Security Clearance Jobs Blog

In case any of you security-cleared professionals needed a reminder: beware of bikini-clad avatars of good-looking women. Wired.com’s Danger Room reports of a social media user touting herself as a rocket scientist/defense expert and connecting with professionals across the security sector. With multiple social media accounts and a suspicious professional background it appears she may have been after more than just friends.

It’s a solid reminder that while there are many benefits to social media, everyone, and especially those in the national security business, needs to exercise a fair share of caution online.

It’s not the first time intelligence professionals have been in trouble for making poor choices online. Thomas Ryan, co-founder of Provide Security, made headlines last summer after revealing that a profile he’d created of a so-called cyber geek was really a fake. Robin Sage was her name, and she made over 300 connections online. Ryan retold the story at a recent event at the International Spy Museum entitled “Whose Watching Whom: Spying and Social Media.”

At the event Ryan outlined several tips for those looking to interact online, including suggesting separate accounts for personal and professional interactions as well as the simple need to be more vigilant in interacting online. Other recommendations include not posting personal information and while it shouldn’t need to be said, never share classified or sensitive information online.

It’s a reminder we take to heart at ClearanceJobs, and why we think it’s so important for cleared job seekers to be able to visit a secure, password protected site with vetted employers. When you visit ClearanceJobs you’re not just visiting another online network, you’re visiting a trusted network, who knows how important online security – and avoiding bikini clad avatars – are to the cleared community.

Comments Off

On November 16, 2010 the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and representatives from the Department of Defense (DOD), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided updated information on security clearance reform at a hearing before a Senate subcommittee,

The DNI stated that during the 4^th quarter of FY 2010 the government-wide average processing time for the fastest 90% of initial security clearances was 53 days (42 days for investigations and 11 days for adjudication).  It is anticipated that the new Federal Investigative Standards (originally approved in December 2008, but never implemented) will be expanded from a 3-tier to a 5-tier structure.  A date was not given for when the revised standards would be finalized.

DOD, which issues nearly 90% of all initial security clearances, reported average completion times for the fastest 90% of initial DOD security clearances of 47 days for investigations and 9 days for adjudications during the 4^th quarter of FY 2010.

OPM, which conducts 90% of all clearance investigations and services DOD and 11 other federal agencies, reported that its Federal Investigative Services Division currently has a combined federal and contractor staff of 9,100 investigators and support personnel.  A new revised Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86), which was approved by OMB in March 2010, is scheduled to be implemented in December 2010.  Currently 98% of SF86 submissions are received via the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP).  OPM provided the following data for initial security clearance investigations:

	FY 2007	FY 2008	FY 2009	FY 2010	IRTPA Goal 12/2009
Total Completed	695,513	709,402	645,924	623,454
Average time For 90%	115 days	64 days	41 days	39 days	40 days
Average Time for All	153 days	81 days	49 days	47 days

Note:  Apparently not included in DNI, DOD, or OPM data, is the 14 days allocated for “initiation time”—the time in days from the date of SF86 submission by the applicant to the receipt date of all information/forms required to conduct an investigation by the investigative service provider.

40 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 »

In September 2009 representatives of OMB, OPM, ODNI, and DOD testified before the Senate subcommittee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs regarding security clearance reform. (See 16 Sep 2009 blog topic “Congressional Hearing On Security Clearance Reform.”) Post-Hearing Questions (and answers) for the record were recently published as an appendix to the hearing report.

One of the most interesting questions concerned the number of cases returned to OPM by DOD due to incompleteness. Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper’s response on page 93 was illuminating:

In FY 2008, the Department returned approximately 188,483 cases and in FY 2009, the Department returned approximately 129,558 cases. Some cases are returned to OPM due to incompleteness or because they were missing critical expansion of developed issues. Other cases are returned or requested to be reopened because the subject of the case was deployed and could not be reached to complete the subject interview. However, in many instances where investigations received from OPM lack investigative scope items or other necessary information, adjudicators contact the subject or agencies themselves to obtain missing information in order to avoid timeliness delays or to avoid incurring additional costs. The Department does not currently have a means to track those cases.

In FY 2008, the Department was charged approximately $86,303,826 and in FY 2009, $63,104,471 for cases returned to OPM due to incompleteness or with requests for additional information.

Here is OPM Director John Berry’s response on page 90 to a slightly different question:

During FY 2009 of the 2,157,531 investigations closed, 1721 (.08 percent) were reopened due to quality concerns. Of the 1721 investigations reopened, 1362 (79 percent) were conducted by contractors, and 359 (21 percent) by Federal employees. The quality reopen percentages rates trend very closely to the actual workload distribution between contractor and Federal staff.

Clapper’s response addressed only DOD security clearance investigations, which totaled about 650,000 in FY 2009. Berry’s response included all agencies and all types of investigations, including single agency checks. Even if the majority of the cases returned by DOD to OPM were because the subject of the case was deployed, it’s still very difficult to reconcile DOD’s 20% return rate with OPM’s .08% “quality” reopen rate. And in how many cases did DOD adjudicators obtain information by themselves that should have been in the report of investigation?

23 Comments »

When your job responsibilities include overseeing nearly $1 billion in research for the Missile Defense Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and other intelligence agencies, the chances are you’re going to need security clearance to get a peek inside.

The Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins University is overseen by the University’s President, Ronald Daniels, who is Canadian.

The article in the Baltimore Sun went on to say that the University had to use some creative thinking to keep the Lab’s government funding; with the creation of a Limited Liability Corp. (LLC) and the university’s board of trustees chairman overseeing the Lab.

Related Article:  Foreign Influence and Security Clearances

Comments Off

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 »

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

96 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 »

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 »

In January the Smith Amendment was repealed and replaced by Bond Amendment prohibiting all federal agencies from granting or renewing any security clearance for a current user of illegal drugs…

February, President Bush issued a memorandum to all executive branch departments and agencies directing that DoD, DNI, OPM, OMB and assistant to the President for National Security Affairs submit a proposal by April 30, 2008 to modernize, standardize, and integrate comprehensive credentialing, security clearance, and suitability processes...

During the month of March, Congress sent a request to the GAO asking for a formal evaluation of Intelligence Community security clearance processes and the DNI’s pilot project for security clearance reform…

The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) and the National Defense Industrial Association surveyed more than 100 contractors that provide security-cleared labor to federal agencies in April.  The companies identified several complaints about the current clearance system. An article in the Washington Business Journal on April 25, 2008 reported information from a survey…read the entire year in review.

Comments Off

107 Comments »

An article posted on ClearanceJobs.com on 26 Jan 09 focuses on the relevance and effect of criminal conduct on security clearances.

The Adjudicative Guidelines states that Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.

Because of the high rate of adult recidivism, this issue is perhaps one of the best predictors of future compliance with rules for handling classified information.

---

The Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard Form 86 – SF86) asks if an applicant has ever been charged with a felony offense or any offense involving alcohol, drugs, firearms or explosives. It also asks if an applicant:

1) has been arrested within the past 7 years (10 years for Top Secret clearance),
2) has been subject to court martial or other military disciplinary proceedings, or
3) is currently pending some court action for a criminal charge or offense.

Criminal offenses are divided into three categories: infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies. For security clearance purposes, an infraction is…read more.

Comments Off