Security Clearance Jobs Blog

An 0p-ed in the Washington Post by former deputy secretary of defense and chairman of the Defense Policy Board John Hamre calls the current security clearance process pathetic.

Hamre relayed the process he had to go through for his recent top secret security clearance renewal. For unclear reasons he had to re-submit his electronic SF-86. While this itself was an annoyance, it seemed to be the security clearance interview that sent Hamre over the edge in his frustration with the process.

A security clearance investigator requested a two-hour interview which included a line-by-line Q and A concerning the responses in Hamre’s SF-86. As a system for rooting out spies, Hamre deemed the point-by-point confirmation of his previously submitted document to be systemic of a flawed system:

I once served on the board of a major company that collected computer records and provided knowledge services (for example, credit reports) and customer verification services to the insurance industry. The company could detect fraud in more than 99 percent of cases by asking a potential claimant five questions along the lines of: “Did you live at 123 Maple Ave., 345 Apple Ave. or 456 Oak Ave.?” “At 123 Maple Ave., did your house have two bathrooms, two and a half, or four?” “Did the house at 345 Apple Ave. have one fireplace, two or none?”

It needed only five such questions. Why, then, does OPM have workers reading applicants the forms that the applicants themselves have filled out, then asking whether this is the truth?

Hamre isn’t the only one calling for security clearance reforms. In congressional testimony last year Gene Dodoro with the Government Accountability Office specifically called out the security clearance investigations as an area for cost reform, including downgrading clearance designations or reducing the number of cleared personnel. The cost of a top secret security clearance investigation is significantly more expensive than that of a secret clearance.

And just last month several defense contractors called for more standardization and the use of technology to improve the clearance process.

Clearance reform – it’s definitely not a new topic for the audience here. In the face of budget cuts there’s no question it may be flagged as an area of cost savings. Unfortunately, with sequestration acting as more of a blunt instrument than a fine point, it seems unlikely that clearance reform will achieve the full lifecycle technology advancements the critics seem to be arguing for.

What do you think? Do you agree with the criticism? If so, how would you really improve the system?

110 Comments »

It’s a frequent problem particularly in the government-driven Washington, D.C. area – highly skilled cleared personnel left sitting on their hands for months at a time while awaiting security clearance reciprocity or transfer between agencies. In some cases the individuals are able to await work in a government office, although with limited access to networks, systems or other tools of the job. In other cases, they’re sitting at home, literally doing nothing except perhaps administrative duties while awaiting clearance transfer and subsequent placement.

The failed goal of clearance reciprocity was highlighted by Tech America in a recently released survey. Tech America didn’t note the number of respondents but said they were among the 1,000 defense industry firms that are a part of the organization. Of respondents, 96 percent noted difficulty in transferring clearances between agencies.

Lack of security clearance transfer as well as effective records keeping was cited as a hindrance to the security clearance process in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. In 2005 an Executive Order addressed “Recirprocal Recognition of Existing Personnel Security Clearances.” The executive order included a checklist for determining whether or not a new investigation could be required. It also emphasized the needs for more efficient records keeping in order to keep updated on clearance status, reinvestigation history and polygraph information.

The Tech America survey did note that 52 percent of respondents said processing times for someone to obtain a clearance has improved, which supports survey findings of ClearanceJobs.com that clearance processing times have improved by about 30 days in the past two years.

Delays in clearance processing or transfer cause subsequent delays in getting employees to work – 37 percent of respondents noted it took 30-90 days to get a cleared employee onto a new contract at an agency. Depending on the work status of the professional, that could either mean 1-3 months without a paycheck or for a defense contractor, 1-3 months of funding a salary that isn’t returning a profit.

The good news is that the need for security clearance reciprocity isn’t lost on government leaders. Congressional testimony into security clearance reform has continually pointed to reciprocity as a key area for both cost savings and increased efficiency. Renewed interest improving the technology used to track security clearance applications and eAdjudication are also useful advancements in ensuring security clearance processing is more efficient, and more easy to transfer between agencies.

19 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 »

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 1, 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) presented testimony before a House subcommittee. The testimony was presented in the form of a report (GAO-11-232T) entitled: “Personnel Security Clearances: Overall Progress Has Been Made to Reform the Governmentwide Security Clearance Process.” The testimony covered 3 major long standing issues: a single federal database for clearance information, reciprocity, and timeliness.

