Security Clearance Jobs Blog

If you ask around the common perception seems to be that getting a security clearance costs sponsoring companies or agencies a lot of money – this is a case of perception not meshing with reality, however. The cost of investigations is published, with the average cost for OPM investigations at $1,230 per investigation.

The most significant and in many cases difficult to assess cost is in non-productive time while an employer waits for an employee’s clearance to be processed. It’s a key reason why already cleared personnel remain in demand – it’s because they’re easier, and cheaper, to get on the job quickly. That said, as processing time continues to decline even this cost is decreasing.

Read the full article on how much security clearances really cost here.

COMPARE:  Prices of OPM’s investigative products for Fiscal Year 2008.

57 Comments »

Federal prosecutors, the district court judge and a number of others are asking how Army Reserve 2^nd Lt. Scott Allan Bennett was able to obtain a top-secret clearance and work as a defense contractor, despite a 2008 misdemeanor conviction for lying to government officials, the Tampa Bay Online reports.

The story unfolds like something from a television crime drama….or an issue of the Onion satirical newspaper. Over the past five years Bennett has repeatedly lied to government officials, bluffed his way into meetings, offices, and in his current conviction, housing at MacDill Air Force Base.

An Army Reserve spokesman stated that Bennett’s TS/SCI clearance was obtained four months prior to his entrance into the 11^th Psychological Operations Battalion (a somewhat fitting occupation for a man of Bennett’s persuasion). Almost everyone seems to agree that regardless of how it happened, allowing such a person access to sensitive information is risky for a number of reasons.

ClearanceJobs managing director Evan Lesser, quoted in the Tampa Bay Online, says that government agencies need to investigate how Bennett got his clearance, what information he had access to and what he may have done with that information.

“It seems really difficult to believe that he did not have red flags from past behavior,” Lesser said. “Should somebody be concerned about this person? I would say most definitely. He had high level clearance and access to a fair amount of classified information at a very high level. It seems like somebody dropped the ball on this particular person.”

16 Comments »

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

The Defense Security Service (DSS) recent issued its “Stakeholder Report 2011,” summarizing its history and mission and detailing its recent achievements and notable cases. The report includes some statistical data for fiscal year 2010 (page 8). Of interest to most cleared contractor personnel is a brief explanation of “Incident Reports” (page 16) and how they are handled by the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO). An Incident Report is submitted whenever a company Facility Security Officer becomes aware of adverse information concerning a cleared employee. “DISCO receives about 8,000 incident reports a year and typically recommends about 120 interim suspensions a year to the DSS Director.”

13 Comments »

Interim security clearances are critical for many security clearance applicants. Unlike final clearances, which can take months, interim clearances can be processed in as little as a few days. They’re also crucial for agencies who need to fill positions quickly, without waiting months for the security clearance adjudication process.

If you’ve been denied an interim security clearance, don’t assume all hope is lost. Only about 1 percent of final security clearances are denied; the rate is 20 – 30 percent for interim clearances. Often issues that come up in the denial of an interim clearance can be mitigated through the interview and adjudication process.

Read the full article on interim security clearances and tell us your experiences in the comments section.

Comments Off

On December 22, 2010 the Office of Personnel Management announced that in February they will begin a phased implementation of the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) version of the new March 2010 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard Form 86—SF86). A copy of the new SF86 has not yet been posted to the OPM forms site, but was to be distributed to other investigations service providers before the end of December.

The last version (July 2008) of the SF86 was phased in over a period of about 5 months from September 2008 to January 2009.  DOD contractor personnel were among the last to begin using the form.

39 Comments »

On December 21, 2010 Congress passed the 2010 Anti-Border Corruption Act (S. 3243 [Enrolled]) affecting polygraph examinations and periodic reinvestigations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) law enforcement officers (LEO).

The bill made the following findings:

• Since 2003, 129 CBP officials have been arrested on corruption charges
• During 2009, 576 investigations were opened on allegations of improper conduct by CBP officials.
• CBP policy requires all applicants for LEO positions to receive a polygraph examination and a background investigation before being offered employment and a periodic reinvestigation every 5 years.
• In 2009, less than 15 percent of applicants for CBP LEO positions received polygraph examinations.
• As of March 2010, CBP had a backlog of approximately 10,000 periodic reinvestigations.
• Without additional resources, by the end of fiscal year 2010, the backlog of periodic reinvestigations will increase to approximately 19,000.

