Security Clearance Jobs Blog

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 »

On June 3, 2011 the Defense Security Service (DSS) posted “A Quick Reference Guide for the Newly Updated Standard Form 86” (QRG). “This QRG contains detailed field descriptions, step-by-step instructions, and a link to a printable form to help you determine what information you need to gather.” Unfortunately the printable form (July 2008 version) has not yet been updated to the March 2010 version.

This QRG provides 15 pages of detailed instructions for completing the SF86—much more comprehensive than anything previously published by DSS or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). There are several errors and discrepancies in the QRG when compared to the internal instructions in the SF86 posted at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Reginfo.gov website.  For example the QRG indicates that only 7 years of residence information is needed for NACLC/Secret; whereas the OMB version indicates that 10 years of information is needed and make no distinction between NACLC/Secret and SSBI/Top Secret. There are also “years of coverage” discrepancies for the sections on “Where You Went to School” and “Employment Activities.” The section on “Use of Alcohol” leads off with “This section requires you to provide information regarding your illegal use of drugs. . . .” The section on “Relatives” indicates that a yes or no response is possible, and if a no response is selected the program will skip over this section and proceed to the next section.

Despite the errors, DSS should be applauded for creating the QRG. Hopefully within the weeks to come, they will correct these problems and expand on what they have already provided.

A sorely needed new capability to transmit attachments by scanning and uploading or by faxing has apparently been added to the SF86 e-QIP. This will enable to applicants to submit supporting documents directly to the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office or other Government security office.

51 Comments »

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

There’s no doubt that 10 years of persistent conflict have had a profound impact on the lives of those serving in the military. For years stigma surrounding mental health made service members hesitant to seek help. But with so many coming home alive – but with the unseen scars of post-traumatic-stress – the need to reduce the stigma of seeking counseling or assistance became a key concern for military leaders. One of the steps taken to help encourage service members to get the help they needed was adjusting the guidelines surrounding question 21 of the National Security Clearance Questionnaire, SF-86. Question 21 asks applicants to list mental and emotional health counseling, but was adjusted to eliminate the need to list combat-related counseling.

Now service members who have endured sexual trauma are calling on officials to update the policy to keep victims from having to disclose the sensitive and painful details surrounding a sexual assault, reports Military Times:

Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said sexual trauma counseling received in the previous seven years indeed must be reported, but it should not hurt a career. “It is highly unlikely that any mental health counseling, in and of itself, would result in the denial or revocation of a clearance,” she said.

Smith did not address the issue of privacy; she stressed this was not a Defense Department policy, but one that applies throughout the federal government.

For sexual assault victims, the requirement to report counseling is especially galling because the government decided in 2008 that service members receiving mental health counseling for combat-related mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress, do not have to report their treatment.

The security clearance process is intrusive – and designed to be so. But the heart of the issue is whether victims should be forced to open up old wounds as a part of their clearance process, and whether it’s really critical to the investigation (as officials already determined combat-related counseling not to be).

54 Comments »

If you’re like me, you can find the security clearance process a little, shall we say, obtuse. (Case in point, I worked at the Pentagon for 6 months before they realized my secret clearance hadn’t been processed at my last duty station and I had to completely resubmit my paperwork. Opps).

So called “foreign entanglements” can be one of those obtuse areas – how much “outside activity” is too much, and what level of engagement abroad is enough to compromise your chances of obtaining a security clearance? Chances are you know to cancel that family vacation to North Korea, but what about those business trips to China?

Read the latest article at ClearanceJobs.com to find out how activities abroad may affect your security clearance and what mitigating factors will be considered: Could Activities Abroad Affect Your Security Clearance?

Have an example of activity abroad and how it affected your security clearance? Tell your story in the comments section.

Comments Off

DOD News Release on Security Clearances:

“The Department of Defense (DoD) released information today [February 25, 2011] about improvements made to the personnel security clearance process.  Over the past four years, the DoD has worked with the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management to streamline processes, make changes to policies, introduce extensive information technology improvements, and eliminate a backlog of approximately 100,000 pending cases.  These improvements led to a 72 percent reduction in the time it takes to process an individual’s security clearance – from an average of 165 days in 2006 to 47 days today….”

“The Department of Defense was steadfast in its commitment to substantially improve performance in this area,” said Deputy Chief Management Officer Elizabeth McGrath.  “Not only because of the personal inconvenience experienced by individuals when navigating the clearance process, but also because delays in processing security clearances can cause delays in placing highly-qualified individuals in the cleared positions that need them. . . .”

