Security Clearance Jobs Blog

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 regaring 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 »

A CBS News article looks at what is required if you want to apply for a job with the City of Bozeman, Montana.

If you want the job you will need to hand over your usernames and passwords for “…any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.”

“I think its indefensibly invasive and likely illegal as a violation of the First Amendment rights of job applicants,” said Kevin Bankston, an EFF attorney. “I don’t think the government can condition your application for employment on your giving up your First Amendment rights and your Fourth Amendment rights,” Bankston said.

However, some social networking sites flatly prohibit disclosure of passwords.  Facebook’s terms of service, say: “You will not share your password (or) let anyone else access your account.”

Update: City of Bozeman has decided it will no longer ask job applicants for social networking user names and passwords following a worldwide outrage to the hiring policy.

5 Comments »

A May 2009 report, The DHS Personnel Security Process, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that:

“Department of Homeland Security personnel security offices are performing similar functions but use different policies throughout the personnel security process. Across the department, components strive to provide quality results in a timely manner but often are delayed by applicants, overwhelmed by customer service requests, restricted by database functions, and limited by information availability.”

The report made 20 recommendations to improve the Department of Homeland Security’s personnel security process, including some recommendations to consolidate security functions. As of November 2008 DHS was phasing in the use of a new department-wide web-based system to manage investigations and clearances to replace the 9 separate systems used by component agencies. Currently about half the components of DHS have authority to conduct their own clearance investigations. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Custom Enforcement contract for background investigations with several private companies. US Coast Guard and DHS Headquarters use a mix of investigative services provided by contractors and the Office of Personnel Management. The Secret Service uses internal investigative resources.

The report also contained investigative and adjudicative elapse times by departmental components. For 2008 average investigative times ranged from 30 to 96 days and average adjudicative times ranged from 17 to 147 days.

Related Article: DHS to Streamline Security Clearance Process

26 Comments »

Veritas Capital, a leading private equity firm, announced the acquisition of Kroll Government Services, Inc. from Kroll, Inc. Kroll Government Services, Inc. has been a leading provider of U.S. government security-clearance background investigations.

Kroll Government Services, Inc. has been renamed KeyPoint Government Solutions, Inc.

KeyPoint will continue to service U.S., state and local government customers including the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Justice, the US Coast Guard, the Army National Guard and the Los Angeles Police Department, among others.

KeyPoint Government Solutions is currently looking for Background Investigators.

5 Comments »

According to a May 25, 2009 article at FederalTimes.com, “Fifty-three federal and contractor falsified security clearance background investigations since 2005. . . . All of them have either been fired or left their jobs, and six were prosecuted within the last year for criminal misconduct.” The investigators worked directly or indirectly for the Federal Investigative Services Division (FISD) of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 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.

Other current and former investigators blame the problem on crushing workloads and constant pressure from supervisors to meet shorter deadlines for completing investigations. The article quoted Kathy Dillaman, Associate Director of FISD, as saying, “There are certainly pressures to perform. The taxpayers deserve that. But this isn’t your job if you can’t handle those pressures.

20 Comments »

On 20 May 2009 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report (GAO-09-400) on Department of Defense (DoD) security clearances, announcing, “Comprehensive timeliness reporting, complete clearance documentation, and quality measures are needed to further improve the clearance process.”

According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DoD, the top 90% of initial security clearances for DoD personnel took an average of 124 days to process in 2008. GAO came up with a number different than OPM and DoD, but they measured processing time in terms of the percentage of cases that took more than 120 days. GAO also found that 87% of Top Secret clearances adjudicated in July 2008 were missing one or more elements required by the national investigative standards.

The report is a follow-up to a 19 December 2008 GAO report (GAO-09-261R), DoD Personnel Clearances: Preliminary Observations about Timeliness and Quality. The new report provides more details regarding GAO’s findings from their earlier report. Interestingly, the new report alludes to the February 2009 annual report required by Title III of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), but this report has not been made publicly available on the internet.

4 Comments »

Our popular ongoing series allows you to ask your most complex questions regaring 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.

82 Comments »