Search:

Custom Search
Photo of Susan Smith

Did I Mention Those Prior Disciplinary Actions?

By Susan Smith

Friday, November 7, 2008

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

Susan McGuire Smith spent most of her 26-year federal government career with NASA, first at NASA Headquarters Office of General Counsel and then at Marshall Space Flight Center, serving as Chief Counsel there for more than 14 years. Her expertise is in government contracts, ethics, and personnel law. Ms. Smith has a J.D and a B.A. degree from the George Washington University. Her publications include Practical Ethics for the Federal Employee.

A Transportation Security Administration employee, fired in connection with his omission of material information on his SF-86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions), has failed to persuade first the Merit Systems Protection Board and now the appeals court to overturn his removal. (Nance v. Department of Homeland Security, C.A.F.C. No. 2008-3126 (nonprecedential), 11/5/08) According to the court's decision, the key facts in the case were pretty much undisputed at the MSPB hearing.

When Nance was employed in 2002, he filled out the required SF-86. He failed to list a previous 8-plus-years of employment with a county sheriff's office. And, when the background investigator asked him about his form, Nance apparently opted not to mention this previous employment. (Opinion pp. 1-2)

A few years later, Nance applied for a promotion and on his resume he revealed the sheriff's office position to the agency in his resume. The agency checked this information against his previous SF-86 and found the discrepancy. An investigator confronted Nance with it, and he admitted that he had failed to reveal the prior position "due to an oversight on my part." He further admitted he had been reassigned in this previous job, and "while not technically a disciplinary action, it has negative career implications. No other disciplinary actions." (p. 3)

But, when the TSA investigated further it found that in this prior job Nance had received 2 letters of counseling, a reprimand, a temporary pay reduction, a second reprimand, two separate suspensions, and finally placement in a one-year probationary status with close supervision. (p. 3)

The agency fired Nance for being "less than candid" in filling out the SF-86 and in responding to the agency background investigator. He appealed to the MSPB, but the Administrative Judge affirmed Nance's removal. (p. 3)

Nance took his case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, but he had no luck there either. He remains fired.
 

© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • I was removed from employment by my employer as Sector Enforcement Specialist due to my sleeping disorder (sleep apnea). I even had medical documention from a sleep specialist but they still fired me. After getting an attorney to argue my case they finally accepted me back but I lost 3 months pay (f...
    Posted: November 12, 2008 10:07 PM
  • They probably paid OPM to do the investigation. Much of that work is contracted out these days, and, unfortunately, a lot of investigations come up short....
    Posted: November 10, 2008 2:12 PM
  • He should ask anyone who is in a position to fire him later for lack of candor about what he should do/report....
    Posted: November 10, 2008 7:01 AM

View All Comments »

MORE BY SUSAN SMITH

Contact Susan Smith or read more articles on the author's page.