 |
|
 |
 Share Article
 E-Mail This Article  Print Article |
|
 |
|
| Employment Suitability Versus Security Clearance |
William Henderson for ClearanceJobs.com - June 22, 2009
|
|
When you accept a federal job offer that requires a security clearance, you will be required to submit a “Questionnaire for National Security Positions,” also known as a Standard Form 86 (SF86). Although the paper version of the SF86 is still in use, most applicants will use the electronic web-based version of the SF86 called e-QIP (Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing).
For most positions you will have to wait until you are granted either an interim security clearance or a final security clearance before you are actually hired and report for duty. That can be a matter of a few days or several months depending on the clearance required. Your agency’s security office will review your SF86 for completeness and provide a copy to their Human Resources (HR) office where your SF86 will be reviewed to insure that you meet the minimum employment suitability * criteria for the position. If the HR review is favorable, the security office will forward your SF86 to the organization that will conduct your background investigation. At this point your agency’s security office can grant or decline to grant an interim Secret clearance, if required. A determination for an interim Top Secret clearance can not be made until certain preliminary checks are completed. These checks usually take about 20 to 40 days. When the investigation is completed, it is usually forwarded to the agency’s HR office for employment suitability adjudication. If the HR adjudication is favorable, the investigation is then adjudicated for a security clearance. These two adjudications are usually separate processes by separate offices using different criteria.
There are 3 stages at which the offer of employment you accepted can be withdrawn by the agency—the initial HR review, the HR adjudication, and the security clearance adjudication. If you are rejected because you failed to meet employment suitability criteria, your right to 1) be informed of the specific reasons, 2) rebut the reasons, and 3) appeal a final adverse decision to the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) will depend on the type of the position you were offered. Federal agencies are required to use employment suitability standards and procedures for all appointments to “competitive service” positions. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management recommends, but does not require, that these same standards and procedures be used for appointments to “non-competitive” positions, such as “excepted service” and temporary positions.
Most Intelligence Community (IC) agency jobs and some other federal jobs that require security clearances are “excepted service” positions. Consequently if an agency withdraws a job offer for an excepted service position due to employment suitability reasons, they generally only inform you that you were found to be unsuitable for the position without providing any specific reasons. Applicants sometimes confuse this with being denied a security clearance, because the job offer was withdrawn after they submitted an application for a security clearance.
Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations Part 731 (5 CFR 731) governs federal employment suitability standards and procedures. Section 731.202 of 5 CFR 73 covers specific suitability criteria. The “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information” governs federal security clearance criteria. Employment suitability and security clearance criteria are very similar, but a few differences exist.
One major difference is that suitability criteria can be influenced by the nature of the position for which you are applying, whereas security criteria is unaffected by the nature of the position. This difference can result a situation where you are rejected due to suitability criteria, but where you would have been granted a security clearance had you not been eliminated from the hiring process before your security clearance adjudication was completed. In this situation it is possible you can later be hired as federal contractor employee and be granted a security clearance at the same level required for the federal job. For example, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) considers applicants unsuitable for employment, if they have ever illegally used any drug. The only exception to this is for self-disclosed “limited youthful and experimental use of marijuana.” The FBI has a similar policy that limits drug involvement to experimental marijuana use more than 3 years ago and experimental use of other drugs more than 10 years ago. Both the DEA’s and the FBI’s suitability criteria for drug involvement are significantly more restrictive than security criteria currently being applied by most federal agencies.
If your offer of employment from a federal agency is withdrawn after you submit an SF86 and the agency notifies you that you were found unsuitable for the position without providing any other explanation, the position was an excepted service or temporary position not covered under 5 CFR 731. This adverse suitability determination may not have any affect on your future security clearance eligibility. It may not have any affect on your suitability for employment at a different federal agency.
If a federal agency intends to withdraw their offer of employment for a competitive service position because suitability criteria, they must notify you in writing and state the specific reasons they believe you are unsuitable. This notice must also explain your right to receive the information used to make this decision against you and your right to make a written rebuttal. If the agency makes a final adverse suitability decision, they must notify you of that decision in writing and inform you of your right to appeal the decision to the MSPB.
If your case receives a favorable employment suitability determination, your background investigation will be adjudicated for a security clearance. All security clearance adjudications are required to provide essentially the same “due process rights,” regardless of whether the appointment is for a competitive service, excepted service, or temporary position. If there is a preliminary decision to deny a clearance, you will be sent a “Statement of Reasons” (SOR) or a “Letter of Intent” (LOI) detailing specific reasons why granting you a clearance may not be clearly consistent with the interests of national security. The SOR or LOI will include instructions for submitting a rebuttal and in some cases requesting a hearing. If there is a final decision to deny a clearance, you will be sent a “Letter of Denial” that contains instructions for submitting an appeal.
* For excepted service positions the word “fitness” may be used instead of “suitability,” but has essentially the same meaning.
William H. Henderson is a retired security investigator, author of Security Clearance Manual, and regular contributor to ClearanceJobsBlog.com and ClearanceJobs.com.
Copyright © 2009 Last Post Publishing. All rights reserved.
RECOMMEND THIS ARTICLE
You must be logged in
to recommend articles
|
 |
|
|
| William Henderson |
on 11 Mar 2010 at 7:05 pm |
|
John L:
There is a possibility that the ARNG will find out, but I don’t know what they will do. As long as you continue to hide relevant information from the Guard you are susceptible to blackmail and therefore a security risk.
I recommend you disclose your past falsification to the ARNG and take your chances with them. Once you get past that, I think you have a reasonable chance of getting a Secret clearance, if there has been no mental health problems or alcohol dependence/abuse in the past few years. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 11 Mar 2010 at 6:41 pm |
|
Sterno (North Carolina):
I don’t understand why you had to resign, if your employer simply chose not to renew your contract. At any rate question 13C on the current SF86 covers every conceivable situation for employment termination, so something needs to be listed.
I recommend using 13C6 (Laid off from job by employer), because it is a closer match to your situation than any other. Use the comment section to explain the situation. You will also have to give a reason for employment termination at question 13A.
Employment termination not related to misconduct or rule violation is not adjudicatively significant. It is important that your SF86 clearly shows that no misconduct or rule violation was involved. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 11 Mar 2010 at 6:09 pm |
|
Bubbly:
For a TS clearance it is possible that the investigator will review your academic counseling records. Educational references will be interviewed at any school you attended during the past 3 years if education was a primary activity during that time. I’m certain that the current SF86 only asks for information going back 7 years for mental health treatment regardless of whether the investigation is for a Secret or a TS clearance.
There’s a link to the SF86 in the first paragraph of this article, so you can read the question yourself. Every company has its own procedures for hiring and processing security clearance applications.
Resumes are not sent to the government with the clearance application form. Normally personnel records at prospective places of employment are not reviewed.
If you fill out the SF86 after you are hired, it would be normal to review your personnel record (which may contain a copy of your resume) at the place you are hired. Employment references are only interviewed at places where you worked for at least 6 months. |
|
| John L (outside of Houston, Texas) |
on 11 Mar 2010 at 11:42 am |
|
Mr. Henderson, I am very interested in obtaining security clearance for a contracting job positiion or possible becoming an officer.
Currently im lower enlisted in an MOS that doesnt need any clearance in the Army Ntl Guard. I lied to get into the guard, because I attempted suicide was hospitalized, and was hospitalized for depression again 3 years later. The last time I was hospitalized for depression was just under 5 years ago. Since then I have graduated college and have done 1 tour. I am qualified for a great many jobs, if I just had secret clearance.
I have had many routine psych evals since I had problems, as is sometimes mandatory with the military. I also used to have alcohol problems, I got a DUI about 9 years ago and was diagnosed with alcohol dependency, but since then a DUI counselor has reversed that diagnosis. I feel as though I am a much different person that has very much gotten better and no chance of being suicidal ever again.
Anyway, my question is this... when I tell whoever about these things when applying for secret clearance, is there any chance that the texas national guard will somehow find out about them and discharge me? Alos, what are my chances of actually getting secret clearance? |
|
| Sterno (North Carolina) |
on 09 Mar 2010 at 2:41 pm |
|
I am wondering how to answer question 13C for the following situation: As a teacher, I was told that my contract would not be renewed the following year as the school had "decided to go in another direction", with no further information or reason. They allowed me to resign.
My official reviews/assessments from the administration were all good, and there had been no disciplinary action.
Would this count as 2. Quit a job after being told you would be fired, 4. Left a job by mutual agreement following notice of unsatisfactory performance, something else, or would this not apply? I am applying for a secret clearance, have never had one before.
Thanks so much. |
|
| William (nc) |
on 07 Mar 2010 at 6:25 pm |
|
Mr Henderson,
My question is this,
I am about to marry a lady from Uganda. It is not a banned country to the United States. Her back ground is clean and she has no political ties. I am looking at obtaining a job with the US Air Marshals in which I will need a TS clearance issued by DOS. My soon to be wife still lives is Uganda and we are working on a green card now. We will also work on citizenship soon after as we are expecting our first child. My question is how difficult would it be for me to obtain in TS being that my wife is from another country? What should I do to make this process easier. |
|
| Bubbly (Maryland) |
on 05 Mar 2010 at 1:43 am |
|
Mr. Henderson:
Thank you so much for your response -- I do appreciate your words of wisdom and helpful feedback. About the consecutive withdrawals my freshman year in college, I was suspended from school (because I withdrew 2 times in a row) and readmitted back after a petition to the Academic Standards Board, however in order to get back into the University, I had to write a letter about myself going through family problems along with providing a counselor letter that I was okay to get back into the University. The counseling letter states directly that I was troubled and depressed by my family incident. Would secret agents investigate to the matter they consult with my academic advisers about this and get those letters that may be contained in my file?
