Security Clearance Jobs Blog

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 »

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 »

Tradeshows are always a great opportunity for the team at ClearanceJobs.com to make new friends, and occasionally hear a few great stories. We were at the SPIE Defense, Security and Sensing Conference last week, where a young man came to our booth and said that while he didn’t personally have a security clearance, he had so many friends in the S&T community that he’d been asked to do more security clearance interviews than he could count (and for the record, his friends owe him a lot of rounds at the bar for doing so).

He specifically relayed the story about the interview he’d done for a college roommate, who he told the interviewer he didn’t see a lot of “because he spent a lot of time alone in his room with his girlfriend.”

The interviewer pressed him – “What were they doing in there?”

He replied, “Um, you know, they spent a lot of time in their room doing things young couples do.”

“What do you mean?” Asked the interviewer.

Still having some concern for his roommate and his girlfriend’s privacy, the man said he continued to respond in generalities, and insinuations, hoping he wasn’t going to have to put two and two together for this lady. But innuendo doesn’t read well in a security clearance investigation and the man said he was eventually forced to reveal that his college roommate and his girlfriend happened to spend the bulk of their time in his roomate’s bedroom, making love.

It was one of the funniest security clearance interview stories I’ve heard, but it puts me in the mood for others – what’s the most hilarious, embarrassing or interesting security clearance interview story you’ve heard or been a part of? Feel free to respond anonymously, and please keep the names of your love-making college roommates anonymous, as well.

27 Comments »

Due to backlog in the screening process, the TSA is allowing some personnel to be hired prior to the standard background check and security assessment.

WSB-TV in Atlanta received a copy of an internal memo from airline officials, which outlined the Transportation Security Administration directive to employers and contractors at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

TSA sources told WSB-TV that the backlog was caused by a computer glitch which kept clearance information from being sent to the TSA for processing.

“To allow for a continuity of operations, TSA has provided airports and airlines with interim regulatory relief,” TSA spokesman Jon Allen said in a statement. “At no time was security at risk, and all new employees will still undergo identity verification and be subject to watch list matching.”

Lawmakers are allegedly outraged, with several expressing concern that individuals could be hired and given access to airport facilities without having an appropriate background check.

While almost all TSA positions list security clearance eligibility as a requirement, only supervisors and headquarters managers are processed for higher-level secret security clearances. In 2010, the TSA announced it would be requiring security clearances for all supervisors, increasing the number of cleared TSA personnel from roughly 774 to over 10,000.

43 Comments »

The General Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report on the cost of “Background Investigations” (GAO-12-197) conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  The first sentence of the report declared:

OPM’s reported costs to conduct background investigations increased by almost 79 percent, from about $602 million in fiscal year 2005 to almost $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2011 (in fiscal year 2011 dollars).

The news media chose to publish articles that focused on the overall increase in the amount spent on background investigations, rather than the actual increase in the price of various investigative products offered by OPM.  It’s not until you get down to page 47 of the GAO report that you see the weighted average price increase for investigative products only went up 5.1% per year from 2005 to 2012.  2005 and 2006 were transition years for OPM.  In 2005 OPM accepted the transfer of about 1,700 Defense Security Service personnel and the responsibility for all Department of Defense (DOD) background investigations.  During 2004 OPM had conducted a portion of DOD’s background investigations and knew that their existing price structure wouldn’t cover the actual cost of these investigations, so they entering into a special agreement with DOD whereby OPM charged DOD an extra 25% over their standard prices.  The DOD investigations increased OPM’s caseload by 200%.  OPM was able to readjust their prices down a little in 2006.  If you back out the two transition years of 2005 and 2006, OPM increased their average weighted price of investigations about 4% per year during the past five years.  This was a pretty remarkable feat considering that they significantly reduced turnaround time on their investigations during the same period.

