5_-_Guidlines_of_Acceptability.pdf

Section J – Attachement #5

Guidelines of Acceptability For USMS Contract Jails

A. INTRODUCTION: The review of background investigations and the resolution of derogatory information is an essential part of the process for determining whether an individual is suitable for government employment. These functions should be conducted, whenever possible, by designated security personnel outside of the applicant's supervisory chain. The supervisor's knowledge of derogatory information may affect the supervisor's objectivity regarding performance appraisal, promotions, etc., of the applicant. Any reference to “government applicant” within this document includes persons working under contract.

B. PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to assist the contract jail Warden or designee and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) COR. The background investigations are conducted by the private entity or company under contract with the warden of that facility. The background investigation is conducted in accordance with the employment procedures outlines in C.5.3.1 of the contract.

Interviews are conducted to validate the information the subject provided on the SF 85P “Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions.” Interviews are also for the purpose of resolving and documenting derogatory information. Derogatory information appears in a background investigation in a number of ways. Some information is derogatory information on its face and is both easily recognized and identified. There is other information that, standing alone is somewhat innocuous. When this information is reviewed in the context of other information, it may also require resolution.

C. PRINCIPALS: All derogatory information shall be favorably resolved by the contractor before the

USMS COR will consider granting final approval for applicants to work with federal offenders under this contract. The resolution will require the adjudicator to identify the information, explain why it is considered insignificant or provide documented resolution. It is not sufficient to resolve derogatory information by merely indicating that the subject exhibits acceptable job performance.

Adjudication of background investigations or reinvestigations that reveal activity or conduct that may render a person susceptible to coercion, duress, or blackmail will be subject to the following guidelines:

1. If the background investigation or reinvestigation demonstrates that the applicant/employee is open regarding his or her conduct, no personal interview or other action is warranted unless deemed necessary by the Warden or his designee.

2. If the background investigation or reinvestigation indicates, or raises an unresolved question as to whether the person is concealing any conduct that reasonably would subject the person to coercion, duress, or blackmail, the Warden or designee will arrange for an interview with the applicant/employee to discuss:

a. The issue of concealed conduct that was raised during the background investigation or reinvestigation and whether or not the person is in fact concealing any conduct that reasonably would subject the person to coercion. If the discussion demonstrates that the person is not concealing any such conduct, no further action is warranted.

b. If the person may be concealing conduct that reasonably would subject the person to coercion, the interviewer will continue to discuss:

1. The contractor's concern regarding the potential for coercion, pressure, manipulation, or blackmail;

2. The contractor’s Employee Standards of Conduct requirement that the applicant/employee immediately submit a written report of any attempt at coercion or blackmail to the CEO

The interviewer should prepare a memorandum documenting the discussion and the applicant/employee's acknowledgment of the reporting requirements and submit it with the applicant/employee's personnel file. The applicant/employee is not required to sign any documentation.

Resolution of derogatory information should afford the subject an opportunity to comment on the derogatory information or a chance to offer his/her "side of the story." Resolution of derogatory information is a critical part of the adjudication process for several reasons.

Information which appears derogatory can be refuted or mitigated in some instances by the subject of the background investigation. Similarly, the subject may be able to present circumstances which clarify the derogatory information.

Derogatory information is any information that, in the opinion of a reasonably objective person, tends to indicate that an individual may not possess of one or more of these qualities.

D. DEROGATORY INFORMATION: Listed below are general areas of concern for adjudicators:

1. Loyalty. Any information which indicates that the subject is not loyal to the United States should be identified as derogatory. Any background investigation which presents information which questions an applicant/employee's loyalty to the United States must be brought to the attention of the USMS COR. If an applicant is found to be suitable or unsuitable for employment under this criterion, the USMS COR shall be advised.

Several examples which should bring into question an individual’s loyalty are:

Advocating force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States;

Establishing contact with a seditionist, anarchist or with any representative of a foreign government whose interests may be contrary to the interests of the United States; or

Membership in organizations which systematically commit criminal acts against the United States Government

2. Close Relatives and Associates. In reviewing a background investigation, attention should be given to evidence that the subject of the investigation has close relatives or associates residing outside of the United States or who are citizens of a foreign country, especially hostile countries. Any information which tends to show the individual may be subjected to coercion or pressure should be identified as derogatory information and resolved, including frequent and/or prolonged foreign travel.

