Security Clearance Jobs Blog

Think it’s not a big deal to provide false information on an employment application? Think again.

If you’ve applied for government jobs, even those without security clearance, you’ve filled out some form of suitability determination. Even if you’re not accessing classified information in the scope of your work, the government likes to have some idea of your trustworthiness…and any previous run-ins with drugs, alcohol, firearms and explosives, in particular.

Even if you’re just filling out a job application, lying can pose serious consequences – just ask Terrance Lee King, a Denver man who is facing up to five years in a federal prison and a $250,000 fine for lying on a security-badge application for the Denver International Airport.  On a fingerprinting and badging application, King indicated that he had never been convicted of any disqualifying criminal offenses, even though that was clearly not the case.

Investigators have thus far not found any “terrorist motives” – although they have found that King is a pretty big idiot. As this story breaks, King is already serving time in state prison for violating parole on prior convictions for a weapons violation and drug possession, reported Denver’s Channel 7 News.

It’s a good reminder that not all offenses are created equally, and when suitability determinations screen applicants for drug, alcohol and weapons violations, there’s good reason. King’s case seems to be a clear-cut issue of lying to try to get a job, not human error or confusion.

Questions on Clearancejobs.com frequently include whether or not an individual needs to include a specific incident on his or her SF86. And while we rarely advocate for including more information than necessary, if you’ve ever had a run-in with the law, especially one involving weapons, drugs, or alcohol, you’re better to list and mitigate from the get-go than discover months later you were, in fact, arrested that one time in college you barely remember.

26 Comments »

When is a job about more than the job? When you have a security clearance or you’re in the military.

Many people have heard the phrase ‘held to a higher standard’ used in conjunction with men and women in uniform. It’s not just a reference to a higher moral character or sense of patriotism, its actual military doctrine and protocol, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and security clearance requirements. The military is just about the only employer these days who will fire you or demote you for having an affair, for instance. Why? Because the prohibition is outlined in UCMJ.

With such clear guidelines known by anyone in uniform, it’s hard to believe stories like this still exist. Last week the story broke of a Navy Commander who had an affair with a 23-year-old he met on a dating site. After the woman told him she was pregnant, the navy officer allegedly faked his own death via email messages. The officer had emails sent which implied an  incident had occurred in the scope of his “special operations” military duties and he’d died.

It sounds like a soap opera, but appears to be depressingly real. A Navy press release noted that Ward had been relieved of command due to “lack of confidence” and “allegations of personal misconduct.”

The reality is most security clearance issues are significantly less obvious than this. Will a one-time affair that you disclose to your spouse result in clearance denial? Hardly, and it’s not likely to even come up in the course of an investigation. But incidents such as the one above highlight the need for standards of personal integrity in positions of public trust, especially at the highest clearance levels.

If you’re willing to create a web of lies and pretend to be dead to avoid your problems, what else would you be willing to do? Now, if only all clearance investigations involved incidents this easy to assess.

14 Comments »

Like clockwork, it seems every late summer there’s a call for more people in government to pay attention to the threat of an Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack. Maybe its just the August heat and people being thankful that their air conditioning works. On the most recent report from The Heritage Foundation, the call for more awareness about the danger of an EMP attack is loud and clear. But is this threat real or just the stuff of science fiction? Regardless of that answer, it seems that an EMP attack would (literally) provide the most bang for the buck to an aggressor. With our society becoming more and more reliant on electronics, the idea that everything we use on a daily basis getting fried in an instant is surely scary. What’s your take? Should the government be taking EMPs into account when planning homeland defense strategies, or focus on other threats we know are more likely?

1 Comment »

It’s a frequent problem particularly in the government-driven Washington, D.C. area – highly skilled cleared personnel left sitting on their hands for months at a time while awaiting security clearance reciprocity or transfer between agencies. In some cases the individuals are able to await work in a government office, although with limited access to networks, systems or other tools of the job. In other cases, they’re sitting at home, literally doing nothing except perhaps administrative duties while awaiting clearance transfer and subsequent placement.

