The life of a blog has no certainty. In most cases, a blog has a lifespan better than that of a mayfly. A day. But most blogs do not make it longer than winter bees (six months). We have to-date survived through 26 winter bee seasons! So that’s amazing! Whatever is in the horizon, we are thankful to all of you who made these seasons possible. We are on the last few days of our eight-week annual fundraising. We are grateful to over 400 readers who pitched in since we launched a few weeks ago. If you care what we do here, and you are able to help, please see GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27. We could use your support. ❤️❤️❤️ D!
Via FSGB Case No. 2020-002:
Held – The Grievance Board found that because the security clearance of the charged employee had been revoked after final agency review, the Department of State established that the proposed separation of the charged employee was for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the Foreign Service.
Case Summary The charged employee, a Diplomatic Security Special Agent, was notified that his Top Secret security clearance was suspended for failure to cooperate in certain medical assessments. The charged employee’s clearance subsequently was revoked. The charged employee appealed the revocation to the Department’s Security Appeals Panel, which sustained the revocation after consideration of the written submissions of both the charged employee and the Department. Because a Top Secret security clearance is a condition of employment for the charged employee and because the revocation of his clearance was final, the Department proposed to separate the employee for cause. After a hearing on the issue, the Board concluded that the Department had established cause for the separation and evidence that the separation would promote the efficiency of the Service.
On July 11, 2014, the Director of the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS/SI/PSS), notified the charged employee, via memorandum that his “continued access to classified information was not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”1 Accordingly, his Top Secret security clearance was suspended pending the outcome of “ongoing Department medical review.” 2 The charged employee held a position as an FS-02 DS Special Agent who required a Top Secret security clearance to perform his duties.
On October 7, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Domestic Operations notified the charged employee by letter that his Top Secret security clearance was revoked. The employee was afforded 30 days to request a review of this decision. It appears that a review was requested because on March 13, 2019, the Principal Deputy Legal Adviser, on behalf of the Security Appeals Panel (Panel) notified the employee by letter that the Panel voted to sustain the decision of DS to revoke his Top Secret security clearance. This letter noted that the Panel had convened on February 19, 2019; that the charged employee had appeared and answered questions; and that the Panel took into account his responses, as well as written materials provided by the employee, his private counsel, DS.3
On August 20, 2019, the Director General notified the charged employee that the Department proposed to separate him for cause, under Section 610 of the FSA as amended, in order to promote the efficiency of the Service. The separation proposal stated that all Foreign Service positions require a Top Secret security clearance because all FS positions are “critical sensitive.” 4 Thus, because his security clearance had been revoked after all final reviews, the charged employee could no longer maintain a condition of his employment.
The charged employee responded by email on September 3, 2019 to the proposed letter of separation, stating, “Separating me from the Department does not seem right to me.” 5 The charged employee offered no other written or oral response to explain, rebut, or mitigate the separation proposal.
On January 6, 2020, the Department submitted the transmittal containing the separation proposal to the FSGB. On February 25, 2020, the Board conducted a pre-hearing conference (PHC) with the parties by telephone, during which the Board, the charged employee and the Department agreed upon procedural ground rules and a schedule of events prior to the hearing.6
The Department indicated at the PHC that beyond the documents submitted with the Department’s separation file in this case, the agency did not intend to submit any other exhibits or call any witnesses at the hearing. The charged employee indicated that he did not wish to call any witnesses or submit any documentation to the Board at the hearing. Thereafter, the parties reached an agreement on joint stipulations of fact to be presented at the hearing.7
On April 2, 2020, a hearing was convened by the Board on the separation proposal. The hearing was held telephonically, due to the CoVid 19 coronavirus pandemic, the President’s order to maximize the use of telework and the Governor of Virginia’s “stay at home” emergency order. At the start of the hearing, the Board advised the parties that it had determined that there was no need for a video-conferenced hearing because the parties had advised that they intended to offer no witness testimony. Neither the charged employee nor the Department objected to the use of a telephonic hearing process.
The Board found that a Top Secret security clearance is required for the employee’s position; therefore, the agency established that the charged employee failed to maintain a mandatory condition of employment. The Board concluded that the Department established cause for the separation on a single charge of Failure to Maintain a Condition of Employment and that separation of the charged employee will promote the efficiency of the Foreign Service.
3 According to the Principal Deputy Legal Adviser’s letter, “the Panel focused in particular on concerns relating to guideline I (‘Psychological Condition’). … [T]he Panel took note of the fact that [the charged employee] did not appear at the medical evaluation which [he] had agreed to undergo, [his] email of November 2, 2018, and [his] unwillingness during [his] appearance before the Panel to offer information that it could use to determine whether DS’s concerns had been mitigated.” The record does not reveal any additional information about the predicate for the security clearance suspension or revocation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.