Also, about the suicide attempt 10 years ago, I thought TS clearances extended through out 10 years, not the regular 7 years -- from what I seem to be hearing on these boards -- am I incorrect? So, you are certain that I do not have to disclose it on my application if it is past 7 years?
Last thing is, I wanted to know how the whole process of TS clearances work. Let's say I apply to a private company that is cleared and they are assigning me a position that requires me to be eligible for a TS clearance. I go through the resume and interview process with an HR manager, and lets say he/she wants to hire me.
What is the next process? Does the HR manager recommend and ask for sponsorship for the clearance? Does she use my resume, and everything I provided to send it to government clearance officials? During the TS interview process, do government officials interview the HR manager about me as well (I know they will interview my family friends neighbors etc), and ask them for their own input about me, or do these secret agents just go out and interview my connections. I guess what I am trying to ask is do they look at my resume I apply to the cleared firm, or is it a completely different process?
Thank you in advance, Mr. Henderson. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 04 Mar 2010 at 3:03 pm |
|
Bubbly:
With regard to your school attendance, it is possible that an investigator will want to determine why you withdrew from school. Don’t worry about; it’s not significant. Just complete the SF86 accurately and truthfully. You only need to account for how you spent your time when not in school. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 04 Mar 2010 at 2:50 pm |
|
Bubbly:
There is a presumption that any treatment/hospitalization for a psychological condition at occurred more than 7 years ago (and has not recurred) is no longer relevant to security clearance eligibility. This applies to your situation. The mental health question (#21) on the SF86 (see the link in the first paragraph of the article) only asks about treatment/hospitalization that occurred within the past 7 years. The mental health questions during the Personal Subject Interview (PRSI) for a TS clearance should also be limited to a 7 year time frame.
However if you have had any mental health counseling in the past 7 years or if one of your references discloses the suicide attempt, it is possible that you could be questioned about treatment that occurred more than 7 years ago. A single suicide attempt that happened 10 years ago when you were 16 years old with no other mental health issues should not result in the denial of a TS clearance. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 04 Mar 2010 at 2:30 pm |
|
Amanda:
If 2 years have not elapsed since the last time you were debriefed, your company should be able to have your clearance reinstated at the Secret level and you will not need a periodic reinvestigation for 5 more years. |
|
| Bubbly (Maryland) |
on 03 Mar 2010 at 9:06 pm |
|
Mr Henderson:
I graduated from a University in good standing, however another glitch is I withdrew from 2 semesters in a row my very first year in college because I did not want my bad grades to affect my GPA, and used an alibi of being distracted and depressed about family problems as a reason to enter back into the University -- in which I succeeded and graduated in the next 3-4 years. Will a TS try to investigate more after seeing all the W's on my academic transcript and determine more this by meeting with academic advisers? What would be your advice? |
|
| Bubbly (Maryland) |
on 03 Mar 2010 at 9:02 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson:
I'm looking to apply to TS clearance jobs in the near future and I wanted your advice and feedback. I am currently 26 years old and in 2001, when I was 16 in high school, an immature minor, attempted to take an overdose of pills, and hospitalized due to losing my virginity by force which I wanted to keep sacred as a young woman. I never really got counseling for this -- How will this affect my clearance? |
|
| William Henderson |
on 03 Mar 2010 at 1:56 am |
|
Nervous Rey:
Not all mitigating conditions apply to all potentially disqualifying conditions. There is no benefit to seeing a psychologist unless there is reason to suspect some pathological problem behind the misconduct. Mitigating condition 17(d) is primarily for potentially disqualifying condition 17(d)(2) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the workplace. It also applies to other patterns of misconduct or dishonesty where people are unable to control negative impulsive behavior. |
|
| Amanda (Fort Irwin) |
on 02 Mar 2010 at 4:32 pm |
|
| Hi I am a former Intel officer, that got out of the military 4 years ago. I am now working as a contractor and my company has just informed me that they will not renew my Top Secret Clearance, basically because the position I am in only requires a Secret clearance. Does this mean I have to do the whole paper work over or again or will I just fall into a Secret clearance for the next 5 years. The closing date of the TS was in 2005 and granted in 2005. Thanks |
|
| Nervous Rey (California) |
on 01 Mar 2010 at 3:46 pm |
|
Mr Henderson:
I have posted on here several times and I must thank you very much for your comments, they have been helpful.
My latest question is regarding adjudication guidelines. In reference to Personal Conduct 17-d it states the individual “has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur”
How much consideration would talking to a counselor-psychologist about my personal conduct help my TS renewal? I have several issues; from having an unclassified computer confiscated for an illegal unclassified internet connection a year ago (was never reprimanded for this) to being fired from a civilian retail store for not reporting a serious incident a year and a half ago. I acknowledge that I was wrong and realize the seriousness of what I did; however at the time I strongly felt I could justify the incident and I would be OK.
I hope that I can mitigate these incidents when the time comes, especially since I was always admired for my honesty and work ethics within the store and here in my new position I have done an excellent job plus I continue to have access to high level security systems. I have learned huge lessons from these past mistakes but I do not know if stating that would be enough? Thank you Sir. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 25 Feb 2010 at 4:18 pm |
|
Waiting (va):
Yes, it was necessary to provide information about the situation surrounding your voluntary employment termination on your SF86.
I would have answered “no” to question #13C1 and answered “yes” to question #13C2. It really doesn’t matter very much which question you answered “yes.” The important thing is that you disclosed the information about the written reprimands and explained what happened.
Work place rule violations are usually Guideline E: Personal Conduct issues. I assume that both written reprimands were for your poor choice of words. Absent any other allegations of misconduct, what you describe is very minor and should not result in a security clearance denial or revocation. I don’t know how much significance your conduct would have in an employment suitability determination, because that is outside my area of knowledge.
I believe I answered the rest of your question about reciprocity under the article, “New Federal Investigative Standards.” |
|
| waiting (va) |
on 24 Feb 2010 at 11:16 am |
|
I was reading some of your earlier answers to questions related to 13 "leaving for other reasons" I had a stellar, award after award career with a company for 10 years. The last year I was there I got a new manager who harassed me, and made false allegations against me, to the point that I got physically ill, (broke out in shingles) I was written up twice for violence in the workplace and rebutted them and went to HR with no relief.
An example of the write up was I said the "f" word in my office and someone overheard it. Instead of counseling me to watch my language he wrote me up for violence and hostile work environment. After months of trying to get some relief, my husband and I determined that I should leave the job.
So on a Friday p.m. I turned in my immediate resignation. So on the answer form I checked Yes, to the 13 question, but wrote an response covering my situation. Should I not have put this down? Is this going to be a problem? I have a current contractor secret clearance, but am waiting on a Govt clearance requiring the same level but it is taking really long and I am beginning to get concerned, because I believe I should have automatically gotten an interim due to reciprocity? I would appreciate it you have any insight on this? |
|
| William Henderson |
on 23 Feb 2010 at 9:07 pm |
|
Adam (West Covina, CA):
I like to think of myself as an expert on federal security clearances. I wrote this article because many people mistakenly think that they have been denied a security clearance when in fact they were rejected due to employment suitability criteria.
I don’t have any direct experience with employment suitability appeals. If you are appealing an adverse decision to the Merit System Protection Board, I can only suggest you visit their website. There are many lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington who specialize in federal labor law, but I have never dealt with any of them. Sorry I can't be more helpful. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 23 Feb 2010 at 8:46 pm |
|
Poker-Junkie:
If you are moving from a “competitive” service position to another “competitive” service position, I believe a new investigation is not required. 5 CFR 731.104 says, “Except when required because of risk level changes, a person in the competitive service who has undergone a suitability investigation need not undergo another one simply because the person has been . . . transferred, provided the individual has served continuously for at least 1 year in a position subject to investigation.”
I recommend you read all of 5 CFR 731.104 and 5 CFR 731.106 and draw your own conclusions. I don’t have any special knowledge about how federal personnel rules are applied.
BTW, the proper form for an MBI is an SF85P, not an SF85. |
|
| Poker-Junkie (Washington, DC) |
on 22 Feb 2010 at 12:57 pm |
|
Greetings Mr. Henderson,
Wow! There is a TON of great info on here. THANKS! for posting this. Clearances can be scary, and to have somewhere to "prepare" one's self is VERY useful.
My question is: I am a current federal employee. I have accepted a posiiton which requires an MBI. I have an adjudicated MBI, with an adjudication date of 6/2007.
The Agency has asked me to fill out a credit check, and some other Agency-specific forms. Also, they are requesting i go on eQIP and complete an SF-85.
Do I have to have another clearance done at the same level? Will OPM notify the Agency in question that I already have this level of adjudication? Does "reciprocity" require the Agency to accept my adjudicated MBI?
THANK YOU! |
|
| Adam (West Covina, CA) |
on 21 Feb 2010 at 4:01 pm |
|
Dear William,
I was recently denied suitability with the State Department on the grounds of their belief I was going to help my ex-wife illegally immigrate to the US.
