Security Clearance Jobs Blog

Whereas final clearance can take a year or more to be awarded, interim clearances are the odd anomaly. Akin to a “temporary” clearance, they can be processed in weeks, not months, and get candidates on the job quicker while waiting for final clearance.

Do you have an interim clearance?

• When did you received your interim clearance?
• At what level was your interim clearance?
• How long did it take to get? 
• Which agency issued it?
• What issues were involved, if any in receiving it?
• Did you get interim clearance as a contractor or Federal worker?
• Any other interesting details you can provide?

Thanks for sharing. Many people are up for interim clearances, and some experiences from others will help to set better expectations.

1 Comment »

Ask your questions here regaring security clearances and our regular contributors will try to answer them. Here are the rules:

1. Please do not address a contributor by name to ensure anyone who has knowledge might answer.
2. Do not include your own name, email address, or other information that can identify you. This is a public forum and clearance holders have a responsibility for covertness.
3. If you have questions regarding careers, job hunting, salaries, interviewing, or other career-related topics, see the other threads dedicated to this purpose.
4. Understand that the suggestions and comments contributors provide are their opinions only. The owners of this site are not responsible for the suggestions and guidance from outside contributors.

Thanks!

139 Comments »

An article in the Washington Business Journal on Friday, April 25, 2008 reported information from a survey of more than 100 government contractors, made by the National Defense Industrial Association and the Information Technology Association of America regarding security clearance processing.

“Businesses say the federal government has made some ‘modest progress’ on chipping away at the backlog of security clearances, but it still has a long way to go before the system for granting clearances meets the still-growing demand.”

One of the more interesting results of the survey was that 71 percent of the respondents said that “one or more agencies failed to recognize clearances already held by employees.”

What’s interesting is this recent OPM quote:

“Office of Personnel Management officials say that with recent improvements, most employees are now cleared in 120 days.”

Something doesn’t add up here.. Your thoughts?

6 Comments »

An April 27, 2008 Los Angeles Times article reported “on a new study, released in March, by the Pentagon’s little-known Defense Personnel Security Research Center, which examined the changing nature of espionage from 1947 to 2007.”

“. . . the biggest change in espionage is in the motivation to commit the act in the first place. The multinational, globalized spy of 2008 is less tempted by money than by ideology and ‘divided loyalty’—loyalty to both the U.S. and another country—‘with 57% spying solely as a result of divided loyalties.’”

The study also reported that:

While before 1990, roughly 80% of American spies were native-born citizens, since 1990 the percentage of native-born offenders has fallen to 65%, while the corresponding percentage of naturalized citizens rose to 35%. Also since 1990, the percentage of American spies with foreign attachments (relatives or close friends overseas) increased to 58% and those with foreign business or professional connections jumped to 50%. From less than 10% before 1990 who had cultural ties to foreign countries, that percentage with foreign cultural ties increased to 50%.

Your thoughts?

4 Comments »

By popular demand, a place to ask questions on defense careers. All topics are open, including: career advice, salaries, best places to work, company research, interviewing, resume help, and more. Ask your questions, but please do not identify yourself or post your email address. If you have questions regarding security clearances, or security clearance investigations, see the thread below. Thanks

27 Comments »

No doubt, this blog is the most popular and reliable place to ask questions regarding an inherently confusing subject - security clearances. Ask your questions here and our regular contributors will try to answer them. Please do not address a contributor by name to ensure anyone who has knowledge might answer. Do not include your name, email address, or other information that can identify you. If you have questions regarding careers, job hunting, salaries, interviewing, or other career-related topics, see the thread above.

145 Comments »

This week there was a flap over some contractor employees at the State Department looking at passport applications submitted by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain without proper authorization. One of the issues raised was the propriety of using contractor employees in positions where they had access to sensitive personal data. In this case it seems only sensitive personal data they had access to was date and place of birth and social security number.

Consider the vast amount of personal data in the hands of contract background investigators: date and place of birth, social security number, telephone number, address, mother’s maiden name, place of employment, personal identifying information of spouse or cohabitant, comprehensive credit bureau report with complete account numbers, criminal history information, and information about past indiscretions. The same applies to contractor employees working as investigative case controllers and filing clerks.

It’s strange that after 9/11 the U.S. Government chose to replace all contractor security personnel at airports with federal employees, but used contractors to investigate their backgrounds to determine if they were eligible for employment. The government also uses mercenaries to protect government officials. Until 2006 OPM contract investigators were conducting security clearance investigations of other contract investigators and federal investigators. A conflict of interest? You bet. Some federal agencies are still doing this. Surprisingly the adjudication of security clearances is still considered “inherently governmental.”  But the conduct of security clearance investigations is not.

William Henderson

9 Comments »

According to the OPM Operational Goal Status for 2008, the following security investigation/clearance actions were scheduled to be completed on March 17, 2008:

1.    Develop a tiered investigative efficiency model for suitability and security clearance investigations.

2.    Develop requirements for expansion of Clearance Verification System as a single search system to increase utility of the data system across Government.

3.    Explore alternatives for continuous monitoring of persons in positions of trust, assess potential regulation changes, and propose FAR language to GSA for continuous monitoring of contractors.

4.    Assess and recommend Executive Order language to extend suitability to excepted service employees and contractors with staff-like duties.

5.    Develop policy for reciprocity of all suitability decisions at any level of investigations.

6.    Develop policy for reciprocity of all suitability investigations at any level of a tiered investigative model.

It seems odd that OPM is busy considering changes (items 1, 2, and 3) to the existing clearance system when the existing system may be scrapped in its entirety within the next 12 months and replaced by a new system currently being designed by DOD and DNI.  The time to develop these changes was last fall when DOD and DNI asked for recommendations.  Items 4, 5, and 6 appear to be in direct response to the President’s 5 February 2008 memo on Security Clearances and its new mandate to integrate suitability and security clearance processing (something DOD and DNI should have seen the need for last fall).

10 Comments »

Our popular series of Q&A regarding security clearances continues in this thread. Before you ask your question, please navigate to view threads one through three to see if your question has already been asked and answered. When asking a question, please include all relevant details to your case. Avoid using acronyms when possible, and do not publish your email address in your posting. Thanks

239 Comments »

We are now half way into the Base Realignment and Closure rulings of 2005. Slated to be complete in 2011, thousands of jobs and a number of communities have been uprooted by the decisions. Have you been affected?

2 Comments »