Security Clearance Jobs Blog

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: Due to the volume of questions we receive, we cannot answer all of them. Selected questions that have not been answered in the past will likely be answered.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

Note: All questions are moderated. After you post, it can take up to a week 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.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

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

Related Articles:

• Employment Suitability Versus Security Clearance
• Criminal Conduct and Security Clearances
• Drug Involvement and Security Clearances
• Rebutting and Appealing Security Clearance Denials
• Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances
• Personal Finances and Security Clearances

80 Comments »

A June 15, 2010 article, “Buzz on lie detectors is a lie, NSA video says,” at WashingtonPost.com reported on a new 10-minute video about polygraph tests posted at the Defense Security Service’s (DSS) training website. “The Truth About the Polygraph” is reported to be a video produced by the National Security Agency (NSA) designed to reduce the anxiety applicants feel about the examination.

The DSS Academy website provides the following comments regarding the video. An accompanying 2-page brochure is also available:

Many positions of trust with the U.S. Government require candidates to undergo a polygraph examination. This video, aimed at either current or prospective employees, provides an overview of the process that may be encountered when a polygraph examination is required for employment or access to sensitive information.

Neither the DSS Academy website nor the video itself provided any information about the production of the video.

It’s difficult to make any general statements about the manner in which polygraph tests for security clearance applicant screening are conducted. Although, all federal polygraph examiners are trained at the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment—DACA (formerly known as the DOD Polygraph Institute); examiners develop their own individual style that’s usually influenced by their organization’s culture.

Truth About the Polygraph Brochure [pdf] | The Truth About the Polygraph [flash video]

3 Comments »

Over the past two years, ClearanceJobsBlog.com has become the only place on the internet where people can ask tough questions about security clearances and get expert answers. Our staff and regular contributors have taken the time to answer even the most complex questions and give people peace of mind and assistance for an inherently confusing topic. We greatly appreciate all of the input.

This premium service is offered to you at only $40 per question and answer.

Due to popular demand and our rapid growth, we are launching a new private security clearance question and answer service. This will help ensure your critical questions get answers. Our new service grants the following:

• Complete privacy – your questions answered out of public view
• Priority service – your questions get answered first, before our blog and with no delays
• Complete answers – your questions receive detailed answers with references and links where applicable
• Guaranteed answers - your questions are guaranteed to be answered

Your questions will be answered by our resident expert, William H. Henderson, author of The Security Clearance Manual.  Mr. Henderson is a retired federal investigator who worked as a field agent and supervisor for the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) and its successor organizations, the Defense Security Service (DSS) and the Federal Investigative Services Division of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for over 20 years.

This premium service is offered to you at only $40 per question and answer.

Instructions:

1. Email your question to clearancehelp@clearancejobs.com
2. Include full contact details including your name, address, and phone number
3. Ensure your question is fully detailed – the more information the better
4. Cost is $40 per question and answer.
5. You will receive an email receipt and questions will be subsequently answered.
6. Questions will be answered from the email address provided.
7. Click the Buy Now button link below to proceed with payment.

5 Comments »

In September 2009 representatives of OMB, OPM, ODNI, and DOD testified before the Senate subcommittee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs regarding security clearance reform. (See 16 Sep 2009 blog topic “Congressional Hearing On Security Clearance Reform.”) Post-Hearing Questions (and answers) for the record were recently published as an appendix to the hearing report.

One of the most interesting questions concerned the number of cases returned to OPM by DOD due to incompleteness. Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper’s response on page 93 was illuminating:

In FY 2008, the Department returned approximately 188,483 cases and in FY 2009, the Department returned approximately 129,558 cases. Some cases are returned to OPM due to incompleteness or because they were missing critical expansion of developed issues. Other cases are returned or requested to be reopened because the subject of the case was deployed and could not be reached to complete the subject interview. However, in many instances where investigations received from OPM lack investigative scope items or other necessary information, adjudicators contact the subject or agencies themselves to obtain missing information in order to avoid timeliness delays or to avoid incurring additional costs. The Department does not currently have a means to track those cases.