Basically, what happened she worked as an agent for my company and my company sponsored her visa to the US. She was sick at that time. She later wanted to use that visa to enter the US seek medical care and then change her status once she was here. When I did not allow her to immigrate she became very threatening and started threatening to get me fired from my job.
The State Department is under the impression that she used documents that I signed to get a visa. However I did not sign any documents that she used to get her visa. Although, I did sign documents, as she was an agent with my company to get a Schengen (EU visa). Once I did not allow her to immigrate, she said she would use these documents against me.
I am currently getting ready to file my appeal. Do you have any advice on how I should file my appeal?
I would really like to hire a lawyer. However, it is hard time to find a lawyer who deals with suitability cases for State Department applicants. Do you know of someone who can give me advice as to how to appeal?
Adam |
|
| William Henderson |
on 18 Feb 2010 at 6:18 pm |
|
Formerly Cleared Industrial Security Rep:
You need to find out exactly what happened and when by submitting a Privacy Act request to the clearance granting authority. Bear in mind that in addition to the 5-, 10-, and 15-year time periods that investigations for security clearances remain valid, there is also a 2-year break-in-service criterion that can make any clearance ineligible for reinstatement. If you were debriefed less than 2 years ago, your secret clearance can probably still be reinstated. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 18 Feb 2010 at 6:02 pm |
|
Bruno:
I don't know for certain. My guess is that since there is no exception for vacated court actions, you should list it and indicate that it was 'vacated" in the "Results of Action" field at question 28. |
|
| William Henderson |
on 18 Feb 2010 at 5:53 pm |
|
will (St Louis):
I recommend you read my article on Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances at http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/59/alcohol-consumption-and-security-clearances . If you still have a question, post it there with a little more information about your situation. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 18 Feb 2010 at 5:43 pm |
|
thaaprof:
You need to list all 3 foreign bank accounts, the foreign health benefits, and the foreign employment on the SF86. Whether you should list your foreign friend depends on whether you currently feel a bond of affection, influence and/or obligation to her.
If properly explained, none of these matters should result in the denial of a final secret clearance. It is almost impossible to predict if a person will be granted an interim clearance when any potentially disqualifying condition appears on an SF86. This is because there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of government personnel security specialist (who are not professional adjudicators) authorized to make interim clearance decisions and their training/experience vary greatly.
The potentially disqualifying conditions you present are easy to mitigate. For example “any employment or service, whether compensated or volunteer, with: 2) any foreign national, organization, or other entity” is a potentially disqualifying condition under Guideline L (Outside Activities) of the Adjudicative Guidelines, but in your case the employment has terminated and never presented any possible conflict with the national security interests of the United States.
I recommend you read my article on “Foreign Influence and Security Clearances” at http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/54/foreign-influence-and-security-clearances and review Guidelines B and L of the Adjudicative Guidelines at http://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/60321.htm |
|
| thaaprof (maryland) |
on 17 Feb 2010 at 9:21 pm |
|
Mr . Henderson,
Please assist me with my questions. I am just looking for a simple yes or no response. I did not expect anything detailed although I won't be offended if you do so.
Thank you in advance. Please note I am not trying or looking to hide anything but if I don't need to say it on the e-qip form I need to know. |
|
| will (St Louis) |
on 17 Feb 2010 at 3:10 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson, I received a DWI in 01/09 and received another one last month. I have been offered a position as a DoD contractor which requires a secret clearance. Do you think I will be denied the secret clearance?
Thanks |
|
| Bruno (DC) |
on 17 Feb 2010 at 8:17 am |
|
Mr. Henderson,
In the SF 86, it asks whether I have been a party to any public record civil court action?
I had a restraining order court hearing in MA (which is also called an abuse prevention order). My wife at that time had wrongly filed a restraining order against me. However, I appeared in the court for the hearing and the restraining order was thrown out and vacated by the judge. I understand from the paperwork I have from that hearing, that it means that the judge has ordered for the records to be destroyed as it is vacated.
Does the above hearing fall under the category of a "Public Record Civil Court Action?" Do I have to then list it under ths section in the SF 86?
Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide on this. |
|
| Formerly Cleared Industrial Security Rep (Texas ) |
on 16 Feb 2010 at 9:03 pm |
|
I have previously held a TS/SCI clearance. While this clearance was active, I was subject to NJP with the Marine Corps. The military was NOT the granting authority. My access was suspended. I continued working on a project requiring a secret clearance. However, I was "told" by my employer that my clearance had been "revoked." I never received ANY documentation from anyone (my employer or any adjudicative authority) regarding my clearance.
It has been three years since this incident. Recently, I had a friend of mine check my status in JPAS and there was nothing to indicate that I had "lost" my secret clearance. I am still within scope of the investigation for this clearance (out of scope for the TS/SCI). I am in the job market and I have no idea whether it is safe to say I can be reinstated for my secret clearance. Any ideas? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 15 Feb 2010 at 2:37 pm |
|
Worried in MD:
Employment termination only becomes a suitability or security concern when the reason for the termination involved rule violation or other misconduct. Don’t worry about minor traffic violations. Unless you have had so many violations that it indicates a disregard for the law, they usually don’t present a problem. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 15 Feb 2010 at 2:29 pm |
|
Bruno (DC):
Q1) There is no difference.
Q2) Investigators must explain the purpose of the investigation to a personal or record source. Usually the investigator indicates that the person under investigation is being considered for a position of trust and responsibility with the US Government. The investigator might say that it is for a security clearance.
When your present employer is contacted by an investigator it will be obvious that you have applied for other employment. I don’t see where the exact identity of the federal agency will make any difference to them. |
|
| Worried in MD (MD) |
on 14 Feb 2010 at 7:07 pm |
|
Hi Mr. Henderson,
I am in the process of submitting my form SF-85p. In the last 5 years I was terminated from 2 jobs (one from a small company after 2 months) and the other from a large corp after 2 years. Both were because my perfomance wasnt that great (though the first termination was from a company that I should not have joined in the first place) and the 2nd one was more like a layoff (they got rid of other people in my group as well - I worked my but off for them). Will my public trust be denied? I have mentioned both in my form. I receieved UI benefits in both cases.
Also I have a few traffic citations for crossing a solid line and not having vehicle inspection sticker. They are being handled by my lawyer. |
|
| Bruno (DC) |
on 13 Feb 2010 at 1:55 am |
|
Mr. Henderson, Thank you for your response.
I work for a Private Corporation and have got an offer from the Federal Government which is conditional on my clearing the Top Secret Security Clearance.
Q1) Is the process and methodology of checking employment records and interviewing my current and previous employers different for Private Corporations versus Federal Employers? I observed from the SF 86 form, that there is no box to check if it is a Private Company and hence I had to check the 'Other' category.
Q2) Will the Investigator assigned to talk to my current employer reveal the purpose of the security clearance i.e.disclose who my new Federal Employer is (from whom I have a conditional offer)? I have not yet resigned from my current private firm as they owe me a lot of money. I am wondering if it makes sense for me to give them a heads up wiithout revealing who my future employer is? My only concern is that Private Companies sometimes may terminate employees once they know of their intention to leave the firm.
Any advice in this regards would be highly appreciated as I am confused. Thank you. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 12 Feb 2010 at 6:32 pm |
|
Bruno (DC)
You can answer “no” to questions #13C1 and #13C2. Neither question applies to the situations you described. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 12 Feb 2010 at 6:24 pm |
|
Michael (Titusville, FL):
Yes it can. One specific example of a potentially disqualifying condition for a security clearance is “action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship by an American citizen.” Please read my article, “Dual Citizenship and Security Clearances at http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/91/dual-citizenship-and-security-clearances |
|
| Michael (Titusville, FL) |
on 10 Feb 2010 at 2:58 am |
|
| Mr. Henderson, Thank you for taking the time to consider my question. I was born in the U.S. and have been a federal employee for 20 years. For the last 5+ years I have held a TS clearance. My mother was a U.S. citizen but born in Canada. Canada recently changed their immigration laws and I am now eligible for Canadian citizenship (in addition to my U.S. citizenship) retroactive to my birth. Will my new dual citizenship status affect my TS clearance? |
|
| Bruno (DC) |
on 09 Feb 2010 at 8:30 am |
|
Firstly, Mr. Henderson, I would like to commend you on your security clearance manual. I read it inside out and it is excellent.
I am filling out the SF 86 for a TS clearance. I am confused on how to respond to the following questions:
1) 13 C Employment Record- It asks "Have you received a written warning, been officially reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace or violating a security rule or policy?
I had a situation at one of my previous employers (5 years ago) where I had filed a written complaint to the Human Resources that my Boss was racially discriminating against me. Subsequently, the HR and my Boss started digging up my phone records as I work in a tele-sales job. I did not do anything wrong or violate any policy. They came back to me verbally saying that I made calls that were outside the territory which made no sense to me as we have clients who are located outside the territory as well. I obviously denied it as there was nothing written in the employee handbook that we could not call outside our territory. They did not give me any written warning but my boss mentioned it on my appraisal saying I made calls outside my territory.
Do I need to mention it on my SF 86? Or does it constitute an official warning as per the SF 86?
Q2) Regarding the above employer, I finally resigned from the job as I was not happy with the discrimination going on. But I was not asked to leave by the employer. I left on my own accord.
