Security Clearance Jobs Blog

Earlier today I wrote about the case of Mahmoud Hegab, a Virginia man who sued the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and its Director for revoking his top secret clearance.

The agency maintains it had significant concerns about his clearance, such as his

• recent residence in, and dual citizenship with, Egypt;
• extensive contact with foreign nationals, many living outside the U.S.; and
• his holding of an Egyptian passport that would require contact with Egyptian officials to renounce his citizenship and turn in his passport, thus increasing the potential he would be monitored by foreign intelligence services, etc.

But after his marriage to Bushra Nusairat, a graduate of the Islamic Saudi Academy, it seems their fears heightened.   The Islamic Saudi Academy is located in Fairfax County, Va. and is funded by the Saudi government-funded.  (You can read more about her activities that raised eyebrows with the agency here.)

Certainly, everyone has the right to freedoms of religion, expression, and association.  But no one has the right to a security clearance.  (Something with which Mr. Hegab states he agrees.)  The court declined to rule on the merits of his constitutional claims and instead deferred to the executive branch’s discretion over such matters.  Long and short: it’s a separation of powers issue.

While the court never touched the merits of the issue, I invite you to in the comments section.  Is Mr. Hegab’s question of lawfulness a legitimate one?  (And you need not be a civil rights litigator to post a comment.)

2 Comments »

Do you have a Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS SCI) clearance?  According to Wanted Analytics, this high-level distinction is one of the top five most advertised certifications/clearances nationally and ranks #1 for information technology jobs.

In terms of what jobs and where, if you have a TS SCI let’s hope you love IT and the West Coast (or Texas).  These factors seem to describe most of the job ads out there.

Read more here.

Most Commonly Advertised Job Titles for TS SCI Clearance:

1.  Software Engineer

2.  Systems Engineer

3.  Systems Administrator

4.  Senior Systems Engineer

5.  Network Engineer

6.  Social Scientist Human Terrain

7.  Senior Software Engineer

8.  Program Manager

9.  Technical Lead

10.  Senior Network Engineer

1 Comment »

Today, clearance veteran William Loveridge offered his insights for tackling the legendary “Standard Form 86” (SF-86)/”electronic Questionnaire for Investigation Processing” (eQIP).  Among his recommendations?

- Certain things you know are required, so start gathering the info in advance, such as: Employment history Address history Current copy of your credit report

- Be sure to familiarize yourself with accessing the eQIP website – it will fast become your friend.

- Sometimes you can ballpark dates, sometimes specifics are required. Loveridge will guide you on when you can use both.

- Generally, no single answer will be determinative of your clearance evaluation, so don’t be afraid to (indeed, be sure to) mention that DUI from a few years ago. Honesty is the best policy.

Oh, and you know how they always suggest printing a copy for your records?  DO IT.  Although the eQIP system is built to retain the info forever, poor Bill found out the hard way mistakes can happen.

Read more about completing your SF-86 here.

19 Comments »

If you’re applying for a security clearance and wonder how questions surrounding drug and alcohol use will affect your final decision, the answer is: It depends.

Not all forms of drug and alcohol use are the equal for purposes of a security clearance.   Generally, these behavioral instances aren’t necessarily a per se disqualification; however, they may be indicative of other unbecoming conduct. For example, drug and/or alcohol use are often coupled with other behavioral issues, whether it be criminal (DUI, theft, assault) or non-criminal (defaulting on debts, excessive spending).

In the end, the decision is more nuanced, and various factors surrounding the instance of drug and alcohol use will help to inform the final outcome.  Clear decisions on the individual’s clearance eligibility or employment suitability are often very difficult.

Read more here.

6 Comments »

The Justice Department came under fire earlier this year for failing to check references for law enforcement hires. A report released by the agency’s inspector general found that background checks and security clearance investigations were considered by some to be a replacement for standard workplace reference checks.

Job seekers often mistake an agency’s employment suitability process for the security clearance process. It’s no surprise that hiring managers, especially in federal offices facing staffing shortages, would look for opportunities to shorten what can often be a lengthy government hiring process. But whether or not a security clearance could replace reference checks depends upon what a reference check is used for. Although it can be argued whether or not a security clearance establishes character, it should establish a baseline of credibility an trustworthiness. What it doesn’t determine, as the Justice Department IG report notes, is competence and qualifications for a specific position.

