Security Clearance Jobs Blog

If you ask around the common perception seems to be that getting a security clearance costs sponsoring companies or agencies a lot of money – this is a case of perception not meshing with reality, however. The cost of investigations is published, with the average cost for OPM investigations at $1,230 per investigation.

The most significant and in many cases difficult to assess cost is in non-productive time while an employer waits for an employee’s clearance to be processed. It’s a key reason why already cleared personnel remain in demand – it’s because they’re easier, and cheaper, to get on the job quickly. That said, as processing time continues to decline even this cost is decreasing.

Read the full article on how much security clearances really cost here.

COMPARE:  Prices of OPM’s investigative products for Fiscal Year 2008.

57 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

195 Comments »

On January 19, 2011 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) published its 8-0 decision regarding “NASA v. Nelson.” It reversed and remanded the decision of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a preliminary injunction against NASA enforcement of Personal Identity Verification (PIV) credentialing required under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 for contractor personnel who occupy non-sensitive, low-risk positions.

28 contractors working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory a filed suit against the U.S. Government claiming that the National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI) investigation used to determine eligibility for PIV credentialing violated their right to “informational privacy.”  A U.S. District Court initially denied their request for a preliminary injunction, but the injunction was later granted by the 9^th Circuit Court. The SCOTUS majority opinion skirted the main issue by stating:

“Assuming, without deciding, that the Government’s challenged inquiries implicate a privacy interest of constitutional significance, that interest, whatever its scope, does not prevent the Government from asking reasonable questions of the sort included on SF–85 and Form 42 in an employment background investigation that is subject to the Privacy Act’s safeguards against public disclosure. . . . The forms are reasonable in light of the Government interests at stake.” (emphasis added)

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Scalia made the simple assertion that a “federal constitutional right to ‘informational privacy’ does not exist.” He objected to the SCOTUS majority opinion because “The Court decides that the Government did not violate the right to informational privacy without deciding whether there is a right to informational privacy, and without even describing what hypothetical standard should be used to assess whether the hypothetical right has been violated.”

22 Comments »

The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) recently obtained information under the Freedom of Information Act regarding a June 2009 report of a study sponsored by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) on the use of Cyber Vetting for security clearance purposes. The study involved 349 test cases of intelligence agency applicants who consented to participating in the study and found “adverse information” on 28% of the cases. Adverse information was defined as:

Deliberate and overly descriptive posting of personal and/or work related information on public forums. This includes information about the subject’s specific work assignment, including listing descriptive information about colleagues and/or work site. Adverse classifications were also applied when references were found indicating illegal drug use or pictures appearing to show the subject engaged in illegal drug use.”

ODNI indicated that this was not a detailed study and that it would not be used to suggest modifications to existing investigative standards. “It is simply an initial approach to increase our knowledge and awareness of what types of information are posted in these sites so that educated decisions can be made regarding any future research. . . . If the results of the survey are suggestive and justify further work, the [ODNI] Special Security Center will commence design of a formal research project which will include thorough legal vetting.”

The study recommended the use of internet research, including media, blog, social networking, and professional networking sites as an adjunct to standard security clearance investigations.

Shortly after the statement of work for this study was issue in June 2008, ODNI decided more comprehensive studies were needed. In late summer 2008 ODNI issued RFPs for 2 additional studies with a total price of about $800,000.  EFF is pursuing other documents related to the governments use of the internet for investigative purposes and may possibly obtain a copy of the two later studies.

ODNI has stated that:

From the perspective of personnel security, cyber-behavior represents an emerging area of behavior that should be considered as an important part of the adjudication process for granting security clearances for personnel working in national security positions. To address these challenges, adjudication policies must be modernized to incorporate a better understanding of the type and frequency of personnel IT activities. This necessitates identifying which specific cyber-behaviors are normative, acceptable, or favorable as well as identifying those that may be associated with risky or problematic cyber behavior within the workplace.

26 Comments »

An article in USA Today says more state and local law enforcement officers are getting top secret clearances from the FBI to access sensitive federal information in terrorism cases than at anytime since 9/11.