The failed goal of clearance reciprocity was highlighted by Tech America in a recently released survey. Tech America didn’t note the number of respondents but said they were among the 1,000 defense industry firms that are a part of the organization. Of respondents, 96 percent noted difficulty in transferring clearances between agencies.

Lack of security clearance transfer as well as effective records keeping was cited as a hindrance to the security clearance process in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. In 2005 an Executive Order addressed “Recirprocal Recognition of Existing Personnel Security Clearances.” The executive order included a checklist for determining whether or not a new investigation could be required. It also emphasized the needs for more efficient records keeping in order to keep updated on clearance status, reinvestigation history and polygraph information.

The Tech America survey did note that 52 percent of respondents said processing times for someone to obtain a clearance has improved, which supports survey findings of ClearanceJobs.com that clearance processing times have improved by about 30 days in the past two years.

Delays in clearance processing or transfer cause subsequent delays in getting employees to work – 37 percent of respondents noted it took 30-90 days to get a cleared employee onto a new contract at an agency. Depending on the work status of the professional, that could either mean 1-3 months without a paycheck or for a defense contractor, 1-3 months of funding a salary that isn’t returning a profit.

The good news is that the need for security clearance reciprocity isn’t lost on government leaders. Congressional testimony into security clearance reform has continually pointed to reciprocity as a key area for both cost savings and increased efficiency. Renewed interest improving the technology used to track security clearance applications and eAdjudication are also useful advancements in ensuring security clearance processing is more efficient, and more easy to transfer between agencies.

19 Comments »

I never realized that when it comes to classified information it’s not just “top secret” “secret” and “confidential” – based on a recent assessment from the Pentagon press pool there’s also “classified-classified” and “B.S. classified.”

The topic came up in a recent Pentagon press briefing with Bloomberg reporter Tony Capaccio questioning Pentagon spokesman George Little regarding an anti-leak memorandum released by the Pentagon last week. Cappacio noted that the idea of classification had become “a joke” and asked what defense officials were going to do to distinguish “classified-classified versus B.S. classified” – as he put it.

It’s the same debate on overclassification, different scenario. With congress hotly debating the repercussions for leaks in the wake of some widespread and high-profile breaches – and putting the press on the hot seat for publishing classified information –  those on the other side of the argument continue to cry “overclassification” not “leak.”

Reporters aren’t the first to charge the government with overclassification. The FAS Project on Government Secrecy has been accusing the government of overclassifying information for years. Members of congress and the Government Accountability Office have also argued that overclassification is a drain on the system, reduces transparency and costs millions of taxpayer dollars each year.

It’s a tough argument in the era of Wikileaks. Some are urging that classification reform would actually reduce the instance of breaches, with less information to steal, clearer protocols, and more transparency. Others argue that the risks demand more caution before releasing even potentially sensitive materials.

Congress has shifted focus from overclassification to leaks, with 12 provisions in the 2013 Intelligence Authorization bill related to unauthorized disclosures of classified information. The provisions are largely procedural changes and clarifications on what cleared personnel can and can’t do. None get at what is considered the heart of the issue for many – offering clearer protocols for the declassification of information and reducing the amount of classified information – “B.S.” or otherwise.

43 Comments »

Congress is adding muscle to its requests for harsh penalties against those accused of leaking classified information.

Last week Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) introduced the Deterring Public Disclosure of Covert Actions Act of 2012, which will revoke the security clearances of individuals who disclose covert actions. Burr emphasized that no such bill should need to be issued, but recent concerns about a dramatic rise in sensitive information being disclosed make such legislation necessary.

“There has been no shortage of news reports lately regarding covert and classified actions,” Senator Burr said. “Such reckless disclosure of top-secret information compromises our national security, jeopardizes the work of our intelligence officers and overseas partners, and risks innocent lives.”

The law would apply to officers, contractors and government employees and Burr emphasized in his statement that no one would lose their clearance without due process, and a determination that classified information had actually been leaked.