Do I need to indicate it under the category of "Left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances?"
Thank you. |
|
| thaaprof (maryland) |
on 07 Feb 2010 at 7:33 pm |
|
I have 3 questions regarding interim secret clearance for a US-based position with a contractor.
1) While living overseas in a non-hostile/ally of the US, I dated a local girl and keep in contact with her on an infrequent basis. We still call, IM or email each other 15-20 times a year. I was initially there to teach English for a year but ended up staying for almost 5 years as I embarked on supervised academic research intended for a PhD. While there, I was completely legal in terms of visa and work permit. Since she assisted me in translation and field research for some time, we are naturally still friends. Her family is not tied to anything illegal or suspicious but I am concerned that my continued contact with her would cause a red flag in my application. Should I not indicate her on the application or is this too risky? She has a new baby and contact increased slightly when that happened but both of us have moved on with our lives.
2) I had a bank accounts in two foreign countries, both of which are allies of the US. I needed the first two as direct deposit was required for my teaching job and the other was opened while on a student visa in another country. I am pretty sure I closed the most recent account while on a student visa. But, I am not sure if I closed the other account 2 accounts from the other country. If the 2 accounts are still active, they would probably have less than $5-$10 max. Should I list these accounts? How would anybody find out about them? It has been 4 years since I was last in either country.
3) While employed as a teacher I received govt health benefits. Also, as a student I received govt health benefits and legally worked in the student union for a couple weeks before leaving the country. Would my overseas employment and use of foreign govt sponsored benefits be a red flag?
Would any of these concerns cause a denial of interim and/or final secret clearance? I am not trying to hide anything but the fact I was overseas for so long is bad enough I assume. If I don't disclose any of the above mentioned issues how in the world would an investigator find out? If I do indicate something, then what or how much should I say? |
|
| Luis (Cali) |
on 06 Feb 2010 at 5:03 pm |
|
Nervouseguard:
I am not an expert but I have been doing A LOT of research into security clearences and read on a blog about a case where a contractor who was going overseas was fired when she was 18 and was denied an interim. Not sure if she lied about it on SF-86 or got fired for something illegal. However she stated that she eventually got her interim in the end. For what it is worth, (Just my opinion) if you explained that the DUI got you fired on the SF-86 and are going to rehab or seeing a counselor then you might have a chance, if the time that has surpassed is too recent then unfortunatly that might be an issue. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 06 Feb 2010 at 4:09 pm |
|
Nervousguard (DC):
I have no knowledge regarding the basis for interim Public Trust determinations. It is common for interim security clearances to be declined due to a recent DUI. My previous responses to your questions addressed only final security clearances, not interim security clearances. I can only respond to your questions about Public Trust deteminations by comparing your situation to applicants being considered for a national security clearance. From anecdotal information and studies concern percentages of minor and major derogatory information present in security clearance cases, I can only guess that the declination rate for interim security clearances is about 25%; whereas the formal denial rate for final security clearances is about 1%. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 06 Feb 2010 at 4:06 pm |
|
Rey (California):
Based on security clearance case decisions I have read, the unauthorized use of a work computer (no matter how minor) falls under Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Question #27 was added to the SF86 specifically cover situations applicable to Guideline M. Therefore, I believe you should answer “yes” to question # 27a. You should also provide details of what happened in the comment section of question #27. You may be questioned about it during a Subject Interview, but if you properly explain what happened, I strongly doubt that this incident will affect your continued eligibility for a security clearance. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 06 Feb 2010 at 4:03 pm |
|
Todd (SC):
I hope you reported your suicide attempt and hospitalization to your security officer shortly after it happened. Yes, your suicide attempt and hospitalization can affect your eligibility for a security clearance. The primary concern is whether there is a chance the psychological condition that caused the suicide attempt can negatively affect your future reliability, judgment and behavior. Four years of stable behavior, good judgment, and reliable conduct will go a long way toward mitigating this concern; however, a security clearance adjudicator may want a professional opinion. |
|
| TS (Virginia) |
on 06 Feb 2010 at 2:04 pm |
|
| I'm applying for a TS clearance; my mother-in-law is an undocumented immigrant. Is there any likelihood that my disclosure of her information leads to immigration enforcement against her? How will this affect my clearance? |
|
| Luis Torres (united states) |
on 05 Feb 2010 at 9:27 pm |
|
| After reading all your blogs, whats the total years that DHS can checkup on you for 15yrs. 13yrs. 10yrs. In other words, if you been clean for 13yrs with out any misterminers, can I applied for a job that requiers a secret clearance |
|
| DC. (Sacramento) |
on 05 Feb 2010 at 2:35 pm |
|
Hi I am applying for a Top Secret Clearance and I have a question in regards to Taxes. Last July while I was applying for a VA Loan our broker ran across money we had been receiving from a rental property we own. He asked us if we had reported it on our yearly tax forms and we told him no.
The reason for this was that a family member once made a comment that if we weren't making a profit from the rental then we didn't need to report it.
The broker stated that lending rules were stricter and that we should amend our Taxes for the past 2 years in order to move the loan application forward.
We amended our taxes and actually ended up getting a refund in both years for depreciation of the rental, plus my VA loan was approved.
Should I mention this on my application? Thanks for your help
Warm Regards
DC. |
|
| nervousguard (DC) |
on 05 Feb 2010 at 12:32 am |
|
Mr Henderson,
I was just issued an interim denial... Do you think it may be because I lost my job because of the DUI, please see my last posts? Am I all done, or should I maybe expect a favorable outcome following adjudication? |
|
| Rey (California) |
on 04 Feb 2010 at 4:48 pm |
|
Sir I can really use your advice. I do not know whether I should answer YES or NO in reference to question 27 “ Use of information Technology Systems”.
“In the last 7 years, have you illegally or without proper authorization entered into any information technology system.”
During my first 3 days of employment I connected an unclassified government laptop computer to an unclassified network. I was given the generic user name and password for the system. The computer did not have a CAC ID reader so I thought that in order for me to log on to the laptop it needed to be connected to the internet. Since I am a former Officer I remembered that before CAC card readers were the only source for logging in, this was the only way to log on to a military computer. Also in my last company if the computer was not connected to the internet it would not log on to the desktop, so I connected it to the unclass internet cable sitting on my desk. I had gotten my CAC but it had not yet been activated to be on the network, all the necessary paper work was on an O-6’s desk waiting to be approved.
The computer was confiscated when an IT guy came in and saw that there was no CAC card or reader connected to the system. He said this was a violation of Military Policy and that he needed to take it in order to scan it for illegal software. No illegal software or programs were ever found on the laptop. I had gone online to my company’s web site and my personal e-mail because I was required. However since it let me connect with the user name and password I had been given I did not think much of it. I later explained to my chain of command that I was not aware of my mistake since I was new and had assumed that this was the only way to log on to the laptop. They understood and there were no consequences or actions taken by the Military nor was there a recommendation for any actions to be taken by my company.
About a month later, my CAC card was activated and I was issued a new government computer with full access to the military network. The only record that exists is a statement I made on a piece of paper stating the above mentioned in shorter words. The computer expert in the building stated that it was her fault because she should have un-configured the computer to have access to the network.
I also informed my FSO about the incident and she said that the system should never have allowed me to have access to the network.
Could I answer No and if I answer Yes, DO YOU THINK THIS WILL HINDER MY CHANCES FOR RENEWAL? Thank You so much… |
|
| Todd (SC) |
on 03 Feb 2010 at 7:06 pm |
|
I have a question about question 21. I was hospitalized back in 2006 for taking too many pills (suicide attempt). I know that I need to answer question 21 with yes, but I was wondering if this will effect my security clearance. I currently hold a SECRET clearance along with a DOT public trust and my 10 years will be up at the end of this year for the SECRET.
This hasn't been a problem since it has happened. I didn't seek professional help, but I have spoken with multiple people about it, and I speak openly about it. I just do not want it to effect my current job.
I guess my question is will my life style over the past 4 years "prove" that this was a one time incident, and if not how will this issue play a role with my clearance? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 01 Feb 2010 at 3:28 pm |
|
Klo118:
Question #26 is written very poorly. You only have to provide information in the 2nd part of question #26, if you had a “yes” response to one of the questions (a thru p) in the 1st part of question #26.
You must list both investigations. Use agency code 9 and security clearance code 9 and identify the agencies involved and that you were not granted a clearance by either agency.
You are not required to list your contact with the counselor/psychiatrist because it was not for “an emotional mental health condition.” |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 01 Feb 2010 at 3:05 pm |
|
Eth:
On the 2nd page of the SF86 item #3 under the section titled: “Privacy Act Routine Uses” indicates that the government can turn over to the appropriate law enforcement agency information that indicates violation or potential violation of law, except for information an applicant provides at question #23 (drugs). So yes, it is possible, but I can not say whether or not it is probable. |
|
| blueboy (california) |
on 31 Jan 2010 at 9:30 am |
|
| How do they know my entire employment history for the past 10 years? |
|
| Klo118 (Arlington, VA) |
on 29 Jan 2010 at 1:43 pm |
|
There are three questions on the SF-86 that I am unsure how to answer.
26 Financial Obligations:
It states that you must disclose all financial obligations for the past seven years...does this mean I should list each credit card/student loan? I am not "deliquent" on these debts, have never been late with a payment and always pay more than the minimum. I am not sure if I am required to list these if I answer "no" for questions a-p.