It’s a fallacy to ascribe to OPM the increase in the total cost of all investigations, because OPM has no control over the number or types of investigations they are requested to conduct.  GAO also claimed that the total cost of OPM investigations continued to gradually increase from 2005 to 2011, even though the number of investigations conducted by OPM declined about 30% from 2008 to 2011.  But GAO failed to report the types of investigations that OPM had conducted.  When a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) at $4,005 costs about 14 times more than a National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACLC) at $228, an increase in the number of expensive investigations can more than offset a large decease in the total number of cheaper investigations.

GAO doesn’t always get it right, and in my opinion this is one of those times that they got it wrong.  There may very well be cost accounting and lack of transparency problems at OPM, but GAO failed to focus on these issues.

49 Comments »

A Freedom of Information Act release of information about Steve Jobs made following his Oct. 5, 2011 death has unearthed a 191-page FBI file about the enigmatic, sometimes controversial and almost universally admired tech giant.

Among the details in the report is the fact that Jobs held a top secret security clearance from 1988 to 1990. The background investigation was conducted as a part of Jobs’ appointment to President George H.W. Bush’s Export Council. Jobs was the chairman and CEO of Pixar at the time.

Ironically, the information included in the investigation mirrors some of the challenges faced by investigators today – past drug use, a series of legal actions requiring research and investigative hours and conflicting reports from colleagues and associates concerning Jobs’ personal character and personality.

Issues of dishonesty and lack of integrity were mentioned, although even most critics said they would recommend Jobs to a position of public trust. Several mentioned that Jobs would distort reality to accomplish his goals, and that while his contributions to the tech industry could not be underscored, his willingness to do whatever it took to obtain them left some colleagues and employees disenfranchised.

Jobs is certainly a special case, perhaps – could an individual whose redeeming qualities were less stellar have obtained the same clearance? Perhaps it all goes back to mitigating circumstances – even in the face of lawsuits, LSD and questionable ethics, Jobs was able to demonstrate a “whole-person” aspect that rounded out the rough spots.

What do you think – if you were investigating Steve Jobs would he have gotten the clearance? What about a candidate today with a similar background, but a less famous name?

21 Comments »

At a military hearing of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of leaking thousands of classified documents to the website Wikileaks, a major issue being presented by the defense team is whether Manning should have had access to sensitive information in the first place.

Described by his defense team as a troubled soldier dealing with gender identity issues, Manning’s attorneys sought to place responsibility on his military chain of command for ignoring signs he shouldn’t have been given access to classified computer systems.

Under cross examination by the defense, federal witnesses have acknowledged failures in procedure that allowed Manning to keep both his security clearance and access to secure facilities despite his exhibiting behavior described as “unstable.”

One issue preventing superiors from taking further action that was cited in the trial was the shortage of intelligence analysts with the knowledge and skills to take Manning’s place.

While gender identity is being cited by the defense as an issue that should have alerted superiors, as the ClearanceJobs.com article “Sexual Behavior and Security Clearances” states, it’s sexual behavior that indicates personality or emotional disorder that’s the problem, not specific sexual behavior itself… Continue Reading »

8 Comments »

In an OPM rule finalized this week, agencies will have to reinvestigate employees in public trust positions every five years. The rule was initially proposed in December of 2009 but has taken two years to implement.

In the review, some criticized the need for or effectiveness of the periodic investigations themselves, as well as the cause. In the decision OPM supported the executive order but established the National Agency Check with Local Agency Check (NACLC) or Periodic Reinvestigation (PRI) as the “investigative product.” The lower cost of these investigations was cited as the reason for their use… Continue Reading »

19 Comments »

Writing a book criticizing the way your organization does its job and writing a critical blog post linking to a classified document on Wikileaks may seem like a good idea, but it has proven a good way to get your security clearance suspended for Peter Van Buren.

Van Buren, a State Department foreign service officer, recently published the book We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, all while still working in the human resources department at the Department of State, and holding a top secret security clearance. Van Buren has been critical of his employer in several interviews and blog postings, including an Aug. 25 post which linked to a 2009 Wikileaks released cable about the sale of military parts to Libyan president Muammar Qadaffi, who was killed this week… Continue Reading »

27 Comments »