Clearances granted to members of the FBI’s network of regional terrorism task forces jumped to 878 in 2009, up from 125 in 2007…Since 2001, the number of terrorism units, which draw on federal, state and local investigators, have grown from 35 to 104 nationwide. The units are staffed with 4,433 officers and agents, up from 912 in 2001, FBI spokesman Bill Carter told USA Today.

The FBI is launching an effort to declassify information that can be shared with more local investigators.  “Trying to get everybody into the clearance arena is not the solution,” FBI Assistant Director Ronald Ruecker reported to USA Today.

After 9/11, the FBI established the State and Local Law Enforcement Executives and Elected Officials Security Clearance Initiative. This program was initiated to brief officials with an established “need-to-know” on classified information that would or could affect their area of jurisdiction.

For more information see FBI Process for State and Local Law Enforcement | Brochure [pdf]

18 Comments »

While lying on a job application has its repercussions, a young Michigan man found that lying on a CIA job application landed him in jail.

The Washington Post reported that Glenn Duffie Shriver, 28, was arrested on June 22 for lying on his CIA job application about his work with Chinese intelligence that netted him $70,000. He now faces five counts of making false statements that could land him a maximum of five years in prison, if convicted.

Federal prosecutors allege Shriver met repeatedly with foreign intelligence officers and traveled to China in 2007.

Shriver’s mother, Karen Chavez, told a Detroit television station that Shriver moved to China for work during a SARS outbreak. He later moved to South Korea for a job teaching English.

Shriver was arrested at Detroit Metro Airport while attempting to fly back to South Korea.

Shriver is one of more than 40 suspected Chinese agents in the U.S. who have been arrested and prosecuted for espionage-related charges over the past two years. The number of prosecuted Chinese spies is much higher than the 10 Russian spies discovered recently.

“In recent years, the Justice Department has handled an increasing number of prosecutions involving sensitive American weapons technology, trade secrets and other restricted information bound for China,” said Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department’s National Security Division to the Washington Post.

The Justice Department had convicted 44 individuals in 26 cases since March 2008, almost all of whom are now serving time in federal prisons Boyd revealed to the Washington Post.

Last February, a Chinese-born engineer was sentenced to more than 15 years in prison for hoarding sensitive information about the U.S. space shuttle that prosecutors say he intended to share with China.

No 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

80 Comments »

An article in the Washington Post reported that Altegrity, a privately held Falls Church, VA company that provides security/screening services, will buy Kroll from Marsh & McLennan Cos. for $1.13 billion in cash.

Altegrity was started in 1996 when the federal government privatized the investigative branch of the Office of Personnel Management. The company began with 600 employees and was originally called U.S. Investigations Services. Among its first contract work were security clearance background investigations. It has grown to 8,000 employees across the U.S.

Altegrity does a range of contract work, mostly for the federal government, including security clearance investigations for the U.S. government and training and consulting for police departments in such places as Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq and Pakistan.

Kroll performs corporate investigations and security business and has 3,000 employees in 55 cities around the world.  The deal for Kroll is expected to close in September.  Altegrity’s CEO served as Kroll’s CEO from 2001 to 2004.  The deal is expected to allow Altegrity to better compete against defense contractors on government service contracts.

Related articles:  Investigators Consider Using Smartphones | USIS Hiring 200 Investigators

11 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.”

3 Comments »

The U.S. State Department is investigating an employee with top-secret security clearance who government investigators say mishandled classified information related to national security, according to an article on FoxNews.com.

“Eugene Reginald Hopson, a 30-year veteran of the State Department, described as an information management officer, oversaw the handling and security of classified information in U.S. embassies.

He was stripped of his security clearance and ordered back to Washington in October after 12 years overseas when State Department special agents found he had unauthorized possession of classified materials, according to an affidavit filed in the case.

A January search of his household belongings yielded five U.S. diplomatic passports, one Bolivian passport and evidence of bank accounts in Honduras, Italy and the Cayman Islands, search warrants show.”

The article goes on to state that The State Department confirmed that an investigation is underway, however, no charges have been filed. There are two laws that he possibly violated, one prohibiting “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents” and the other on “gross negligence”, allowing classified information to be removed from its “proper place of custody“.

1 Comment »