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?

5 Comments »

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 »

The issue of mental health stigma has always surrounded question 21 of Standard Form 86 (SF-86). It’s a fact that few applicants are denied a clearance based on listing mental health counseling on the security clearance form. But experts argue that including the question will prevent some from seeking help in the first place, knowing they’ll need to list any counseling on a future security clearance application or reinvestigation.

On September 4^th, the Department of Defense emphasized its commitment to making the counseling received by victims of sexual assault more private. According to a DoD memo victims of sexual assault must still list any counseling received on their SF-86, but when it comes to using information about that counseling to make a clearance determination, the basis will be a yes or no question directed toward the individuals’ physician – ‘does the applicant have a condition that could impair their judgment or ability to safeguard classified information?’ If the answer is no, no further questions will be asked.

The memo seems to be a face-saving response to critics of requiring victims of sexual assault to answer the question. When similar criticism of mental health counseling stigma for victims of Post-Traumatic-Stress were reported, the Department of Defense in 2008 clarified that service members did not have to report counseling related to combat stress. In contrast, DoD is not excluding sexual assault counseling from reporting requirements, but is emphasizing its commitment to privacy for sexual assault victims.

When it comes to investigating a psychological condition, current practice as it already stands is to simply direct a yes or no question to the mental health practitioner providing the counseling. If the answer of impaired judgment or ability to safeguard information is no, information about the applicant’s condition aren’t released – regardless of the reason for the counseling.

In a recent interview, “Can Counseling Complicate Your Security Clearance?” Evan Lesser, ClearanceJobs founder and managing director, noted that security clearance investigations today are looking at the big picture surrounding an individual’s character and history, and also recognize the increased prevalence of mental health counseling. While counseling may have been an issue in the past, that isn’t the case today.

“They take into account the totality of someone and their actions, their circumstances, how they got there,” Lesser said.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said he’s looking into proposals to amend the SF-86 to remove requirements to report sexual assault related counseling.

When it comes to security clearance adjudication, policy is clear that mental health counseling  in and of itself is not a justification for a clearance denial, regardless of the reason for the counseling. Practically speaking, however, it certainly could prevent an interim clearance.

28 Comments »

Think it’s not a big deal to provide false information on an employment application? Think again.

If you’ve applied for government jobs, even those without security clearance, you’ve filled out some form of suitability determination. Even if you’re not accessing classified information in the scope of your work, the government likes to have some idea of your trustworthiness…and any previous run-ins with drugs, alcohol, firearms and explosives, in particular.

Even if you’re just filling out a job application, lying can pose serious consequences – just ask Terrance Lee King, a Denver man who is facing up to five years in a federal prison and a $250,000 fine for lying on a security-badge application for the Denver International Airport.  On a fingerprinting and badging application, King indicated that he had never been convicted of any disqualifying criminal offenses, even though that was clearly not the case.

Investigators have thus far not found any “terrorist motives” – although they have found that King is a pretty big idiot. As this story breaks, King is already serving time in state prison for violating parole on prior convictions for a weapons violation and drug possession, reported Denver’s Channel 7 News.

It’s a good reminder that not all offenses are created equally, and when suitability determinations screen applicants for drug, alcohol and weapons violations, there’s good reason. King’s case seems to be a clear-cut issue of lying to try to get a job, not human error or confusion.

Questions on Clearancejobs.com frequently include whether or not an individual needs to include a specific incident on his or her SF86. And while we rarely advocate for including more information than necessary, if you’ve ever had a run-in with the law, especially one involving weapons, drugs, or alcohol, you’re better to list and mitigate from the get-go than discover months later you were, in fact, arrested that one time in college you barely remember.

26 Comments »

Security clearance reciprocity, adjudication timeliness and leveraging technology to increase efficiency were all topics addressed at this week’s Security Clearance Reform hearing on Capitol Hill. Senator Daniel Akaka, Chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on oversight of government management and the federal workforce, questioned a panel of government leaders on the progress of clearance reforms.

The general consensus was that much progress has been made over the course of the past several years, in moving the security clearance process off of the GAO hot seat and into a position to be, in some ways, a model for similar reform efforts in standardizing government processes. But despite the forward movement, much remains to be done, specifically in the area of reciprocity and communication across agencies.