25 Investigations and Clearance Record:
Right after college (I graduated in 2008) I was interviewed by the NSA and before I was formally interviewed (I was sent a conditional offer of employment after a phone interview and college fair), they nearly completed a background investigation, minus the polygraph. I bombed the interview and was never polygraphed or considered further for the position(it was my first interview out of college and I was completely unprepared!) I also completed an internship with the Secret Service my senior year of college. They conducted a “preliminary background investigation” but I was never granted a security clearance as an intern.
Do I list these instances as times when my background was investigated, even though they never resulted in a security clearance?
21 Mental Health
This past summer I visited a counselor/psychiatrist (at the request of my mom) who thought I had a “spending” problem. I attended about four sessions before I moved out of the area to begin a job. The counselor basically told me I need to budget better after reading through the spending diary she asked me to keep, but that it didn’t seem as though I have a problem. Should I check “yes” for question 21?
Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this. Any help would be greatly appreciated!! |
|
| Eth (NV) |
on 28 Jan 2010 at 6:48 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
Thanks for the prompt and honest response. Given that my father is undocumented if I proceed with the application for a Secret clearance is there a possibility that the information that I give them about my father would be turned over to the immigration department?
Thanks, |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 28 Jan 2010 at 12:58 pm |
|
Eth:
I have encountered a couple of people in your situation, but I have not read any case decisions involving your type of situation. Having an undocumented father is a security issue, but I don’t know how difficult it is to mitigate this issue.
There are 2 criteria within the Adjudicative Guidelines that apply—Personal Conduct (Guideline E) and Foreign Influence (Guideline B). In your case these guidelines are concerned with your susceptibility to coercion and your susceptibility to foreign exploitation.
A copy of the Adjudicative Guidelines is posted at http://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/60321.htm |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 28 Jan 2010 at 12:56 pm |
|
Hopeful (md):
Question #22 on the SF86 states that even a dismissed criminal charge must be listed on the form. I should also mention that it is far more difficult to obtain an interim clearance than to obtain a final clearance. |
|
| Eth (NV) |
on 27 Jan 2010 at 3:01 pm |
|
I need to get a Secret clearance but my father is undocumented all other immediate family members are documented. Is this going to cause a problem with me not being able to obtain the secret clearance?
Thanks, |
|
| Hopeful (md) |
on 27 Jan 2010 at 12:01 pm |
|
| Even if the charge was dismissed?? I included all the info as well as what I have done to redeem myself. Im only 24 and the debts are from 3 years ago. I have listed all of what I told you with explanations. Thanks for your help I guess well see how it goes... |
|
| Orange County Dave (California) |
on 26 Jan 2010 at 8:25 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson:
Thank you VERY much for this info! I've since discovered that the official disposition on my felony charge was a "declaration of factual innocence", which I plan to package with my SF86 along with a letter from my attorney and additionally all the information you suggested obtaining and coordinating with my doctor insofar-as medical releases and an official letter.
I feel much more at ease going into the security clearance end of this now having read your expert opinion. I hope that the forthrightness on my part regarding these mitigating circumstances also helps with regard to employment suitability. We shall see, I suppose.
Again, very much appreciated.
Dave |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 26 Jan 2010 at 8:24 pm |
|
Katie S (Maryland):
Your Secret clearance is based on an NACLC (National Agency Check with Law enforcement and Credit checks) and does not meet the investigative requirements of an NACI (National Agency Check with written Inquires) needed for a federal employment suitability determination for a position at any sensitivity level. So you will have to have at least an NACI for a non-sensitive position. Every federal agency does things differently, but most generally follow the processing steps I described in the article. The employment suitability determination is ususally made by someone in the HR office, not the hiring manager. I don’t know how much influence a hiring manager has over suitability determinations at any particular agency. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to explain things to the hiring manager with the hope that she will go to bat for you. If you reported your 2003 and 2008 DUIs to your Facility Security Officer as required, there is a possibility that your Secret clearance can be reciprocally accepted by the gaining federal agency. But that might have no influence on the employment suitability determination. If your Secret clearance can not be reciprocally accepted by the gaining federal agency because of the 2003 and/or 2008 DUIs, then your chance of getting an interim Secret clearance is poor. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 26 Jan 2010 at 7:40 pm |
|
Kimi (Ca):
Within the federal government a “Personnel Security Investigation—PSI” is a term used for a background investigation conducted to determine a person’s suitability for federal employment and/or eligibility for a national security clearance. All applicants for federal employment must undergo a PSI, the most basic of which is a National Agency Check with written Inquires (NACI) for non-sensitive positions. Generally dual citizenship is not an issue for non-sensitive positions. It can be an issue for a position that requires a security clearance, but much depends on how the dual citizenship was acquired and if the person has received any benefit of foreign citizenship.
Please see my article on “Dual Citizenship and Security Clearances” at http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/91/dual-citizenship-and-security-clearances.
Also see my “Suitability/Security Clearance Chart” at http://lastpostpublishing.com/Documents/Investigative_Chart.pdf for information that describes the different PSIs and position sensitivity levels in the federal government. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 26 Jan 2010 at 7:21 pm |
|
Hopeful (D.C.):
Based on the information you provided, you must list your delinquent debt, citation for possession of paraphernalia, use of marijuana, and employment termination that occurred within the past 7 years on your SF86.
There is only one condition that will definitely result in the denial of a Secret security clearance. That condition is current illegal use of a drug. Every other potentially disqualifying condition must be evaluated within the context that it occurred or exists and within the context of a “whole person” assessment. Any illegal use of drugs and any inability/unwillingness to pay debts are potentially disqualifying conditions. Some types of work-related misconduct or a pattern of misconduct can be a potentially disqualifying condition. A single misdemeanor offense without any aggravating circumstances generally is not a potentially disqualifying condition. |
|
| Katie S (Maryland) |
on 26 Jan 2010 at 9:44 am |
|
Mr. Henderson,
I currently have a Secret. I have been working as a contractor the last 8 yrs of my employment. I have been offered a government position. Now, I seem to be in the same boat as Mark (TX). I have DUIs, from 1994, 1995 (young & stupid), 2003 and now I have one from 2008, for which I am on probation. There are circumstances for this last one which I will provide to the investigator, however, I understand it is what it is. I was sent forms via email, to include the Declaration for Fed Employment. I am due to go in for all this processing 01 Feb. The lady I interviewed with just called me and is going to send me security info via email to get the process going, which I am assuming is e-quip access.
I have since been under alot of anxiety over this. I have wanted this opportunity forever. I just graduated after 8 yrs of school part-time and still working.
This lady that made the offer loves my background and what I can provide for her.
My questions are:
Should I call her back and let her know my personal status?
Is she the deciding factor to continue my in processing or is it security at the gate/visitor bldg?
Because I already have a secret, will I still pass an interim till I speak to an investigator?
My license is suspended because I refused the breath test, I an getting it back in June. I have no problem getting back & forth to work.
My SF-86 is ready with all info, nothing held back.
I am ready to speak about anything during the process & keep short & sweet.
I would appreciate any advice you could give me,
Katie S |
|
| Kimi (Ca) |
on 26 Jan 2010 at 7:56 am |
|
Hi
I applied for the position says "Personnel security investigation required" and I am dual citizen (asian-american).
Does this mean I have to obtain and maintain Secret security clearance. The job is in Army Corp of Engineer. How does this work with dual citizenship?
Thanks your site is wonderful |
|
| Hopeful (D.C) |
on 25 Jan 2010 at 2:24 pm |
|
Questions:
I have one charge-off on my credit report total of 1,298, but this was charged off in 06'. Will this affect me from getting a secret clearance??
Also I got a citation for possession of paraphernalia but the case was NOLLE PROSEQUI meaning the case was dismissed so i don't have a record. There is a question that says have you ever received a citation, ticket etc,. Should I list this??
And I also experimented with marijuana 4 years ago 2 times.
Also I got terminated from a company that's no longer in business, should i report that also??
And with these 3 things would that disqualify me from getting the clearance, I mean with the leverage I have no record just a charge off and experimentation 4 yrs ago with marijuana approx 2 times? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:30 pm |
|
Mory (Virginia):
Government policy permits one agency to use new information obtained by another organization to readjudicate a person’s continued eligibiity subject to restrictions placed on use of the information by the organization that obtained it. So the answer is yes, it can affect your DOD TS and pending SCI, but DOD does not have to reach the same decision reached by the CIA adjudicator. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 22 Jan 2010 at 11:12 pm |
|
Nervous Rey:
Normally if there is a disagreement between the former employee and the former employer about the reason for employment termination, the fact that the former employee received unemployment benefits supports the former employees contention that he/she was laid off rather than fired for cause. When you acknowledge that you were fired for violating company policy, unemployment benefits have no affect on security clearance adjudication. Adjudicators are (or should be) concerned with conduct, not outcomes. In the same vein, cleaning up a record really doesn’t help things because the incident is probably known to a few people who may be interviewed during your PR, and the attorney can't erase their memories. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:57 pm |
|
Concerned (Maryland):
When in doubt I always recommend full disclosure. There are 3 questions on the SF86 that somewhat apply to you:
26c. Have you failed to pay Federal, state, or other taxes, or to file a tax return when required by law or ordinance?
26m. Have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debts(s)?
26p. Are you currently delinquent on any Federal debts?