Without providing any additional funding, the bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that within 2 years all applicants for LEO positions in CBP receive polygraph examinations before being hired and that within 180 days periodic reinvestigations be initiated on CBP LEO personnel as required.

The bill itself is a scant 2 pages, but the report that accompanies the bill is longer and provides background on the corruption problems CBP has encounter due to rapid growth and targeting by Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs).  The report indicates that:

• CBP has stated that they want to administer the [polygraph] exam to all applicants, but they have not been given the resources necessary to accomplish this. Of those applicants who do take a polygraph test, CBP finds 60 percent of them ineligible for employment, primarily due to prior drug use or a criminal history that the applicant had not previously disclosed.
• Mexican DTOs supply illicit narcotics to 230 U.S. cities, and they utilize a broad range of tactics to ensure the successful transport of their narcotics. These tactics include bribery and intimidation of U.S. law enforcement personnel, particularly those charged with securing the border and interdicting contraband.
• DTOs have been attempting to infiltrate [CBP] by sending drug traffickers to take the entrance examination.

4 Comments »

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently announced (FIN 10-08) the new prices of their standard investigative products for Fiscal Year 2011. There was no annual price increase in October 2009. With one exception, the prices of the most common investigations increased 3%. The MBI (Minimum Background Investigation, now renamed the Moderate Risk Background Investigation) increased 20% for priority handling and 27% for standard service. OPM discontinued the Limited Background Investigation (LBI), which was previously used for Public Trust determinations. It also eliminated the PTSBI (Public Trust Special Background Investigation) and the PRIR (Periodic Reinvestigation and Residence Coverage), as well as various special upgrades and updates to standard investigations.

It appears that the new Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI) will replace the Personal Subject Interview (PRSI), a standard component of many investigations. A separate charge for the ESI will be added to the price of the NACLC and ANACI when required by case expansion criteria.

Reimbursable Suitability/Security Investigations (RSI) will continue to be offered (FIN 10-09) for focused investigations needed to resolve issues that fall outside the scope or period of coverage of standard investigations. It is unclear whether the SPIN (Special Interview) will continue to be offered as an option under the RSI. With very few exceptions, federal agencies (including DISCO) pay OPM for these investigations. Here are the new prices that become effective on October 1, 2010:

Related Post: Cost of Security/Suitability Investigations – FY2009

13 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 »

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 »

An article in the Washington Post reported that Altegrity, a privately held Falls Church, VA company that provides security/screening services, will buy Kroll from Marsh & McLennan Cos. for $1.13 billion in cash.

Altegrity was started in 1996 when the federal government privatized the investigative branch of the Office of Personnel Management. The company began with 600 employees and was originally called U.S. Investigations Services. Among its first contract work were security clearance background investigations. It has grown to 8,000 employees across the U.S.

Altegrity does a range of contract work, mostly for the federal government, including security clearance investigations for the U.S. government and training and consulting for police departments in such places as Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq and Pakistan.

Kroll performs corporate investigations and security business and has 3,000 employees in 55 cities around the world.  The deal for Kroll is expected to close in September.  Altegrity’s CEO served as Kroll’s CEO from 2001 to 2004.  The deal is expected to allow Altegrity to better compete against defense contractors on government service contracts.

Related articles:  Investigators Consider Using Smartphones | USIS Hiring 200 Investigators

11 Comments »

Over the past two years, ClearanceJobsBlog.com has become the only place on the internet where people can ask tough questions about security clearances and get expert answers. Our staff and regular contributors have taken the time to answer even the most complex questions and give people peace of mind and assistance for an inherently confusing topic. We greatly appreciate all of the input.

This premium service is offered to you at only $65 per question and answer.

Due to popular demand and our rapid growth, we are launching a new private security clearance question and answer service. This will help ensure your critical questions get answers. Our new service grants the following:

• Complete privacy – your questions answered out of public view
• Priority service – your questions get answered first, before our blog and with no delays
• Complete answers – your questions receive detailed answers with references and links where applicable
• Guaranteed answers - your questions are guaranteed to be answered

Your questions will be answered by our resident expert, William H. Henderson, author of The Security Clearance Manual.  Mr. Henderson is a retired federal investigator who worked as a field agent and supervisor for the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) and its successor organizations, the Defense Security Service (DSS) and the Federal Investigative Services Division of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for over 20 years.