Read more here.

32 Comments »

An 0p-ed in the Washington Post by former deputy secretary of defense and chairman of the Defense Policy Board John Hamre calls the current security clearance process pathetic.

Hamre relayed the process he had to go through for his recent top secret security clearance renewal. For unclear reasons he had to re-submit his electronic SF-86. While this itself was an annoyance, it seemed to be the security clearance interview that sent Hamre over the edge in his frustration with the process.

A security clearance investigator requested a two-hour interview which included a line-by-line Q and A concerning the responses in Hamre’s SF-86. As a system for rooting out spies, Hamre deemed the point-by-point confirmation of his previously submitted document to be systemic of a flawed system:

I once served on the board of a major company that collected computer records and provided knowledge services (for example, credit reports) and customer verification services to the insurance industry. The company could detect fraud in more than 99 percent of cases by asking a potential claimant five questions along the lines of: “Did you live at 123 Maple Ave., 345 Apple Ave. or 456 Oak Ave.?” “At 123 Maple Ave., did your house have two bathrooms, two and a half, or four?” “Did the house at 345 Apple Ave. have one fireplace, two or none?”

It needed only five such questions. Why, then, does OPM have workers reading applicants the forms that the applicants themselves have filled out, then asking whether this is the truth?

Hamre isn’t the only one calling for security clearance reforms. In congressional testimony last year Gene Dodoro with the Government Accountability Office specifically called out the security clearance investigations as an area for cost reform, including downgrading clearance designations or reducing the number of cleared personnel. The cost of a top secret security clearance investigation is significantly more expensive than that of a secret clearance.

And just last month several defense contractors called for more standardization and the use of technology to improve the clearance process.

Clearance reform – it’s definitely not a new topic for the audience here. In the face of budget cuts there’s no question it may be flagged as an area of cost savings. Unfortunately, with sequestration acting as more of a blunt instrument than a fine point, it seems unlikely that clearance reform will achieve the full lifecycle technology advancements the critics seem to be arguing for.

What do you think? Do you agree with the criticism? If so, how would you really improve the system?

110 Comments »

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the state of California against a private company that contracts with the federal government to provide background investigations to OPM for secret and top secret security clearances, along with several of its supervisors. The plaintiff, a security clearance investigator, alleges violations of state labor laws were required in order to perform workplace duties.

The lawsuit alleges that California Labor code was violated by not keeping accurate time records or paying overtime hours for non-exempt employees. The lawsuit also alleges that workers were threatened with termination if they didn’t complete security clearance investigations within company-set timelines, which required working unpaid overtime hours in order to maintain employment.

The defendant in the suit argues that in order to complete the required paperwork and travel, investigators would need to work anywhere from 10-20 hours of overtime in order to finish the work to OPM standard. This included working at home and on weekends.

The lawsuit goes on to make a host of other complaints, from alleging that the plaintiff was fired for complaining about the unfair work standards to alleging that the company didn’t make proper accommodation for disabled/injured employees.

Regardless of what the merits or reality might be in the above-case, it brings to light a topic we see on this blog a lot – the demand for a quicker turn-around time in security clearance investigations, which likely doesn’t fit into the reality of a 40-hour work-week. Recent speculation on this board has been that OPM may bring more investigative and adjudicative roles in-house – the often unpopular ‘insourcing’ within the federal government. By moving more positions in-house OPM gains control, and workers fall under federal labor standards. Whether or not that leads to increased efficiency, I’ll leave to others to debate.

Any opinion on the California lawsuit? Is it common to see security clearance investigators working overtime without compensation, or being threatened with lay-offs if they complain?

153 Comments »

Want to know the value of a security clearance? Ask someone who has had theirs revoked and fails to get it reinstated upon an appeal to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).

While the accuracy of polygraph examinations remains so controversial that they’re inadmissible in most courts, they continue to be a vital part of the security clearance application and review process, especially within intelligence agencies.