The bill comes in follow-up to an announcement by the Director of National Intelligence that new polygraph procedures would ask specifically about whether an individual has ever disclosed protected information. Polygraph procedures are now in the spotlight, following a McClatchy News Service report on abuses in the polygraph screening process. Unless carefully implemented, new polygraph screening methods along with harsher and more immediate penalties for those found revealing secrets could make for simpler responses to that question “how was your day?” – even if it’s your spouse asking.

8 Comments »

ClearanceJobs founder and managing director Evan Lesser was recently interviewed by Federal Times about security clearance processing and progress. While dramatic improvements in processing times have been made in recent years and the security clearance program has been taken off the Government Accountability Office hot seat, there’s still a lot to be done.

A special thanks to our security clearance investigators who visit the site for your wealth of experience and feedback. There’s nothing quite like a ‘boots on the ground’ perspective on reform efforts and progress!

33 Comments »

In January 2012 a bill was introduced in the Maryland State Senate that proposed a State income tax credit for costs incurred to obtain federal security clearances. The first reading of the bill (SB296) proposed a requirement for “the Governor of Maryland to make a $6,000,000 appropriation in FY2014 and FY21015 for the tax credit, applying the Act to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.” The bill was unclear as to what costs would qualify for the tax credit and who could claim it. Basically it just appropriated money for the tax credit.

News articles originally suggested that the “proposal would offer tax credits worth up to $3,000 or half the cost of the security clearance, whichever is less, to the individual or company paying for it.”  But individuals and companies rarely pay for federal security clearances.  Someone must have educated the sponsors of the bill on this fact, resulting in significant changes to the bill before it was signed into law on May 22, 2012.  Even the title of the bill changed from “Income Tax Credit – Security Clearance Expense” to “Income Tax Credit – Security Clearances – Employer Costs.”

The new law allows employers to claim a Maryland tax credit of up to $100,000 per year for:

(I) Security clearance administrative expenses incurred with regard to an employee in the state including, but not limited to:

1. Processing applications requests for clearances for employees in the state;
2. Maintaining, upgrading, or installing computer systems in the state required to obtain federal security clearances; and
3. Training employees in the state to administer the application process; . . . .

Employers can also claim an annual tax credit of 50% of the costs or $100,000 (whichever is less) for the construction or renovation of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) located in the state.  If multiple SCIFs are involved, the maximum tax credit is limited $250,000 per year.

The credits will be available for tax years beginning after December 2012, but before January 2017.  Two million dollars in tax credits will be available each year.  If applications for tax credits exceed $2,000,000 per year, the credits will be allocated to employers on a pro-rata basis. 

The law provides the basic procedures for applying for the tax credit, but leaves it to the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development to craft a regulation that defines the exact nature of administrative expenses that will qualify for the tax credit.

The law will help smaller Maryland companies improve their clearance processing capabilities.  It is particularly timely, since many small cleared defense contractors have not yet purchased electronic fingerprint capture equipment needed by December 2013 to implement the Secure Web Fingerprint Transmission (SWFT) system as required by the Department of Defense for security clearance processing.

No Comments »

Security clearance reciprocity, adjudication timeliness and leveraging technology to increase efficiency were all topics addressed at this week’s Security Clearance Reform hearing on Capitol Hill. Senator Daniel Akaka, Chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on oversight of government management and the federal workforce, questioned a panel of government leaders on the progress of clearance reforms.

The general consensus was that much progress has been made over the course of the past several years, in moving the security clearance process off of the GAO hot seat and into a position to be, in some ways, a model for similar reform efforts in standardizing government processes. But despite the forward movement, much remains to be done, specifically in the area of reciprocity and communication across agencies.

The Performance Accountability Council (PAC) is responsible for many of the clearance reforms today’s applicants will note, including updating the security clearance application (SF-86) and instituting quality metrics. Today, initial investigations take an average of 44 days, compared to 189 days in 2005, noted Akaka.

Remarks from Gene Dodoro, comptroller general at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, emphasized the progress in security clearance reform as indicated by the removal of the program from the GAO’s high-risk list. Despite forward movement, however, he also emphasized that continued leadership emphasis and public attention would be needed to ensure reform efforts continue.