This premium service is offered to you at only $65 per question and answer.

Instructions:

1. Email your question to clearancehelp@clearancejobs.com
2. Include full contact details including your name, address, and phone number
3. Ensure your question is fully detailed – the more information the better
4. Cost is $65 per question and answer.
5. You will receive an email receipt and questions will be subsequently answered.
6. Questions will be answered from the email address provided.
7. Click the Buy Now button link below to proceed with payment.

5 Comments »

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently released an undated presentation entitled, The Security Clearance and Investigation Process. Included in the presentation are the following data:

The fastest 90% of the initial security clearance investigations were completed in an average of 41 days (70 days for Top Secret and 36 days for Secret/Confidential).

For Fiscal Year 2005 OPM reported conducted 31,300 Public Trust Investigations (Background Investigations—BI, Limited Background Investigations—LBI, and Minimum Background Investigations—MBI) and 142,354 Suitability Investigations (National Agency Check with Inquires—NACI). These numbers increased in FY07 to about 47,000 and 284,500 (respectively). The FY09 figures show a dramatic increase in Public Trust investigations. The rise and fall of NACIs from FY05 to FY09 may have been caused by a large surge of investigations for HSPD-12 PIV cards. The category of “Other” primarily covers NACs (National Agency Check) and SACs (Special Agreement Check). SACs are usually a single records check, such as an FBI fingerprint check, military personnel records check, credit check, etc., used for pre-screening candidates, resolving individual security/suitability issues, or fulfilling other federal agency mission related objectives that don’t require a standard security or suitability investigation.

6 Comments »

Once again the news media got it wrong. Referring to the Report of the DoD Independent Review Related to Fort Hood (Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood), an Associated Press article, claimed:

“Their investigation also found his top-level security clearance hadn’t been properly investigated.”

A WashingtonPost.com article stated:

“The report also said that Hasan was granted a top-level security clearance in February 2008 but that his background check did not include interviews with co-workers, supervisors or Hasan himself.”

The DoD report actually stated:

“[Hasan] held an active and current SECRET security clearance based on a February 2008 National Agency Check with Local Agency and Credit Check of [sic] background investigation. Although accomplished in accordance with current guidelines, this background investigation did not include a subject interview or interviews with coworkers, supervisors, or expanded character references.”

A Secret clearance can hardly be characterized as a “top-level security clearance,” and if it was “accomplished in accordance with current guidelines” it was incorrect to claim that it “hadn’t been properly investigated.” A standard NACLC has the narrowest scope of any security clearance investigation and does not include a Subject Interview or any reference interviews. It simply isn’t capable of surfacing the type of information that might have made a difference in Hasan’s case.

The DoD report went on to criticize the adequacy of the NACLC for Secret clearances, the vagueness of the Adjudicative Guidelines, and insufficient training on how and to whom significant information is reported. However, the DoD report did not cite any specific examples of vagueness in the guidelines or insufficiency in training. Army Regulation 380-67, “Personnel Security Program” states, “the supervisor must ensure that all relevant information is reported to the local command security official responsible for processing the investigative paperwork.” It also states, “Coworkers have an equal obligation to advise their supervisor or appropriate security official when they become aware of information with potentially serious security significance regarding someone with access to classified information or employed in a sensitive position.” Guideline A of the Adjudicative Guidelines appears equally clear and unambiguous about the issue of loyalty and allegiance.

13 Comments »

“Failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process” is one of the most common reasons for the denial or revocation of security clearances.

Of the approximately 1,300 security clearance cases decided by Administrative Judges of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) during fiscal year 2008, Personal Conduct was the second most frequently cited issue and appeared in 497 (38%) of the cases. It was almost always cited due to applicants concealing information related to one of the other issues, such as criminal conduct, drug involvement, and alcohol consumption.

In recent years the misrepresentation of educational qualifications has gained increased importance in security clearance investigations and adjudication. Previously educational degrees were merely verified. Today the bona fides of questionable post-secondary schools are being scrutinized.

Unfortunately in many falsification cases, the information the applicant tried to conceal would not have resulted in a clearance denial…read more.

3 Comments »