In FY 2008, the Department was charged approximately $86,303,826 and in FY 2009, $63,104,471 for cases returned to OPM due to incompleteness or with requests for additional information.

Here is OPM Director John Berry’s response on page 90 to a slightly different question:

During FY 2009 of the 2,157,531 investigations closed, 1721 (.08 percent) were reopened due to quality concerns. Of the 1721 investigations reopened, 1362 (79 percent) were conducted by contractors, and 359 (21 percent) by Federal employees. The quality reopen percentages rates trend very closely to the actual workload distribution between contractor and Federal staff.

Clapper’s response addressed only DOD security clearance investigations, which totaled about 650,000 in FY 2009. Berry’s response included all agencies and all types of investigations, including single agency checks. Even if the majority of the cases returned by DOD to OPM were because the subject of the case was deployed, it’s still very difficult to reconcile DOD’s 20% return rate with OPM’s .08% “quality” reopen rate. And in how many cases did DOD adjudicators obtain information by themselves that should have been in the report of investigation?

23 Comments »

At first, it looked like 62 workers at Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)’s military payroll accounting facility in Cleveland, Ohio would lose their jobs due to credit problems. In the past, other DFAS workers in Columbus and Indianapolis had lost jobs because of credit issues.  The Cleveland facility processes pay for active Navy personnel, military retirees, and government officials, including the President.

After some lobbying by local members of Congress, an article in The Plain Dealer explains what happened next…

“The Defense Finance and Accounting Service has agreed to suspend a controversial policy of firing workers for credit reasons while it reviews whether it was necessary to upgrade their security clearances in 2005. The announcement gives a temporary reprieve to 47 workers who were about to lose their jobs.”

“DFAS spokesman Tom LaRock said that since 2001, 54 employees from all DFAS offices have been terminated for not being able to obtain a favorable background clearance…All DFAS positions are classified as sensitive, LaRock said. Because they process people’s pay, employees have access to social security numbers, bank accounts and other sensitive information, he said.”

“It is not top secret or confidential,” he said. “It is considered a background clearance.”

2 Comments »

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently released an undated presentation entitled, The Security Clearance and Investigation Process. Included in the presentation are the following data:

The fastest 90% of the initial security clearance investigations were completed in an average of 41 days (70 days for Top Secret and 36 days for Secret/Confidential).

For Fiscal Year 2005 OPM reported conducted 31,300 Public Trust Investigations (Background Investigations—BI, Limited Background Investigations—LBI, and Minimum Background Investigations—MBI) and 142,354 Suitability Investigations (National Agency Check with Inquires—NACI). These numbers increased in FY07 to about 47,000 and 284,500 (respectively). The FY09 figures show a dramatic increase in Public Trust investigations. The rise and fall of NACIs from FY05 to FY09 may have been caused by a large surge of investigations for HSPD-12 PIV cards. The category of “Other” primarily covers NACs (National Agency Check) and SACs (Special Agreement Check). SACs are usually a single records check, such as an FBI fingerprint check, military personnel records check, credit check, etc., used for pre-screening candidates, resolving individual security/suitability issues, or fulfilling other federal agency mission related objectives that don’t require a standard security or suitability investigation.

6 Comments »

Once again the news media got it wrong. Referring to the Report of the DoD Independent Review Related to Fort Hood (Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood), an Associated Press article, claimed:

“Their investigation also found his top-level security clearance hadn’t been properly investigated.”

A WashingtonPost.com article stated:

“The report also said that Hasan was granted a top-level security clearance in February 2008 but that his background check did not include interviews with co-workers, supervisors or Hasan himself.”

The DoD report actually stated:

“[Hasan] held an active and current SECRET security clearance based on a February 2008 National Agency Check with Local Agency and Credit Check of [sic] background investigation. Although accomplished in accordance with current guidelines, this background investigation did not include a subject interview or interviews with coworkers, supervisors, or expanded character references.”

A Secret clearance can hardly be characterized as a “top-level security clearance,” and if it was “accomplished in accordance with current guidelines” it was incorrect to claim that it “hadn’t been properly investigated.” A standard NACLC has the narrowest scope of any security clearance investigation and does not include a Subject Interview or any reference interviews. It simply isn’t capable of surfacing the type of information that might have made a difference in Hasan’s case.