Dodoro specifically noted the need to reduce redundancy, leverage technology, and conduct an honest assessment of which positions require clearances and what level of clearance is required. “There’s a huge difference in the amount of money that’s used to implement a top secret versus a secret clearance,” Dodoro said.

“For fiscal year 2012 OPM’s standard base prices are $4,005 for an initial investigation of a top secret clearance, $2,711 for an investigation to renew a top secret clearance, and either $228 or $260 for an investigation for a secret clearance. As we reported in February 2012, these base prices can increase if triggered by the circumstances of a case, such as issues related to credit or criminal history checks,” noted Dodoro’s testimony. “Further, the cost of getting and maintaining a top secret clearance for 10 years is almost 30 times greater than the cost of getting and maintaining a secret clearance for the same period.”

Dodoro urged that requesting a lower level clearance when a higher one isn’t needed, as well as evaluating continued need for higher level clearances during periodic reinvestigations would likely result in significant savings for the federal government.

________

Other testimony largely focused on the issue of reciprocity, and leveraging technology to facilitate timely adjudication for personnel, which is deemed both critical to safeguarding classified materials as well as ensuring a quality workforce.

“A timely process is important because delays in processing security clearances can cause delays in placing qualified individuals in the cleared positions that are needed to accomplish our many missions,” said Elizabeth McGrath, deputy chief management officer, U.S. Department of Defense. “In some cases delays may result in highly qualified applicants withdrawing themselves from consideration for positions and the government losing out on these potential key contributors to our workforce.”

When it comes to clearance reciprocity, McGrath made the case for DoD’s Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS), initially developed by the Army and now in use across the Department of Defense as well as the Department of Energy. McGrath noted that the Social Security administration was set to deploy cats in FY 2013. The CATS e-adjudication capability as greatly reduced the amount of manual processing required, said McGrath.

Merton Miller, associate director of the federal investigative service of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) noted that Electronic Questionnaires for Security Clearance Processing (eQIP) is the “gold standard” for electronic application throughout the federal government and has made a significant impact on clearance processing times and accuracy. OPM currently receives over 99 percent of its applications through e-QIP, Miller noted.

Overall, future clearance reform will focus both on leveraging technology to increase agency reciprocity programs, as well as continued emphasis on the topic of overclassification – both in terms of classified materials themselves, as well as the numbers of cleared personnel.

78 Comments »

As the person who reviews the comments posted to articles at ClearanceJobs.com, I can tell you the clearance process produces a lot of questions. Despite efforts to make the security clearance application (SF-86) more understandable, oftentimes questions remain as to what to include – and what not to.

It seems Steve Jobs had the same problem.

Documents related to Jobs’ security clearance continue to be released by Wired, who requested them through a Freedom of Information Act request. (Some have been surprised to learn that SF86 information has been deemed publicly releasable, and wonder if the same would hold true for the average citizen).

Wired reported that Jobs had not included a 1975 arrest for a traffic infraction on his Personnel Security Questionnaire. When investigators found the arrest and interviewed Jobs, he said he hadn’t included it because he didn’t consider the minor incident an “actual arrest.”

Like other security clearance applicants who face a difficult clearance process, Jobs had to provide a written response to clearance concerns. In it he outlined his occasional drug use and purchase of drugs, the traffic infraction, and even how he constructed a Blue Box device at the age of 14, which was capable of making long-distance phone calls.

The Jobs security clearance files point to both how complex the security clearance process can be as well as how critical it is to be completely forthcoming on any illegal activity. Most issues – from drug use to criminal conduct – can be mitigated over time. But failing to include such details on your SF-86 will cause investigators to question your honesty, not your memory.

If you can’t remember how often you used drugs or if you don’t know if that run in with police at a bar in college was really an “arrest” air on the side of inclusion, rather than leaving it out. Then take the time to explain the incident in question.

Also keep in mind that if your behavior was particularly egregious, you’ll want to bring in a few character statements from those who can confirm you’ve changed your ways.

Jobs eventually got his top secret security clearance.

29 Comments »