It can be argued that you failed to pay the “correct” amount of federal tax in 2006 and that because underpayment of taxes are due on 15 April, you were delinquent from then until you began making installment payments (180 days?). I think most people would agree that you are not currently delinquent because you are paying the IRS as agreed. Depending on the exact circumstances surrounding this matter, there may be a more pursuasive rationale for answering "no" to these questions.
In my earlier post I stated that adjudicators don’t normally have information about an applicant’s income, because things like spouse’s income, distributions from trust funds, financial support from parents, and investment income are obviously beyond the scope of any standard security clearance investigation. Such information would only be sought if there were indications of unexplained affluence/income and the standard investigation was expanded to cover this issue. If you study the investigative components of the different types of investigations, it is not difficult to determine what type of information will normally surface in each type of investigation. With a full field investigation like an SSBI, just about any relevant information can surface unless the Subject is the only person who knows about it and chooses not to disclose it. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:02 pm |
|
Orange County Dave:
1. Being charged with a felony offense is a potentially disqualifying condition; however, “evidence that the person did not commit the offense” will fully mitigate this condition. You need to fully explain what happened in the “continuation space” of the paper version of the SF86 or the appropriate comment section of eQIP version.
2. What you described will not result in the denial of a final security clearance. However, any mental health treatment usually results in the declination of an interim clearance. If good documentation is submitted with your SF86, it is sometimes possible to sufficiently mitigate the issue early in the clearance process, thereby enabling the adjudicator to grant an interim clearance. Getting past the suitability adjudicator is a separate matter and as I have indicated, it is impossible for a person outside the specific government agency to predict what a suitability adjudicator will decide.
Since this question has been asked more than once, here’s what I recommend (it worked for a person who was initially declined an interim clearance by DISCO):
Obtain a letter from your psychiatrist/psychologist (on his/her letterhead stationary) stating that you do not have “a condition or treatment that could impair your judgment or reliability, particularly in the context of safeguarding classified national security information.” The letter should include your psychiatrist/psychologist’s address, telephone and fax numbers, and a statement indicating that he/she is willing to answer questions about your condition/treatment from any government security official by telephone, fax, mail, or in person. It would be good if the letter also described your treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis. You should sign a medical information release form authorizing your psychiatrist to discuss your case with government security officials. Use whatever form your psychiatrist normally uses, but also give your psychiatrist a copy of the medical release that is part of the SF86. Leave a copy of both releases on file at your psychiatrist/psychologist’s office and give a copy of the release normally used by the psychiatrist with the psychiatrist’s letter to the person who processes your SF86. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 22 Jan 2010 at 9:30 pm |
|
Nerousguard:
Just about everyone convicted of a first-time DUI is placed on informal probation, so it generally is not viewed as a separate issue. There is no reference to parole or probation in 5 CFR 731.202. In the Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) lists “individual is currently on parole or probation” as a separate example of a potentially disqualifying condition, but I don’t think it is the intent of the Adjudicative Guidelines to view informal probation the same as formal probation when the informal probation results from a single isolated misdemenor offense. |
|
| nervousguard (DC) |
on 22 Jan 2010 at 1:16 pm |
|
MR Henderson,
Thank you very much for your input. I have completed all requirements of the court. The only issue I can see is the fact that I am still on an "informal" probation. Meaning that I do not report to an officer or anything, but if I were to be a moron and get stopped again with alcohol on my breath, I would go to jail. I have no idea if "informal" really means "just don't be a moron", or if the adjudicator will look at it in another way. Let me know what you think.
Again thank you so much |
|
| Orange County Dave (California) |
on 22 Jan 2010 at 12:47 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
Your wealth of knowledge regarding the convoluted process of security clearance has shed a lot of light for me and clearly a number of people in this forum. Thank you.
I am applying with ICE and FBI this Spring and have reviewed but not filled out the SF86 form. Here are my two areas of concern:
1) I was misidentified in a felony assault case by one of two witnesses who picked me in a police "six-pack" (yes, this was enough to serve a warrant unfortunately). The guilty party was later identified and charged (after several court appearances and thousands of dollars in legal fees on my part) and I was given what my lawyer referred to as "the closest thing to an apology the court will give you." Obviously there are extensive and extenuating circumstances re this item that explain the charge, and I do expect this to prolong the review process, but can you foresee this being an actual disqualifier for TS clearance or just a speed bump?
2) I had three sessions of counseling and was prescribed a low dosage of medication for insomnia as a symptom/side affect of mild depression. I read some of your other replies regarding similar situations below and they were very helpful. I am certain my doctor would provide a letter ensuring that I am not a security risk-- the problem had never affected my professional or personal life dramatically or led to other issues even prior to treatment and resolve, simply a 'thorn' I preferred not to have in my side. But it is still a "yes" to item 21, which you mentioned is almost always an issue. Did you mean this is a problem for getting interim clearance only or clearance period? Would the aforementioned letter and assurance from my doctor likely mitigate this in the end, or are the chances very slim of gaining clearance at all?
The above are the only blemishes on my SF86 and my only concerns, save a less than desirable driving record from my teenage years and early twenties (a few speeding tickets and couple non-injury fender benders, no DUI's).
Any insight and advice you can lend here would be invaluable to me. I'd like to know what I'm up against.
Thank you in advance!
Dave |
|
| Concerned (Maryland) |
on 21 Jan 2010 at 5:58 pm |
|
| Thank you for the answer about the IRS debt. The question on the SF86 asks if I am delinquent on a federal debt and I thought i would not be since I am making payments. Also, how will they know I have an IRS debt if it does not show on my credit report? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 21 Jan 2010 at 4:35 pm |
|
Nervousguard:
If your DUI is an isolated incident (no other alcohol-related problems), there are no aggravating circumstances, your consumption of alcohol is moderate or less, and you fulfilled all requirement imposed by the court, I believe a favorable suitability/fitness determination should be made in your case.
I base this opinion on the dozens of security clearance decision I have read that involved alcohol-related problems. But there is no one-to-one relationship between security clearance determinations and employment suitability/fitness determinations.
All security clearance adjudicators use the same Adjudicative Guidelines. This document is almost 6,000 words long. Employment suitability/fitness adjudicators use the criteria at 5 CFR 731.202 (about 340 words long) plus any supplemental criteria they may have for the specific position. Another problem is that there are no publicly available written decisions on employment suitability determinations. And even if there were cases you could read, the decisions reached by different adjudicative offices would probably vary greatly because of the lack of specificity in the criteria at 5 CFR 731.202 allows a lot of latitude in how the criteria are applied. |
|
| Nervous Rey (California) |
on 21 Jan 2010 at 1:02 pm |
|
Mr Henderson, thank you very much for the information you provided it has been very helpful.
In reference to the information I provided the attorney, I actually think I provided more information on this blog than I did to him. I didn’t even get a chance to tell him that I have maintained my current boss and FSO up to date on these issues. The computer incident last March is what worried me where I did not know how to respond based on the circumstances. It happened on my 3rd day of employment of all things so as you can imagine this whole time I have been worried about it.
Since my conversation with the attorney I have spoken with an Army NCO who handles security clearances and he told me that since there was no adverse action taken against me by my company or the Army that I should answer yes and explain that it was a "inadvertent mistake" just in case it should come up. Since the incident I have taken the Army Info Assurance class twice and continue to have full privileges on the Army's IT system. He also mentioned that hiring an attorney to clean up my record before it was even adjudicated would make me look like I was trying to hide something.
As for being fired I received unemployment benefits for 2 months until I got to my current position, I am wondering if that will help my case? Thank You for your time Sir. |
|
| Mory (Virginia) |
on 21 Jan 2010 at 12:42 pm |
|
Mr Henderson,
I recently received an SOR from the CIA for a denial of TS/SCI access and a revocation of my existing ISA/Secret. I plan to follow the outlined steps to appeal this decision, as it appears based on weak elements (e.g. Personal Conduct, accusations taking individually are not disqualifying but together....), knowing that the best it will do for me is to allow me to answer "NO" on future SF86s re: having had any clearances denied or revoked.
However, I currently hold a DOD TS and am in process for a non-poly SCI. What is the likelihood that this adverse decision by the CIA will affect my existing DOD TS and on-going upgrade to SCI?
Appreciate your insight. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:45 pm |
|
Nervous Rey:
I am hessitant to contradict the advice of an attorney to whom you probably gave much more detailed information than you are providing here. At any rate I am a little uncomfortable about his advice, particularly the part about doing a psychological profile. I recommend you get an opinion from a second lawyer. There is a retired DOHA judge (DOHA judges decide security clearance cases on DoD contractors) in Van Nuys, CA. Just Google “security clearance lawyer Van Nuys” and you will find him. |
|
| nervousguard (DC) |
on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:35 pm |
|
Mr Henderson,
I had posted this a few weeks ago to no reply. I would greatly appreciate some input. Thank you so much.