The DoD report went on to criticize the adequacy of the NACLC for Secret clearances, the vagueness of the Adjudicative Guidelines, and insufficient training on how and to whom significant information is reported. However, the DoD report did not cite any specific examples of vagueness in the guidelines or insufficiency in training. Army Regulation 380-67, “Personnel Security Program” states, “the supervisor must ensure that all relevant information is reported to the local command security official responsible for processing the investigative paperwork.” It also states, “Coworkers have an equal obligation to advise their supervisor or appropriate security official when they become aware of information with potentially serious security significance regarding someone with access to classified information or employed in a sensitive position.” Guideline A of the Adjudicative Guidelines appears equally clear and unambiguous about the issue of loyalty and allegiance.

13 Comments »

In a September 15, 2009 written response to questions posed to the Director of the FBI following his March 25, 2009 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee the following information was provided regarding FBI applicant clearance processing for fiscal year 2009 to date:

* Average processing time in days for fastest 90% of applicants.

3 Comments »

On September 15, 2009 a hearing was held before a Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Federal government’s security clearance reform process. Testifying before the subcommittee were representatives of OMB, OPM, DOD, ODNI, and GAO. Transcripts of their prepared statements are posted at the Senate subcommittee’s website.

Here are some highlights from the prepared statements:

• 90% of initial clearance investigations by OPM are done in an average of 37 days.
• Average investigation for a Top Secret clearance now takes 79 days.
• Average investigation for a Secret clearance now takes 47 days.
• Security clearance investigation backlog (cases older than 180 days) has been eliminated.
• E-Adjudication of Secret clearances was implemented for DOD industrial cases in September 2009 (originally planned for May 2009). This capability will be extended to the Air Force and Navy adjudication facilities by December 2009.

Here are some of the lowlights:

• 11% of initial clearance eligibility decisions took more than 300 days to complete in FY08.
• Only 260,000 of the estimated 3 million active security clearances are currently in OPM’s Clearance Verification System.
• The new Federal Investigative Standards that were approved in December 2009 (but not yet implement) will be changed.
• The new SF86, originally expected to be approved by January 2009, won’t even be available for public comment until late September 2009 (a lengthy process required before final approval).
• According to GAO, long-term funding requirements for the reformed process still have not been identified.

27 Comments »

An article in the National Journal covers a security clearance process that is painfully slow at the State Department. For entry level employees at the State Department, especially interns, start dates are moved back waiting for a security clearance.

In most cases, the State Department outsources investigations to contractors, however, when an applicant has lived or traveled extensively overseas, Diplomatic Security takes over the investigation.  The State Department processes 25,000 clearance cases a year and in 3Q of this year, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security needed an average of 54 days to issue entry-level clearances, down from 64 days in 2008.

In addition, the article airs allegations made by the group called Concerned Foreign Service Officers regarding State Department investigators of sometimes practicing ethnic and religious profiling, resulting from insufficient internal checks.

Follow-up: A blog on Foreign Policy published reactions from former State Department interns on this issue.

Quote of the day: “With the clearance process, as an applicant, you don’t know anything…” – State Department would-be intern.

11 Comments »

In an earlier blog post it was mentioned that OPM chose to prosecute six investigators to send a message to potential offenders that they can face felony charges and jail time, instead of just being fired. Is this part of that message?

A former Central Intelligence Agency investigator pleaded guilty today to fabricating about 80 background checks of various people with summaries of interviews she did not conduct.  The investigator faces up to 12 months in prison and a potential $20,000 in fines. She also will be required to make $24,555 in restitution.  Her reports were used for hiring decisions and granting security clearance for people.

This is probably not a case of sabotaging investigations for the Russians! It’s more likely a case of laziness and/or incompetence. She had to know she was playing with fire, right? If it were a job that doesn’t affect national security, you’d be fired for lying, but that’s about it.

It’s unfortunate that only the bad news gets most of the attention these days and admittedly I am a contributor.