The Performance Accountability Council (PAC) is responsible for many of the clearance reforms today’s applicants will note, including updating the security clearance application (SF-86) and instituting quality metrics. Today, initial investigations take an average of 44 days, compared to 189 days in 2005, noted Akaka.

Remarks from Gene Dodoro, comptroller general at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, emphasized the progress in security clearance reform as indicated by the removal of the program from the GAO’s high-risk list. Despite forward movement, however, he also emphasized that continued leadership emphasis and public attention would be needed to ensure reform efforts continue.

Dodoro specifically noted the need to reduce redundancy, leverage technology, and conduct an honest assessment of which positions require clearances and what level of clearance is required. “There’s a huge difference in the amount of money that’s used to implement a top secret versus a secret clearance,” Dodoro said.

“For fiscal year 2012 OPM’s standard base prices are $4,005 for an initial investigation of a top secret clearance, $2,711 for an investigation to renew a top secret clearance, and either $228 or $260 for an investigation for a secret clearance. As we reported in February 2012, these base prices can increase if triggered by the circumstances of a case, such as issues related to credit or criminal history checks,” noted Dodoro’s testimony. “Further, the cost of getting and maintaining a top secret clearance for 10 years is almost 30 times greater than the cost of getting and maintaining a secret clearance for the same period.”

Dodoro urged that requesting a lower level clearance when a higher one isn’t needed, as well as evaluating continued need for higher level clearances during periodic reinvestigations would likely result in significant savings for the federal government.

________

Other testimony largely focused on the issue of reciprocity, and leveraging technology to facilitate timely adjudication for personnel, which is deemed both critical to safeguarding classified materials as well as ensuring a quality workforce.

“A timely process is important because delays in processing security clearances can cause delays in placing qualified individuals in the cleared positions that are needed to accomplish our many missions,” said Elizabeth McGrath, deputy chief management officer, U.S. Department of Defense. “In some cases delays may result in highly qualified applicants withdrawing themselves from consideration for positions and the government losing out on these potential key contributors to our workforce.”

When it comes to clearance reciprocity, McGrath made the case for DoD’s Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS), initially developed by the Army and now in use across the Department of Defense as well as the Department of Energy. McGrath noted that the Social Security administration was set to deploy cats in FY 2013. The CATS e-adjudication capability as greatly reduced the amount of manual processing required, said McGrath.

Merton Miller, associate director of the federal investigative service of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) noted that Electronic Questionnaires for Security Clearance Processing (eQIP) is the “gold standard” for electronic application throughout the federal government and has made a significant impact on clearance processing times and accuracy. OPM currently receives over 99 percent of its applications through e-QIP, Miller noted.

Overall, future clearance reform will focus both on leveraging technology to increase agency reciprocity programs, as well as continued emphasis on the topic of overclassification – both in terms of classified materials themselves, as well as the numbers of cleared personnel.

78 Comments »

As the person who reviews the comments posted to articles at ClearanceJobs.com, I can tell you the clearance process produces a lot of questions. Despite efforts to make the security clearance application (SF-86) more understandable, oftentimes questions remain as to what to include – and what not to.

It seems Steve Jobs had the same problem.

Documents related to Jobs’ security clearance continue to be released by Wired, who requested them through a Freedom of Information Act request. (Some have been surprised to learn that SF86 information has been deemed publicly releasable, and wonder if the same would hold true for the average citizen).

Wired reported that Jobs had not included a 1975 arrest for a traffic infraction on his Personnel Security Questionnaire. When investigators found the arrest and interviewed Jobs, he said he hadn’t included it because he didn’t consider the minor incident an “actual arrest.”

Like other security clearance applicants who face a difficult clearance process, Jobs had to provide a written response to clearance concerns. In it he outlined his occasional drug use and purchase of drugs, the traffic infraction, and even how he constructed a Blue Box device at the age of 14, which was capable of making long-distance phone calls.

The Jobs security clearance files point to both how complex the security clearance process can be as well as how critical it is to be completely forthcoming on any illegal activity. Most issues – from drug use to criminal conduct – can be mitigated over time. But failing to include such details on your SF-86 will cause investigators to question your honesty, not your memory.