MR Henderson,
I recently submitted an SF85 for a MRPT from the DOS. I had a first offense DUI in July of 09. Do I have any chance of getting a favorable out come. I disclosed fully, and that is my only negative comment on the form. Good credit no foreign contacts. What do you think? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:25 pm |
|
Fran:
There is no prohibition against dual citizens holding PT positions. Adjudicative criteria for PT positions
Is governed by 5 CFR 731.202 and any supplement criteria established for a specific position within a specific federal agency. You’ll notice that there is no criterion for “financial considerations” at 5 CFR 731.202 but most federal agencies use financial considerations as a suitability/fitness criterion for PT positions. You will have to ask the hiring federal agency the exact suitability criteria they use for the position you are interested in. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:12 pm |
|
Kristin:
You answered question #21 incorrectly. You should have answered “yes.” However, by including the information about your mental health treatment in the comment section you have effectively corrected this error. The bad news is that a “yes” response (or in your case the equivalent of a yes response) to question #21 almost always results in the declination of an interim clearance. There are some things that can be done to improve a person’s chance of being granted an interim clearance in this situation. Since you have already submitted the SF86, wait a few days and if you have not be granted an interim clearance, come back here and ask how to mitigate mental health treatment when an interim clearance is needed but has been declined. BTW having an interim clearance declined is not the same as having a clearance denied. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 20 Jan 2010 at 7:00 pm |
|
Concerned (Maryland):
Usually the only time debt-to-income ratio is examined is when a person has significant current delinquent debt. In your case there is a remote possibility that your IRS debt could trigger such an examination. Adjudicators have no way of computing debt-to-income ratio unless an investigator asks an applicant what his/her income is and includes this information in a report. If you are questioned by an investigator, you will have ample opportunity to explain your entire financial situation. I think your chance of being granted a new final security clearance (if your gaining agency actually wants to go that route) is very good. You may have a problem with an interim clearance because of the IRS debt. Be sure to explain the IRS situation thoroughly in the comment section of the SF86 to minimize the possibility of having an interim clearance declined.
You are being asked to submit a new application form because you are a candidate for federal employment, not because your current Secret clearance is not good enough for the gaining federal agency. Your Secret clearance was based on an NACLC. The minimum federal employment suitability investigation is an NACI. The NACI contains investigative components that are not present in an NACLC. Therefore an NACLC is not good enough for employment suitability purposes. The gaining agency can have you submit an SF86 and conduct an ANACI, which can be used as the basis for both employment suitability and secret clearance determinations. Or they can have you submit an SF85 and conduct an NACI, which will only satisfy the employment suitability requirement, and concurrently accept the Secret clearance you already have. |
|
| Kristin |
on 20 Jan 2010 at 3:15 pm |
|
I am really confused on how to answer question 21 on sf86.
Mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a clearance.
In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental
health condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition?
Answer “No” if the counseling was for any of the following reasons and was not court-ordered:
• strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or
• strictly related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment.
If you answered "Yes," indicate who conducted the treatment and/or counseling, provide the following
information, and sign the Authorization for Release of Medical Information Pursuant to the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Here's my situation: I was never court-ordered to counseling or court-ordered to the hospital
I was briefly hospitalized for less than 48 hours in 2003 after issues of depression (not being able to sleep, separation anxiety from my parents, and being raped at college) I have seen a therapist and psychiatrist, but no longer see a therapist and currently see a psychiatrist every year for medicine checks. I am currently stable and I was stable when I graduated in 2007 from college. The past situation was a temporary one caused by the items mentioned above, I have resolved the situation by running each day, therapy, medication.
I responded on the sf86 by answering NO to the question however, I gave an explanation similar to the one above however it was more detailed.
Is this a reason to deny interim secret clearance?
I feel I have mediated it by explaining that it was a temporary situation and have explained my ongoing and consistent treatment plan and have also explained that my mental instability doesn't exist anymore. I also included my psychiatrist's contact information and signed the health waiver consent form.
Is this ok with what I did? |
|
| Fran (CA) |
on 20 Jan 2010 at 8:36 am |
|
| Does dual citizenship conflict with moderate risk Public trust positions? in the other hand, can dual citizens get PT positions? |
|
| Nervous Rey (California) |
on 19 Jan 2010 at 11:09 am |
|
| Sir: I am up for a TS Security Clearance renewal this year. A year ago I was terminated from a retail store for violating a company policy. (Nothing Criminal) EG Failure to file a report on a serious incident. A year previous to that I was given a final warning were I turned myself in for having violated another policy but was admired for my honesty. When I first got here to my new position I connected a government computer to the internet and had it confiscated because it did not have an ID reader and I did not have a government ID card just yet. However I explained it was a misunderstanding and never got punished for it. I was talking with a lawyer who specializes in appeals on security clearances and he told me basically that I was going to be denied for these things and that I should stay ahead of the game and utilize his services, where they could clean up my records and make me look good for the SF-86, including a psychological profile. His firm was going to charge me around 1000 dollars for this. WAS he telling me the truth? Will I flat out be denied? I thought honesty was the best policy in filling out your paperwork? Can you advise? Thanks. |
|
| Concerned (Maryland) |
on 19 Jan 2010 at 8:23 am |
|
| I am retired military and working as a contractor with a secret clearance that is good until 2016. I have been offered a federal position which requires a new security application. The forms says to go back 7 years. I had a chapter 7 discharged 7 years and 4 months ago. Since then I have never been late on any payment to creditors. I have three cars which I owe $50K and about $12K in credit card payments. I also have been paying $75 a month for an error on my income tax in 2006. When contacted by the IRS I set up a plan right away and have not missed a payment with them yet. Will they look down at my debt to income since I had a bankrupcy dischared that is out of the scope of this investiation? I have a good job now and would hate to give it up just to get denied a clearance and be out two jobs. What will they look at because some of my credit cards are almost maxed but I am about to pay off about 5 credit cards. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 19 Jan 2010 at 1:34 am |
|
Hiring Manager:
The OPM credentialling guidelines for HSPD-12 PIV cards (same as CAC) are posted at http://www.hss.doe.gov/DepPersonnelSec/guidance/Final_Credentialing_Standards_for_Issuing_PIV_Cards.pdf
The guidelines are very flexible. Some agencies don't even follow the guidelines. You should be able to get a copy of the credentialling standards used by your federal agency, but figuring out how those standards are actually applied may be very difficult. |
|
| Nervousin FL (Florida) |
on 18 Jan 2010 at 8:11 am |
|
| BTW Should I try to tell the Personal Office my side of DUI story upon submitting Form 306, or simply let them know we are maintaining that I am not guilty? |
|
| NervousIn FL (Florida) |
on 18 Jan 2010 at 6:50 am |
|
I have been offered a what I believe is a Public Trust Position GS 12 , I have been asked to complete a Form 306. I have a first time DUI charge against me which I am fighting. In FL it can carry 60 days jail or probation, although jail is unusual for someone with a clean record like me. I have been told after this submittal I will be emailed the e-QIP. I also have a 9 year old bankruptcy due to divorce, but bills in collections and chargeoffs again.
How should I handle all this, and would I be better off pleading guilty so the DUI is resolved? |
|
| Hiring Manager (VA) |
on 07 Jan 2010 at 3:20 pm |
|
I am about to hire an applicant for unclassified work for the Govt but requires a favorable adjudication on an NACI in order to get a CAC card and work on the program I manage. He has told me he did file for bankruptcy 4 yrs ago, but does not have any foreclosures, court actions, or present credit problems. Assuming this is true, could a 4 yr old bankruptsy itself prove a problem for adjudicating his NACI?
Thanks, this site is very helpful! |
|
| Insecure (Philadelphia) |
on 07 Jan 2010 at 9:56 am |
|
Dear Bill,
If I change jobs while waiting for adjudication to finish, are they going to re-open the background investigation stage to re-interview my current and future bosses? I'd very much appreciate if you could give me your take on this. Of course, I plan to inform them of this change. |
|
| Sad (Austin) |
on 06 Jan 2010 at 8:29 pm |
|
Dear Mr. Henderson,
I hope you can help me. I was offered a dream job with a private company that creates products for the military. As far as I know, my record is completely clean except for one thing - a Chapter 7 bankruptcy that I filed two years ago as a sole proprietor.
I filled out an application for an interim Top Secret clearance and it was immediately denied. I received a letter from the HR representative at the company which revoked my job offer.
The security clearance representative at the company said there is no appeals process for an interim security clearance. She said that if I want to know the reason for the denial, I can contact DISCO but that it usually takes six to 12 months. I thought that knowing the reason right away might be useful, because there may have been some type of error or misunderstanding that caused the denial.
I was so looking forward to this position. Do you have any advice that might help?
Thanks so much! |
|
| Donna (Maryland) |
on 06 Jan 2010 at 7:00 pm |
|
I recently went through a short sale on my home in October. I interviewed for a job and was offered the position until the subcontractor reviewed my credit report showing my short sale...which shows a "charge off" with a balance due. The subcontractor decided not to present my file to DHS for Suitability Review and withdrew the offer. My question is can I loose my Secret Clearance due to the short sale? Will this be my delima for all types of government positions or will in time this not be a problem.
Thank you, Donna |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 06 Jan 2010 at 5:29 pm |
|
Marine-4life:
You should immediately report the matter to your security manager. Absent any aggravating factors, it is rare for a security clearance to be revoked because of a single DWI. The most common action taken by a clearance granting authority against a cleared individual because of a single DWI is the issuance of a written warning that future incidents of a similar nature may result in a clearance revocation. The worst thing that may happen in a case like your’s is the temporary suspension of your clearance while the clearance granting authority gathers and reviews all relevant information about the incident.