10 Comments »

PERSONNEL SECURITY CLEARANCES: An Outcome-Focused Strategy Is Needed to Guide Implementation of the Reformed Clearance Process (GAO-09-488), May 2009:

The security clearance reform process has already been underway for several years, and various agencies involved have created and revised several plans for improvement. Although the high-level leadership and governance structure of the current reform effort distinguish it from previous efforts, without a strategic framework that fully addresses the long-standing security clearance problems and incorporates key practices for transformation including the ability to demonstrate progress leading to desired results the effort is at risk of losing momentum and not being fully implemented.

The GAO report made several recommendations for establishing a strategic framework for the joint reform effort, including clearer goals, outcome-focused performance measures, formal communications strategy, further definition of roles and responsibilities for implementation of IT strategy, and determining funding requirements.

Somewhat disturbing was the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) response to the draft version of GAO-09-488:

OPM believes that it is important not to conflate the suitability and security clearance processes. Nonetheless, it recognizes that there are areas of commonality between the two and agrees that both processes should be administered efficiently and aligned where appropriate. The means by which these goals are accomplished, however ”whether through the governance structure established by Executive Order 13467 (and studied by the GAO) or in some other fashion”is currently under review by the new Administration, as are the reform initiatives discussed in the draft report. This review may result in a new governance structure and/or new goals and standards. For that reason, while the critiques discussed in GAO’s report will certainly merit consideration going forward, I do not believe that it would be productive at this time to address with greater specificity the concerns it expresses about the past management of the reform process.

A new governance structure and/or new goals and standards?

4 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: Due to the volume of questions we receive, we cannot answer all of them. Selected questions that have not been answered in the past will likely be answered.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

Note: All questions are moderated. After you post, it can take up to a week 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.

If you would like a guaranteed private answer to your question, please see here.

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

Related Articles:

• Employment Suitability Versus Security Clearance
• Criminal Conduct and Security Clearances
• Drug Involvement and Security Clearances
• Rebutting and Appealing Security Clearance Denials
• Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances
• Personal Finances and Security Clearances

96 Comments »

With the economic downturn and entering the seventh year of overseas combat, some Soldiers and civilians are worried about their security clearance.

The commander of the U.S. Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility (CCF) wants all Army personnel to understand that “they can obtain counseling services for financial and mental health issues without undue concern of placing their security clearance status in jeopardy…”

As previously mentioned on ClearanceJobsBlog, a bankruptcy or foreclosure will not automatically prevent one from obtaining or maintaining a security clearance. There are many conditions surrounding financial hardships that often mitigate security concerns.

In fact, about 98 percent of cases received by the CCF which involve financial issues were granted a security clearance. This trend has been consistent since 2005.  Individuals under financial duress are encouraged to contact their local Army Community Service or Military One Source to obtain financial counseling to determine how to best manage their debts.

Many Soldiers expressed an unwillingness to participate in behavioral or psychological health programs, however the OPM ensures that investigations are conducted in a manner compliant with the revised Q21, which excludes the reporting of treatment related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment, such as PTSD, or mild traumatic brain injury.

Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information states mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a security clearance. Seeking support to address mental health issues demonstrates inner strength and embodies the Warrior Ethos, Army leaders have said.

Professional mental health counseling is not a threat to an individual’s security clearance; rather it can be a positive factor in the security clearance process, officials said.  CCF’s adjudicative history indicates that 99.98 percent of cases with psychological concerns obtained/retained their security clearance eligibility.  The current policy provides both adjudicators and commanders flexibility to allow individuals undergoing counseling to maintain their security clearance.

Related Articles: Personal Finances and Security Clearances

27 Comments »

Looks like OPM is keeping USIS busy. I thought OPM said that security clearance investigation times were now all complete within a few months. Perhaps not?

USIS, a provider of security investigations to the federal government, is hoping to hire 200 field investigators in the next three months.

Falls Church-based USIS said in its hiring announcement that the new investigators are required for projects in high-need areas across the U.S.

USIS is also searching to hire independent contractors for work overseas. The contractors would work on national security contracts helping nations train local law enforcement personnel.

51 Comments »