Portions of other Applicants' Files
The purpose of this page is to publish relevant portions of other applicants' files so that comparisons may be made and other issues can be discussed.
File of Bernie B.
Mr. Bernie B. is a former applicant for a professional support position. He received a full background investigation but was then adjudicated unsuitable based in part on what he believes are legitimate factors, and in part on what he believes are illegitimate factors and inaccurate information. Mr. B. has graciously allowed me to post portions of his file without redactions, although I've redacted his last name, address, and SSN.
| Date/Download | Document or Event | Comments | Related Documents |
2009-05-13 [1,166 KB PDF] | Polygraph Report | Bernie passes the polygraph. No negative conduct is stated in the report. Interestingly, Series II was inconclusive but Series III resolved the issue. | |
| 2009-05-29 [770 KB PDF] | Military Personnel File Review | An analyst reviews Bernie's U.S. Navy personnel file. Record is not complete but indicates no negative conduct up through the end of page one. This was after his BI was initiated. | |
| 2009-09-18 [4,817 KB PDF] | Adjudicative Recommendation | This is what a suitability determination from a completed background investigation looks like. I'm surprised how short it is; it just shows the key negative info used to disqualify him. Bernie admits the truth of much of what is in here, but comments as follows: "I don't have a problem with you posting all of it just the way it is. You don't have to worry about redacting any info on it but use your best judgment/discretion. I don't have anything against the FBI because I know they FBI has some of the best people and resources available to a law enforcement/intelligence agency. The problem is the bureaucracy and the other problems like fact that there are a large number of not so bright people in responsible positions. In the type of organization the FBI has become, complacency, lack of initiative, compartmentized waste and corruption in some forms seem to be encouraged. I don't think it can be fixed. But getting back to my investigation. I know I screwed up by not being completely forthcoming with everything but I feel like I was misjudged because I really didn't know exactly where to draw the line with disclosing everything about my past. In hindsite, obviously I realize I never was eligible for employment. I could have disclosed everything that was written in that investigation and I would have been disqualfied hands down regardless. My issue was I didn't know that the FBI was going to disqualify me -- I was naive in that I thought I would be looked at in the 'whole person' concept because I knew I had issues in my past but I honestly didn't think that I needed to disclose every detail. I don't have a criminal record and I have a strong work ethic -- the write up in that investigation is written in such a way that it sounds worse than it is -- actually that report is damming because it specifically characterizes me as being dishonest and mentally unstable and also someone who lacks commitment. It doesn't get any worse than that. By only talking to a select few people that I had disagreements and grievances with they presented that as a depiction of my whole life experience. I found out that although the references I listed were interviewed, the positive comments they made about me were never even entered into the background investigative report. I found it interesting that in reading over the report you will not read one positive characteristic about me. That should be a clue. The investigator concentrated on areas where I had problems and didn't try to even look at the whole picture - it's really one-sided in that respect. The statement about the number of jobs I held was a made up number. The report listed 11 jobs within a 6 year period. I only held six jobs and 3 of those were minimum-wage jobs that did not pay enough to live on. Strange how these type of facts are left out. You've heard the expression that there is always two sides to a story? Well that report presents one side and doesn't give the other side. By only taking the negative statements people made about me and not anything else, including anything positive, made that a biased report. But I screwed up, I know that. I realize that I should have just disclosed every single detail that might be perceived as negative or derogatory that a background investigator might uncover about me, but I didn't do that because I didn't think it would be necessary. Like I said, I was naive it that regard. I never went through a process that required that amount of scrutiny before, even when I enlisted in the military which didn't require that amount of disclosure of your personal life. I had no idea that my life would be scrutinzed, and my previous actions judged to the tremendous amount of degree that that background investigation did." | |
| 2010-03-17 [914 KB PDF] | Letter from SSA Mark Gant denying Mr. B.'s appeal | As indicated, the FBI considered Mr. B.'s appeal and denied it. Mr. B. disagrees with the statement that he did not provide new information; B. advises that he provided ample new information and that they did not admit this. Of note to my own appeal, this letter is significantly different. The statement at the end about Bernie not having any further avenues with the FBI indicates his file is closed. However, his BPMS screen, like mine, shows his status as "inactive." I am still considering the implications; my own letter states only that the FBI considers "this matter" to be closed. This could mean my request that they hear my appeal or my complaints about misconduct; they appear to indicate with the phrase "exhaust your administrative options" that my appeal was not heard on the merits, for reasons unknown. Further, they probably can't close my file without a full BI or at least a permanently disqualifying act like a felony conviction or a false statement that was fully investigated. | Letter from SSA Gant constructively denying my own appeal |