63 Comments »

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 »

A monograph on “Debt and Home Foreclosures: Their Effect on National Security Clearances” by Sheldon I. Cohen, a prominent Washington D.C. area attorney specializing in national security clearance, was recently posted at his website. Cohen reviewed 62 case decisions by Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judges between 2006 and 2010 involving foreclosures and short sales. He also reviewed 71 DOHA Appeal Board cases involving Guideline F: Financial Considerations. Regarding 22 case decisions that resulted in the granting of security clearances, Cohen stated:

“The common thread in all of these cases is that: (1) applicants were victims of circumstances not of their own doing; (2) they had not been speculators in the housing market who were caught when the bubble burst; (3) they had not succumbed to fraudulent schemes “too good to be true” as a result of their own greed; and (4) they had made good faith efforts to meet their other debts after the loss of their homes by foreclosure or short sale.”

This monograph is probably the only document on the internet that analyzes written case decisions on this subject. A further analysis of the cases reviewed by Cohen might produce some distinctions between outcomes of cases involving foreclosures versus short sales.

Full 37 page study [pdf] – Debt and Home Foreclosures: Their Effect on National Security Clearances

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 »

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 »

A June 15, 2010 article, “Buzz on lie detectors is a lie, NSA video says,” at WashingtonPost.com reported on a new 10-minute video about polygraph tests posted at the Defense Security Service’s (DSS) training website. “The Truth About the Polygraph” is reported to be a video produced by the National Security Agency (NSA) designed to reduce the anxiety applicants feel about the examination.

The DSS Academy website provides the following comments regarding the video. An accompanying 2-page brochure is also available:

Many positions of trust with the U.S. Government require candidates to undergo a polygraph examination. This video, aimed at either current or prospective employees, provides an overview of the process that may be encountered when a polygraph examination is required for employment or access to sensitive information.

Neither the DSS Academy website nor the video itself provided any information about the production of the video.

It’s difficult to make any general statements about the manner in which polygraph tests for security clearance applicant screening are conducted. Although, all federal polygraph examiners are trained at the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment—DACA (formerly known as the DOD Polygraph Institute); examiners develop their own individual style that’s usually influenced by their organization’s culture.

Truth About the Polygraph Brochure [pdf] | The Truth About the Polygraph [flash video]

3 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 »

At first, it looked like 62 workers at Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)’s military payroll accounting facility in Cleveland, Ohio would lose their jobs due to credit problems. In the past, other DFAS workers in Columbus and Indianapolis had lost jobs because of credit issues.  The Cleveland facility processes pay for active Navy personnel, military retirees, and government officials, including the President.

After some lobbying by local members of Congress, an article in The Plain Dealer explains what happened next…

“The Defense Finance and Accounting Service has agreed to suspend a controversial policy of firing workers for credit reasons while it reviews whether it was necessary to upgrade their security clearances in 2005. The announcement gives a temporary reprieve to 47 workers who were about to lose their jobs.”

“DFAS spokesman Tom LaRock said that since 2001, 54 employees from all DFAS offices have been terminated for not being able to obtain a favorable background clearance…All DFAS positions are classified as sensitive, LaRock said. Because they process people’s pay, employees have access to social security numbers, bank accounts and other sensitive information, he said.”

“It is not top secret or confidential,” he said. “It is considered a background clearance.”

2 Comments »

In February 2010 the U.S. House of Representatives passed their version (HR 2701) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.  The Senate passed their version (S.1494) in September 2009.  Hopefully the two versions will be reconciled, passed by Congress, and sent to the President.

The House version creates an Ombudsman for Intelligence Community (IC) security clearances in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and requires each IC agency to provide contact information for the ombudsman to all clearance applicants.

The House version also requires the President to submit to Congress within 180 days of enactment a report that includes the feasibility, counterintelligence risk, and cost effectiveness of –

• by not later than January 1, 2012, requiring the investigation and adjudication of security clearances to be conducted by not more than two Federal agencies; and

• by not later than January 1, 2015, requiring the investigation and adjudication of security clearance to be conducted by not more than one Federal agency.

Both the creation of an ombudsman for IC clearances and a formal study on reducing the number of investigative and adjudicative agencies seem like excellent ideas.  Both could result in improving clearance reciprocity.  The last time an Intelligence Authorization Act became law was in December 2004.  The ones since then have either died in Congress or been successfully vetoed.  So, this may not be the best vehicle to further these two ideas.

8 Comments »