figures will not lose their clearance for obvious transgressions while HOLDING a clearance. “Rules for thee but not for me”.
The ruling in this case was pretty much of a no-brainer. Don't see how the judge could have ruled any other way.
-Doug
Name one, just one, and give particulars. Otherwise you are just a troll.
Name one, just one, and give particulars. Otherwise you are just a troll.
2/10/2023 6:15 PM
If you have to ask, you are not the know. If you are in the know you do not have to ask. There are people that know and people that do not know.
“Name one, just one, and give particulars. Otherwise you are just a troll.”
Hello “Anonymous”, please identify yourself, your current and past positions at the Lab, along with their respective job classifications. Otherwise you might be a troll.
2/11/2023 8:37 AM
Right. So making a statement without support or evidence is just fine, but asking for support or evidence makes one a troll, or just means you are "not in the know" whatever the hell that means. What nonsense.Don't you people have actual lives?
Don't you people have actual lives?
2/11/2023 5:54 PM
Yes, that is why we are in know. Does that clear it up for you now.
“What nonsense. Don't you people have actual lives?”
A little sensitive? Would you only be convinced when a lab employee is caught red-handed on surveillance video, etc. in violation of “Guideline D: Sexual Behavior”, or some other security clearance guideline violation, or do you think the set of security clearance guidelines are essentially a farce, and never occur in real life? Haven’t security guidelines evolved to cover the most likely circumstances that could comprise security for a reason? Think about it.
2/12/2023 10:52 AM
Only saying that accusations and innuendo are cheap. Evidence is necessary. If you don't have or aren't willing to share the latter, you are just a troll.
“Only saying that accusations and innuendo are cheap. Evidence is necessary. If you don't have or aren't willing to share the latter, you are just a troll.”
What would be the value added of name disclosing evidence (and the scummy particulars), have for a blog discussion? When these events occur, and they do, either the LSO receives derogatory information about the individual, the individual is turned in anonymously to the LSO, or the DOE/IG. Or, the individual is shielded by management in one form or another. If the individual’s clearance is lost, that release of information is very limited, and most people will never know such an event even occurred unless the employee files an OHA appeal. Even then, the OHA does not name the “XXXX…(individual)”. Regarding innuendo being cheap, have a look see at how you are ranked in a closed meeting, where cheap unproven innuendos can be frequent and false, where “evidence” is not necessary, but such accusations stay securely off your printed annual performance appraisal for any form of rebuttal. With respect, one can’t have it both ways without being somewhat hypocritical. I understand your point, but it should be considered in the larger context thats all.
With respect, one can’t have it both ways without being somewhat hypocritical. I understand your point, but it should be considered in the larger context thats all.
2/12/2023 8:01 PM
Hah! You are having it both ways without providing context. Pot, meet kettle.
Post a Comment