Well-known security clearance attorney Sheldon Cohen is drawing attention for his public criticism of their use by DOHA. Specifically Cohen criticizes the use of heavily redacted and anonymous investigation reports. Cohen sites his recent case of a client whose Department of Defense security clearance was revoked after an alleged admission of viewing pornography on a government computer and watching child pornography at home, from a 2008 CIA investigation.

While Cohen’s argument hinges on several separate and legitimate arguments, including Department of Defense Policy against “giving reciprocal effect to other agencies’ adverse clearance determinations” it hints to the continued controversy surrounding security clearance polygraph procedures.

A McClatchy News service expose earlier this year accused the National Reconnaissance Office of failure to adequately track and report criminal behavior disclosed in security clearance polygraph investigations, as well as inconsistencies in interview procedures.

Cohen’s client, who isn’t named, said some of the statements in the CIA investigation were misrepresentations, and he denied other statements. When it comes to security clearance polygraphs, while the interviews are recorded, subjects aren’t allowed a copy of the audio, and only redacted copies of the investigation reports are provided.

At the end of the day, while there are policies and procedures in place for employees, cleared personnel and members of the intelligence community, in particular, do not necessarily have due process under the law. Security clearance due process procedures are outlined for professionals, but in a variety of areas, from polygraph procedures to whistleblower protections, critics remain.

5 Comments »

Do millennials have more difficulty obtaining security clearances than other generations? With debt issues starting earlier and our international world making ‘foreign influence’ more difficult to define, they certainly may have more difficulty filling out their security clearance applications.

A recent article on ClearanceJobs.com offered tips specifically for millennial job seekers filling out their SF-86. From keeping tabs of addresses that may change multiple times a year to ensuring you list a quality reference everywhere it’s required, the devil is in the details.

Failure to fill out a security clearance application accurately may be the biggest issue – regardless of greater instances of debt and foreign influence. Issues can often be mitigated, but failure to accurately report problems isn’t likely to be seen as oversight, but dishonesty.

What do you think – are there generational issues at play making today’s security clearance application more complex?

51 Comments »

The issue of mental health stigma has always surrounded question 21 of Standard Form 86 (SF-86). It’s a fact that few applicants are denied a clearance based on listing mental health counseling on the security clearance form. But experts argue that including the question will prevent some from seeking help in the first place, knowing they’ll need to list any counseling on a future security clearance application or reinvestigation.

On September 4^th, the Department of Defense emphasized its commitment to making the counseling received by victims of sexual assault more private. According to a DoD memo victims of sexual assault must still list any counseling received on their SF-86, but when it comes to using information about that counseling to make a clearance determination, the basis will be a yes or no question directed toward the individuals’ physician – ‘does the applicant have a condition that could impair their judgment or ability to safeguard classified information?’ If the answer is no, no further questions will be asked.

The memo seems to be a face-saving response to critics of requiring victims of sexual assault to answer the question. When similar criticism of mental health counseling stigma for victims of Post-Traumatic-Stress were reported, the Department of Defense in 2008 clarified that service members did not have to report counseling related to combat stress. In contrast, DoD is not excluding sexual assault counseling from reporting requirements, but is emphasizing its commitment to privacy for sexual assault victims.

When it comes to investigating a psychological condition, current practice as it already stands is to simply direct a yes or no question to the mental health practitioner providing the counseling. If the answer of impaired judgment or ability to safeguard information is no, information about the applicant’s condition aren’t released – regardless of the reason for the counseling.

In a recent interview, “Can Counseling Complicate Your Security Clearance?” Evan Lesser, ClearanceJobs founder and managing director, noted that security clearance investigations today are looking at the big picture surrounding an individual’s character and history, and also recognize the increased prevalence of mental health counseling. While counseling may have been an issue in the past, that isn’t the case today.

“They take into account the totality of someone and their actions, their circumstances, how they got there,” Lesser said.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said he’s looking into proposals to amend the SF-86 to remove requirements to report sexual assault related counseling.

When it comes to security clearance adjudication, policy is clear that mental health counseling  in and of itself is not a justification for a clearance denial, regardless of the reason for the counseling. Practically speaking, however, it certainly could prevent an interim clearance.

28 Comments »