Security Clearance Jobs Blog

In a report dated December 19, 2008 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided a preliminary assessment of the timeliness and quality of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) personnel security clearance program. GAO found that in fiscal year 2008 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) completed 80% of all initial clearance investigations in 87 days. Although this represents a significant improvement over prior years; the existing clearance process may not be able to meet the December 2009 requirement of 90% in 60 days as mandated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

Using a sample of 100 favorably adjudicated investigations, GAO found that an estimated 87% of the OPM investigations in July 2008 for Top Secret clearances were missing at least one investigative element required by federal standards. The numbers of elements missing from the 100 investigations were:

The report acknowledged the current clearance reform project that is scheduled to be implemented over the next 20 months, including two new tools for assessing investigative and adjudicative quality.

GAO’s representation of missing investigative elements is somewhat misleading. For instance in the report’s footnotes GAO explained that the 12 investigations missing a Subject Interviews were due to the Subject’s [military] deployment. OPM routinely closes such cases and forward them to the requestor without conducting the Subject Interview. It is then the responsibility of the requestor to have the investigation reopened when the Subject returns from deployment. How many employment and social references were not interviewed because they too were deployed with the same military unit as the Subject? How many of the missing forms were financial or medical releases that have absolutely no adjudicative value?

When one or more elements of an investigation are missing, it doesn’t always mean that the investigation is deficient. Likewise, granting a security clearances based on such investigations due to military exigencies is often justifiable and permitted by DoD regulation. GAO’s report claims to assess quality, but it admits that it made no judgments about the adequacy of the investigative reports to support [adjudicative] decisions. Were they just counting beans?

10 Comments »

Our popular ongoing series allows you to ask your most complex questions regarding security clearances and our regular contributors of present and former clearance investigators and adjudicators will try to answer them. The rules are listed below. Failure to abide by them will mean your question will be deleted.

Note: All questions are moderated. After you post, it can take up to 48 hours for the question to be live on the site and our panelists to see it and answer it.

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. Provide full details about your case in your initial question thread.
5. Do not post your questions in previous versions of this thread.
6. 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.

Note: If your post does not appear on this site, you may not be following the rules above.

Please read over previous threads to see if your question has already been answered. Use the Search tool to locate specific keywords.

292 Comments »

via Randall Scasny, Director of MilitaryJobHunts.com

Changes in the economy and job market often times compel many people to reassess their careers and search for employment in industries other than they are presently employed in. I see this happening a lot with my customers who had been in the military years ago and now are seeking to get a military or defense contracting job, which often requires an active clearance. But if their clearances have gone inactive, they are often told to expect a challenging and long job hunt. So, they often give up their job search even before they start.

My suggestion is not to give up looking for a job even if your clearance is inactive.

I recently worked with an Air Force retiree who had been out of the military/defense industry for six years and his clearance was inactive. Yet, he was given a job offer after a month or so of re-launching his job hunt campaign. How did he do it?

Well, if you are looking for some magic, forget it!

There was no special form to complete or review board to apply to or attend. I feel that it really came down to his building (with my assistance) such a compelling case for his value to the organization that this immense hiring appeal drowned out the hurdle of an active clearance…

Continue Reading »

3 Comments »

On 20 November 2008 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued House Report 110-916, “Security Clearance Reform—Upgrading the Gateway to the National Security Community.” The report measured the government’s compliance with the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) in the following seven areas:

1. Centralization of policy oversight and management: Actions have been taken, but progress has been mixed.
2. Single agency for investigations: The requirement has been partially met.
3. Interagency reciprocity: The standard set forth by IRTPA has not been met.
4. Integrated, secure database: The requirement has not been met.
5. Evaluate the use of available technologies: This requirement has been met.
6. Reduce the length of the clearance process: The interim standards for timeliness that were to have been met by December 2006 were met on average across all the agencies processing security clearances.
7. Reporting: The Administration has met the requirements for annual reports required by IRTPA’s Secton 3001(h).

The overall tone of the report was critical, stating that “progress over the past five years has been disappointing.” Even in the areas where the Administration was found to have met the IRTPA requirements, the report complained of missed deadlines and creative interpretation of IRTPA wording.

12 Comments »

Our popular ongoing series allows you to ask your most complex questions regarding security clearances and our regular contributors of present and former clearance investigators and adjudicators will try to answer them. The rules are listed below. Failure to abide by them will mean your question will be deleted.

Note: All questions are moderated. After you post, it can take up to 24 hours for the question to be on the site and our panelists to see it and answer it.

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. Provide full details about your case in your initial question thread.
5. Do not post your questions in previous versions of this thread.
6. 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.

Note: If your post does not appear on this site, you may not be following the rules above.

Please read over previous threads to see if your question has already been answered. Use the Search tool to locate specific keywords.

239 Comments »