OPM used incorrect criminal records in my security clearance

[Guest]

After holding a security clearance for nearly 20 years, the recent 5 year renewal of my Top Secret clearance found that I had an unreported criminal record. OPM/CAF sent me a statement of reasons to revoke my security clearance. I immediately retained a lawyer. Through research, I discovered that records from the State of Kentucky were used that listed the criminal record of a person with the same first and last name and same date of birth but different middle name and social security number. The lawyer cost was @5K. I want to recoup my losses and sue. I don't know yet know whether a contract company or OPM conducted the investigation, I am waiting for the investigation to come back to me via FOIA request. Clearly due diligence was not done. I never had an interview with an investigator. Simply, one year after I submitted paperwork, I received the statement of reasons from an adjudicator with the erroneous arrest records.

 

[army judge]

After holding a security clearance for nearly 20 years, the recent 5 year renewal of my Top Secret clearance found that I had an unreported criminal record. OPM/CAF sent me a statement of reasons to revoke my security clearance. I immediately retained a lawyer. Through research, I discovered that records from the State of Kentucky were used that listed the criminal record of a person with the same first and last name and same date of birth but different middle name and social security number. The lawyer cost was @5K. I want to recoup my losses and sue. I don't know yet know whether a contract company or OPM conducted the investigation, I am waiting for the investigation to come back to me via FOIA request. Clearly due diligence was not done. I never had an interview with an investigator. Simply, one year after I submitted paperwork, I received the statement of reasons from an adjudicator with the erroneous arrest records.

I suggest you speak with your current attorney, and only with your current attorney.

Yours is a complicated issue, but even if it weren't suing the sovereign requires the sovereign's permission.

So, before you can bring a lawsuit, the king must allow you bring the lawsuit.

For your sake, stick with the horse you rode in on, and too many cooks spoil the broth.

This explains it:

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=facpub