If you can’t remember how often you used drugs or if you don’t know if that run in with police at a bar in college was really an “arrest” air on the side of inclusion, rather than leaving it out. Then take the time to explain the incident in question.

Also keep in mind that if your behavior was particularly egregious, you’ll want to bring in a few character statements from those who can confirm you’ve changed your ways.

Jobs eventually got his top secret security clearance.

29 Comments »

U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was charged with 17 counts of murder last week, after allegedly shooting Afghan civilians in their sleep in a massacre that has strained already troubled U.S. –Afghan relations.

As analysts look to the cause and unpack the details one area that hasn’t escaped their scrutiny is the secret security clearance Bales held. It’s not uncommon for service members to receive security clearances, particularly prior to a deployment. The majority of both officers and non-commissioned officers and some lower-ranking enlisted service members will obtain security clearances as a part of their need to access sensitive information in the field.

So while it’s not odd for Bales to have possessed a security clearance some are questioning how he obtained one. In 2003 he was order to pay $1.3 million in damages to a couple he stole approximately $600,000 from while working as their stockbroker. After joining the Army, Bales’ financial troubles continued and in 2009 he defaulted on a mortgage.

Financial woes alone aren’t necessarily a cause for a clearance denial but the issue of trustworthiness implied by Bales’ financial dealings, coupled with continued financial uncertainty, would have likely set off red flags in regards to both trustworthiness, stability, and susceptibility to coercion. It’s certainly possible these issues were mitigated through the clearance process. Or Bales could have lied in his application, although it seems unlikely the problems wouldn’t have come up in an investigation.

The other issue at hand is Bales mental stability. Much like the recent case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, who released thousands of classified cables to Wikileaks, Bales is calling into question whether or not we’re paying adequate attention to the mental stability of our deployed troops. Multiple combat tours, financial strain at home and other factors can combine to produce a strain some may find difficult to handle.

There are really two issues at hand here – one, the difficulty in assessing a person’s motivations and character in a cursory investigation and second, the “clearance inflation” that has occurred due to the rapid advancement of high-tech, high level signals intelligence and other technology on the battlefield, which requires more deployed troops to obtain clearances in the first place. As the military looks to draw down and lower troop numbers effectively, they may look at how a clearable force ties into that matrix – perhaps issuing security clearances to all troops as a part of the enlistment process, and ensuring service members are clearable before they enter the ranks.

6 Comments »

While we often talk broadly about the time it takes to process security clearances, the investigation itself is the heart of security clearance adjudication. After several years of working to prevent duplication of efforts and the lengthy delays in transferring clearances between agencies or reinvestigating previously investigated individuals, the new guidelines seem to take a step backward.

The Office of Personnel Management’s revised standards use a five-tiered system with six types of investigations and two types of reinvestigations. The new standards don’t allow for an easy transition between public trust and national security positions, largely due to different application forms used. Moral of the story? Prepare for perhaps even lengthier delays when transferring between agencies with different clearance applications, or when applying for higher levels of clearance.

24 Comments »

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted 4 new Federal Investigations Notices (FIN) on their website all dated August 29, 2011.

FIN 11-04—“Continuous Efforts to Align with Reciprocity Goals and Timeliness Standards.” This FIN fully implements interim adjustments made to National Investigative Standards by a August 2010 joint memorandum issued by OPM and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).  This represents a significant retreat from the 3-tier concept approved in December 2008 and fails implement one of the major purposes of Executive Order 13467.  E.O. 13467 called for a system where “Each successively higher level of investigation and adjudication shall build upon, but not duplicate, the ones below it.”  As long as suitability/fitness investigations are based on an SF85 or SF85P, there is no possibility that these investigations, no matter how current or comprehensive, can be used to grant a national security clearance, which must be based on the submission of an SF86. Continue Reading »

4 Comments »

The Defense Security Service (DSS) announced that effective on August 29, 2011 as part of a Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) release update (version 4.3.0.0), the new 2010 Standard Form 86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions) will be available for use by federal contractors using JPAS.  A new “Fair Credit Release” form will be required as part of the SF86.

17 Comments »