The “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” (IRTPA) “required that no later than 12 months after the date of its enactment, the Director of OPM and the Director of OMB establish and commence operating and maintaining a single, integrated database of security clearance information.” No single integrated database exists or is planned. Instead, OPM’s Central Verification System (CVS) provides a “single search” capability for about 90% of all investigations and clearances. Integrating the remaining 10% of Intelligence Community (IC) clearances remains problematic.

Government agencies reported requiring additional investigation and/or adjudication on some currently cleared individuals for reasons that are not permitted by existing reciprocity rules. Due to the absence of government-wide metrics for reciprocity, GAO was unable to measure the degree of non-compliance with clearance reciprocity requirements.

GAO acknowledged that significant improvements in timeliness of clearances had been made and that overall timeliness requirements of the IRTPA had been met. GAO noted that of the agencies they reviewed DOD, DOE, and NGA had consistently met the 60-day IRPTA requirement during the first three quarters of FY2010 (October 2009 to June 2010), and 11 other agencies had not. A chart on page 7 of GAO-11-232T reported timeliness for seven IC agencies and seven non-IC agencies.

22 Comments »

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:

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 »

After resolving differences with the Senate version, the House version (HR 2701) of the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) was signed by the President and became Public Law No: 111-259 on October 7, 2010. (This is the first IAA to become law since 2004; others either died in Congress or were successfully vetoed.) Here are the highlights:

• Requires reports, reports and more reports.
• Establishes the Inspector General (IG) of the Intelligence Community (IC).
• Requires ODNI to issue a directive concerning GAO access to IC information.

Reports containing the following information regarding security clearance are required:

1. Total number of active security clearances at each level as of October 1 of the preceding year and the number granted during the preceding fiscal year.

2. For each IC element by level of clearance:

• Time it took to grant clearances during the preceding fiscal year, expressed in terms of the average for the fastest 80%, fastest 90%, slowest 20% and slowest 10%.
• Number of pending investigations as of October 1 that have remained pending for 4 months or less, 4 to 8 months, 8 to 12 months, and more than 12 months.
• Percentage of cases that resulted in clearance denial/revocation during the previous fiscal year.
• Percentage of investigations during the previous fiscal year that contained incomplete/insufficient information.
• Number of cases that took more than 1 year to complete by investigative and adjudicative agencies and the cause for delays.

3. No later than April 2011 a report on Government-wide investigative standards, adjudicative guidelines, and quality metrics; a plan to improve professional development of adjudicators; and metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of clearance reciprocity.

4. No later than April 2011 a report on the feasibility of reducing the number of investigative and adjudicative agencies to 2 each within a year and reducing the number of investigative and adjudicative agencies to 1 each within 4 years.

5. Not later than April 2011 a report by the IC IG on reciprocity of security clearances between IC agencies.

No 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?

24 Comments »

On March 10, 2010 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a new version of the Standard Form 86—SF86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions). The only description of the new form currently available is a PDF file, consisting of 453 pages of explanations and screen shots of the eQIP version, posted at the reginfo.gov website. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has not yet posted the new form at their website. The last revision of the SF86 was approved in July 2008. OPM did not post that version of the form on their website until October 2008 and the eQIP version was not available for use by contractors until January 2009.

The new March 2010 version of the SF86 is considerably different and longer than the version submitted for public comment in September 2009. That version was described on this blog at “OPM Submits New SF86 for Review” in October 2009. Major changes now include:

• Purpose of this form—“This form may also be used by agencies in determining whether a subject performing work for, or on behalf of, the Government under a contract should be deemed eligible for logical or physical access when the nature of the work to be performed is sensitive and could bring about an adverse effect on the national security.”
• History of residences, schools, and employment require 10 years of information for all levels of clearances.
• Many new and expanded questions were added regarding foreign connections, foreign involvement, and foreign travel.
• Reportable foreign associates now include those with whom you are bound by a “common interest” (a significant change that may affect social media contacts).
• New and expanded questions were added regarding financial records, police records, drugs, alcohol, and mental health.

These changes are in line with the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team’s (JSSRT) planned expansion of upfront comprehensive follow-up questions necessary to enhance the collection of subject-reported information as early as possible in the investigative process. Answers to the new and expanded questions represent information that would otherwise have to be obtained during a Subject Interview by an investigator and will result in shorter Subject Interview times for applicants with complicated personal histories.

27 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 »