In resolving information regarding close relatives or associates, it is important to understand the nature of the relationship and the frequency of contact between the subject and the relatives or associates. Therefore, the following information should be obtained from all applicants/employees where evidence of foreign relatives or associates is identified in the background investigation case papers or the actual background investigation:

Name and address of the foreign citizen (i.e., aunt, uncle, cousin, close friend, etc.);

Relationship between subject and foreign citizen (i.e., aunt, uncle, cousin, close friend, etc.);

The frequency of contact‐ past, present and future‐‐with the foreign citizen; or The form of such contact (personal visits, letters, cards or telephone calls);

3. Undesirable Character Traits. Any trait(s) which may show the individual to be unreliable, untrustworthy or open to compromise is significant in the adjudication of the case. This information may be given by an open or confidential source, be derived from an arrest record or be indicated by the falsification of employment applications or personal history statements. All such information must be viewed in relation to the rest of the file.

Isolated incidents in a person's background are viewed less significantly than a continuing or emerging pattern of behavior.

The adjudicator should try to obtain a complete picture for employment purposes.

Undesirable character traits could also place an individual in a compromising situation where coercion or pressure might be used to blackmail an applicant/employee. The following examples are provided:

a. Sexual Conduct: Sexual conduct and behavior become important to the adjudication of a background investigation when there is evidence that the individual could be coerced or blackmailed due to sexual conduct. Should it be determined that an applicant/employee could be subjected to coercion because of sexual conduct, this information must be addressed and resolved.

b. Alcoholism: Any information which tends to show that the individual uses alcohol to excess or any information that shows alcohol use affecting job performance should be identified as derogatory information. Look for a pattern of behavior versus. an isolated incident.

4. Psychological Conditions: Certain and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. Treatment for a mental condition, as distinguished from marriage counseling and social services counseling for family problems, is significant and must be clarified to determine whether the subject's job performance may be adversely affected. The purpose of identifying this kind of information is to remove any reasonable doubt regarding the current seriousness of a problem. Temporary depression related to the death of a loved one or the failure of a marriage is to be expected, whereas long term depression would cause considerably greater concern.

Treatment for a mental, emotional, or personality condition must be accompanied by a recommendation from a competent mental health professional that the applicant/employee is capable to perform the duties of a public trust position and the applicant does not pose a risk to themselves or others. The applicant should display sound judgment and reliability.

5. Financial Responsibility. Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self‐control, a lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations. Indebtedness becomes a legitimate concern when an individual begins to fall behind on credit card payments, alimony, child support, rent, car loans, etc. It is important to determine if the individual considers the debt just.

Some debts are clearly not the responsibility of an individual and may be the result of careless record keeping by credit reporting agencies.

Refusal to admit to a just debt is not enough to resolve an unfavorable credit record. A derogatory credit report must be resolved by the individual and appropriate documentation provided. Any disputes between the applicant and the credit agency must be resolved by the applicant and documentation submitted.

Similarly, the repossession of an automobile for non‐payment, and eviction from rental housing for non‐payment, should be explained by the applicant/employee and documentation provided to show that any remaining indebtedness following the eviction or repossession has been resolved.

6. Dishonesty. Individuals entering service under this contract must be

“....trustworthy...and of good conduct and character...” This requires that applicant/employees are honest when filling out all employment documents.

Discrepancies on these forms may be an indication that the applicant/employee has falsified one of the forms to either conceal past behavior, or to exaggerate or misrepresent qualifications or suitability. In either case, all discrepancies must be resolved.

7. Arrests: An arrest, regardless of the offense or when it was committed, is derogatory information. Criminal activity creates a doubt aout a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. The nature and severity of the offense and when it was committed will have a bearing on the adjudication. Generally, the more recent the offense the greater impact it will have on the adjudication. An arrest that resulted in a conviction and fine/imprisonment must be accompanied by sufficient evidence that the applicant/employee has been rehabilitated.

8. Drug Usage: Evidence of the illegal use of prescription or nonprescription drugs by an applicant/employee requires resolution. In resolving drug related derogatory information, the offense must be viewed against the age of the applicant/employee and when the offense occurred. In addition, information should be obtained and consideration given regarding what drug(s) were used, how often, and any treatment the applicant/employee receive for drug usage.

9. Confidential Source Information: Background investigations will sometimes contain information provided by sources who request confidentiality under the Privacy Act. It is not permissible, in most cases, to include this information in the resolution of derogatory information because of the risk of identifying the source. Only information that is otherwise substantiated elsewhere in the investigation or pre‐employment documents and from unprotected sources can be used.

(10) Classified Information. Similarly, National Security Information classified at the

"Confidential," "Secret," and "Top Secret" levels sometimes appears in background investigations. Background investigations containing such information shall be handled appropriately by the contractor.

E. PROCEDURES TO RESOLVE DEROGATORY INFORMATION: Once derogatory information has been identified, either during the pre‐employment process or in the review of the background investigation, it must be resolved. Resolution usually is presented in the form of written documentation obtained through an interview with the applicant/employee.