Security Clearance Jobs Blog

The idea of a polygraph examination can make even those with the cleanest conscience a bit nervous. Like most looming events, the more you think about it, the worse it can seem (or in fact, turn out to be). The latest Cleared News article at ClearanceJobs.com offers sage advice for those with a polygraph exam in their future. Tips include:

• Don’t ask others who have taken an exam what theirs was like.
• Follow your usual routine before an exam – including that AM cup of coffee, prescription medications, and as your mother would tell you, a nice breakfast (if you usually eat one).
• Don’t believe what someone tells you about sexual related behavior being a standard polygraph question.

Read the full article for all of the tips and information.

Comments Off

On December 30, 2010 the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) released a report on their yearlong study of police cybervetting policy, “Developing a Cybervetting Strategy for Law Enforcement.” The report was a collaborative effort by the IACP and the Defense Personnel Security Research Center (PERSEREC). The report states that:

Using the Internet to gather information concerning job applicants and incumbents is an extension of existing background investigations conducted on persons applying for positions and promotions within law enforcement. The Internet is merely a new source to identify and collect information about people’s behavior.

The report doesn’t provide a “model” or “suggested” policy, but rather guidelines for agencies to develop their own policy based on the needs of their individual departments and the communities they serve. According to a September 2010 IACP survey, 31% of law enforcement agencies are already using cybervetting for law enforcement applicants.

Cybervetting Guidelines are presented at Appendix C of the report. In view of the “Bozeman Blunder” perhaps the most controversial aspect of the recommended guidelines is the provision that:

With the consent of applicants, candidates, and incumbents, law enforcement agencies may review online information about these individuals available on websites, where a subject’s password is required to view content. . . . Applicants, candidates, and incumbents may be asked to access password-protected websites so that the recruiter or background investigator can review their profiles, blogs, or other online forums for disqualifying content. . . . Law enforcement agencies should not ask for passwords.

Additionally a recommended supplemental questionnaire asks for information regarding an applicant’s past and present:

• e-mail addresses
• online screen names, handles, or nicknames (except those used for banking or healthcare).
• websites or blogs where they are members, frequent, or contribute

PERSEREC produced a separate report, “Developing a Cybervetting Strategy for National Security Positions,” in part from the same study, but it will not be available to the public.

42 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 »

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 »

Over at the Newsweek blog, Declassified, Mark Hosenball explored the recent events at Fort Hood and the role the security-clearance procedures played or didn’t play.

According to Wayne Hall, a spokesman at Army HQ at the Pentagon, everyone who receives a commission as a U.S. Army officer has to undergo a security investigation, which qualifies him or her, at a minimum, to handle information classified secret…he said standard practice is that officers normally have to receive their secret clearance before they are formally commissioned, and that sometimes commissions are held up pending the successful conclusion of the security check.  At this point there is no reason to believe that Hasan had anything higher than the standard secret clearance required by all officers at his level.

The background investigation of the shooter will likely come under some scrutiny as the investigations proceed.

7 Comments »

Per this new article on Wired, the CIA is using its relationship with In-Q-Tel to buy into a company called Visible Technologies. Visible Technologies is a software company that specializes in monitoring the social web, including Twitter, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and others.

In-Q-Tel says it wants Visible to keep track of foreign social media, and give spooks “early-warning detection on how issues are playing internationally,” spokesperson Donald Tighe tells Danger Room.

Good idea? We think so. The ability to communicate quickly via social networks is no doubt an attractive prospect to terrorists. By compiling data, seeing trends, and possibly getting early warnings, the U.S. intelligence community is smart to jump into this game early.

2 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 »

A news story from WHNT NEWS in Huntsville, Alabama exposed how people in high positions in the military and missile defense have purchased their degree without spending all the time, energy and money – at a diploma mill, where no classes and no course work are necessary…just cash.

The story focuses on a defense contractor with security clearance and phony degrees.

What’s the harm?

“So here we have a contractor responsible for handling very sensitive information…The person is susceptible to pressure to blackmail to being told that he needs to provide some information or else they’re going to nail him. They’ll make him lose his job and this is a person in a position of great responsibility. It’s really, really frightening” says George Gollin, who worked with the federal government to prosecute diploma mills.

“Any corrupt individual would be harmful to the defense of the United States of America whether it would be this issue or other issues,” said Brigadier General David Grange.

14 Comments »

Worried about being denied a security clearance because of bad credit? Considering a credit repair company to fix your credit report?

In an AARP Bulletin Today Scam Alert article, Credit Repair’s Dirty Business, Steven Baker of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was quoted as saying, “In the last year, we’ve seen an increase of 50 percent in reports of credit repair scams. And to date, we’ve never seen a legitimate credit repair company. False promises, upfront fees, and worthless services may be the norm.

Since 1998 the FTC has brought action against over 50 credit repair firms that allegedly misrepresented their credit-related services. The FTC also prosecuted more than a dozen companies that allegedly offered debt relief but misrepresented the cost or nature of the relief.

Comments Off

An April 10, 2009 article in CQ Politics highlights John Sullivan, who spent three decades as a CIA polygrapher giving polygraph tests to CIA employees.

When he sought a renewal of his CIA security clearance for a post-retirement job – He was turned down.

Sullivan had just written “Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner,” which discusses internal politics of the CIA.

“Today, he says, “I absolutely believe that the last polygraph examination I underwent was an abuse of the process and that those who participated in that process engaged in misconduct.”

I asked him whether CIA polygraphers are grilled on whether they’ve ever abused their powers, either on their own or at the direction of agency higher-ups, during their own lie detector exams.

They are not.”

Comments Off

An April 9, 2009 article in the Washington Post reports that six investigators conducting security-clearance checks for the federal government have been accused of lying to the OPM in the reports they submitted. “The investigators lied about interviews they never conducted because they were overworked, cutting corners, trying to impress their bosses or, in the case of one contractor, seeking to earn more money by racing through the checks.” One investigator admitted he lied in 30 of 67 background investigations. (He’s at least batting under .500)

Since 2007, federal prosecutors have charged six investigators with making false statements. In the past OPM has handled such problems internally, however, OPM wanted to send a message by prosecuting the offenders instead of administrative action and/or firing the employee.

47 Comments »

A March 3, 2009 article in the D.C. Examiner reported that three workers pleaded guilty to “cutting corners on security-sensitive background checks for the federal government.” They failed to perform interviews and fraudulently submitted documents for years and lied to government officials.

As a result, numerous background investigations will be reopened and numerous record checks will have to be redone that were assigned to the three guilty workers.

Press releases from the Department of Justice regarding these cases can be found here and here.

11 Comments »