Security Clearance Jobs Blog

A contributor at ClearanceJobs.com recently compiled the top 10 reasons for security clearance applications to be rejected at both DISCO and OPM. Failure to pay attention to detail seems to top the list, with issues of missing or incomplete information taking up the majority of the top 20 issues listed.

DISCO - these ten items account for 96% of all DISCO rejections

1. Missing employment information
2. Missing social security number of spouse or adult co-habitant
3. Missing relatives information
4. Missing Selective Service registration information
5. Incomplete information concerning debts or bankruptcy
6. Missing education reference information
7. Missing employment reference information
8. Incomplete explanation of employment record
9. Missing personal reference information
10. Missing explanation of drug usage

OPM - these ten items account for 98% of all OPM rejections

1. Fingerprint cards not submitted within the required timeframe
2. Certification/Release forms information illegible or missing
3. Certification/Release forms not meeting date requirements
4. Discrepancy of place and date of birth information
5. Missing references (character, residential, employment or educational)
6. Discrepancy of e-QIP Request ID Number
7. Missing employment information
8. Certification/Release forms not submitted
9. Missing education information
10. Missing residence information

We shared the article via several of our social sites, and some security officers were quick to point out that while many issues listed seem to make up ‘reasons a security clearance application was returned to the security officer,’ denials typically have much more to do with an employee lying or ‘misremembering’ key information. Either way it’s a good reminder for applicants that they are responsible for every aspect of their application – including whether or not it is filled out completely. A security officer may play a critical role in proofreading documents before they’re sent, but that’s not a guarantee of accuracy.

What issues do the investigators on this site see over and over again, and do you agree that it’s often an employee’s failure to include all of the required information that causes issues?

1 Comment »

On November 20, 2009 the Defense Security Service issued the following policy alert entitled, “Foreign Passport: Disposition Influences Personnel Clearance Eligibility.”

DISCO will not grant or continue a personnel clearance if the clearance applicant or cleared individual possesses a current foreign passport. In instances where the foreign passport is the sole potential disqualifying factor in the personnel clearance adjudication, DISCO will send a Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) message to the Facility Security Officer (FSO) stating that if DISCO receives reliable documentary evidence that the foreign passport has been destroyed, invalidated, or surrendered, DISCO will grant or continue the clearance. The passport holder may surrender the foreign passport to the FSO for safekeeping, but the FSO is not required to perform this service. . . .

Related Articles: Dual Citizenship And Security Clearances, Foreign Influence and Security Clearances

2 Comments »

In their 17 September 2008 written remarks to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management, John Fitzpatrick, Acting Assistant Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Security and Elizabeth McGrath, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Business Transformation reported that eAdjudication of clean cases for Secret clearances will begin at selected adjudication facilities by the end of the year. About 25% of Secret clearances will be eligible for eAdjudication. This should speed up the process by allowing adjudicators to spend their time on more complex cases.

According to the print edition of the Federal Times, McGrath told the subcommittee in follow-up testimony that the Army will begin a pilot eAdjudication program by the end of December and that it will cover Army personnel, civilian employees and contractors. The administration wants eAdjudication to eventually cover all federal agencies.

22 Comments »

In her 17 September 2008 written remarks to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management, Kathy Dillaman, Associate Director Federal Investigative Services Division (FISD), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), provided the following data on investigative elapse times:

After apparently making improvements in investigative turnaround time during FY06 and FY07, OPM’s progress toward the IRTPA December 2009 requirements (90% in 40 days) seems to have stalled.

The numbers don’t paint a true picture of the processing time involve.  For example, the average for 100% of Top Secret initial investigations completed in FY07 was 222 days, and the end-to-end processing time (which includes adjudication) for 80% of all initial investigations completed in FY07 was 106 days.  It’s often difficult to compare OPM’s data from one report to another, because OPM rarely presents their data same way.  For example in May 2008 OPM made a presentation at an ITAA meeting.  In this presentation it was stated that “In Fiscal Year 2007, OPM received 586,569 initial security clearance investigations.  Of these, 80% of the initial security clearance investigations were completed in an average of 67 days (92 days for Top Secret and 63 days for Secret/Confidential).”  So, it’s usually only possible to compare relative changes based on the data within a single report.

58 Comments »

OPM recently announced (FIN 08-04) the prices of their investigative products for Fiscal Year 2009. The costs of the most common investigations increased between 4.5% and 6.1%.

It appears that OPM has managed to improve their turnaround time during the past fiscal year without a significant price increase. The government agencies (including DISCO) sponsoring the clearances pay OPM for the vast majority of these investigations. There are a few exceptions where federal contractors are required to pay OPM for the investigations they request. Here are the new prices that became effective on 1 October 2008.

10 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: All questions are moderated. After you post, it can take up to 24 hours 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.

Please read over previous threads to see if your question has already been answered. Use the Search tool to locate specific keywords.

Â

336 Comments »