Here is what the Adjudicative Guidelines say at paragraph 2:
(e) When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the person:
(1) voluntarily reported the information;
(2) was truthful and complete in responding to questions;
(3) sought assistance and followed professional guidance, where appropriate;
(4) resolved or appears likely to favorably resolve the security concern;
(5) has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and employment;
(6) should have his or her access temporarily suspended pending final adjudication of the information.
(f) If after evaluating information of security concern, the adjudicator decides that the information is not serious enough to warrant a recommendation of disapproval or revocation of the security clearance, it may be appropriate to recommend approval with a warning that future incidents of a similar nature may result in revocation of access.
I recommend you read my article on Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances posted at http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/59/alcohol-consumption-and-security-clearances |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 06 Jan 2010 at 5:09 pm |
|
Frank W:
You were misinformed. No public record, local criminal record, or credit record checks are run on family members who currently reside with you. For an SSBI the only investigation conducted on relatives is verification of US citizenship or legal status of foreign born immediate family members and a National Agency Check (NAC) on a spouse or cohabitant. A cohabitant is someone living with you in a spouse-like relationship. During your Personal Subject Interview (PRSI) for your SSBI, you will be asked about any condition or conduct related to a close relative or friend that could affect you in any way. That will be the time to disclose information about your son’s condition and conduct. Generally your eligibility for a security clearance will be negatively affected only to the extent that you can be influenced to do something illegal or contrary to the security interests of the United States by or because of your son. |
|
| nervousguard (DC) |
on 06 Jan 2010 at 4:48 pm |
|
MR Henderson,
I recently submitted an SF85 for a MRPT from the DOS. I had a first offense DUI in July of 09. Do I have any chance of getting a favorable out come. I disclosed fully, and that is my only negative comment on the form. Good credit no foreign contacts. What do you think? |
|
| Frank W |
on 03 Jan 2010 at 10:22 pm |
|
Bill
My question is in regard to suitability and investigation standards. I am about to undergo a SSBI for a TS. My son has recently charged with 2 feloines and about a year ago he had domestic assault (misdemenor) . His 2 feloines are pending still while his domestic assault was lowered to simple assault and battery. The 2 feloines were did not involve violence. I know for an SSBI that public record checks are ran on family memebers who currently reside with me ,in which my son does. He was recently was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and a few other mental issues which triggered these incidents. I am certain my investigator will ask about my sons record since it is public knowledge and they run his date of birth threw local and state law enforement agencies. Can this hurt me in getting a TS clearance and SAR or SAP access ? There is no urgencey to get the TS now so should I wait until his charges get dispostioned ? He was found incompentent by Pshychiatrist so the lawyer that I hired said the charges will dropped in one felony and the other felony he will be reffered to mental health court |
|
| Marine4life (TX) |
on 02 Jan 2010 at 10:55 pm |
|
Hello Sir,
My question is I have a Active TS and I just received a First Offense DWI this past New years Eve. I was wondering what are they proper steps to keep this from my job or agency taking away my clearance because of my first offense DWI. I have clean record and this my first offense ever.
Thanks |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 29 Dec 2009 at 2:02 pm |
|
Jeff:
A 09B is a standard ANACI (Access National Agency Check with written Inquiries). It is used for initial-hire federal employees who require a Secret clearance. Being unable or unwilling to pay your debts is a potentially disqualifying condition for a security clearance. A clearance can be granted when a disqualifying condition exists, if the disqualifying condition is mitigated. To mitigate your financial problem you will have to show that something beyond your control caused you to become unable to continue making your mortgage payments and that you have acted reasonably and responsibly in trying to resolve your mortgage problem.
The fact that you completely stopped making mortgage payments in June will work against you. Completing a short sale or renegotiating your mortgage and getting back on track before your case is fully adjudicated will improve your position.
Aside from any unpaid debt that exists, the adjudicator will focus on why you got into this financial problem and how you have been handling the problem.
I recommend that you read a series of articles that I wrote on personal finances and security clearances. “Impact of Delinquent Debt on Security Clearances” is posted at
http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/39/the-impact-of-delinquent-debt-on-security-clearances
with links to the other articles. |
|
| Jeff (NC) |
on 26 Dec 2009 at 12:23 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
I was recently hired as an IT Specialist/GS 9 position from being a contractor in the same Navy Medical Command. During the hiring process I disclosed on the Federal Employment Form that I'm delinquent on home mortgage loan. HR informed the command and they decided to continue with the hiring process; they requested to turn in SF86 for security background/clearance.
1. I recently retired from active duty with Honorable Discharge.
2. I have no other issues besides Financial Considerations. When I left active duty, I couldn't afford my mortgage the current economy caught up to me. I'm the only one working, my wife is taking care of our three toddlers.
3. I left active duty June 2009 and the same month I got this contract job. Wife and I decided to short sale the house and we defaulted on the payment since then.
4. We've been proactively working with the bank since June for loan modification and started short-sale process. We submitted 2 offers for short sale and waiting reply from them.
Type of Investigation: 09B; Sensitivity Level: 2; Access/Eligibility: 2
Is short-sale or loan modification will mitigate my financial considerations even though we defaulted on the payments?
I've been honest to my employer since the start and no disappointments on my job performance. I started this federal job 21 Dec and the command completed the SF-86 submission 23 Dec. I am really worried if I get denied of security clearance that the command will terminate my federal employment. My wife and I have never had any history of financial issues before mortgage problems. Anticipating to my situation, should I start looking for another job? I appreciate any information you can give me. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 22 Dec 2009 at 5:02 pm |
|
Ryan:
I have to assume that by an “IT clearance” your prospective employer means a Public Trust (PT) position. PT positions are designated as either Moderate-Risk or High Risk. Public Trust positions include positions designated ADP-I, ADP-II, ADP-III, IT-1, IT-2, IT-3, IT-5, IT-6, 5C and 6C.
DoD uses the same criteria for national security clearances as they do for PT positions. I have seen a DoD security clearance case where an applicant unintentionally failed to comply with his legal obligation to register for the Selective Service and was granted a security clearance. The determining factor was the plausibility of the applicant’s explanation for failing to register and his later efforts to correct this mistake. BTW failure to register with Selective Service is a bar to federal employment (this does not apply to contractor positions). |
|
| ForeignAmerican (Philadelphia) |
on 22 Dec 2009 at 4:21 pm |
|
Thank you for this great blog, which I found only yesterday (to my delight) and the great book. I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to offer a general response to the following question.
For a candidate awaiting top-security clearance with an intelligence organization and having an immaculate background and speaking two focus languages fluently, how much of a minus is it for his clearance that he was born abroad and spent half of his life there and has now completed forms for 15 foreign contacts, including parents and siblings (all except 1 of which reside in friendly countries)? With all other things being equally, would you say my chances are 50/50, less, more?
Also, if you have time for another question, on the SF86 cover letter the hiring organization states standard that I am not the only one being considered for the position and that the offer can be withdrawn at any time for any reason independent of the clearance criteria. But how common is it that they would do that with a qualified candidate when/if he looks likely to pass the clearance? Having spent so much time and money, don't they usually find another position for you or something? Or is this just a wishful thinking at its most pathetic?
Happy holidays! |
|
| Ryan (Houston) |
on 20 Dec 2009 at 11:44 pm |
|
| I worked as a DOD contractor in Kuwait from 2004-2008. I am trying to go back over to Iraq or Afghanistan but the company is asking for a It clearance. My back ground is clear and so is my credit. The problem is I found out there is a problem with my selective service registration that I didn't know about. I called them and they are sending me a letter. They are claiming that I never registered. I sent them info on the year I registered and all the addreses changes I sent to them. They are saying that my card never got processed so they didnt have an account to change the address. I also informed them that I never received a letter stating any problems with the address or my registration. What can I do? Can I still get a clearance with out being registered? Can I write a letter to anyone who can fix this? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 18 Dec 2009 at 9:26 pm |
|
Ricky:
I don’t know the rules at DHS regarding reapplying for a public trust position after being found unsuitable. There is no overarching federal rule that addresses this matter. I would imagine that you are eligible to apply for DHS contractor positions that are non-sensitive (i.e. not public trust positions) and DHS contractor public trust positions where financial considerations are not a suitability criterion. I suspect that almost all DHS contractor positions require eligibility for an HSPD-12 PIV card, where the primary criteria for eligibility are not being a suspected terrorist and being who you say you are. You can write or email DHS security office and ask them.
If they can find a sponsor, people who have been denied a national security clearance are eligible to request permission to reapply for a security clearance one year after being denied, but they must show that the factors surrounding the original reason they were denied the clearance have changed significantly. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 18 Dec 2009 at 9:05 pm |
|
Lynn:
An MBI is a Minimum Background Investigation. MBI are most commonly used as the basis for determining an individual’s suitability for a Moderate-Risk Public Trust position. Unlike the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information,” the suitability criteria at 5 CFR 731.202 do not include a criterion for financial consideration. However, federal agencies are authorized to establish job-specific suitability criteria that go beyond the criteria at 5 CFR 731.202. So, if financial considerations have been added to the employment suitability criteria for the VA job you have been offered, then your past financial problems could prevent you from being found suitable for the position. The amount of time that has gone by since your bankruptcy and your current financial situation will be taken into consideration. |
|
| MS BD (Washington) |
on 18 Dec 2009 at 6:55 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson
I have been offered a job with the State Department that requires a top secret clearance. At my last job I was not totally honest when asked about an incident at work. I did come clean within 30 minutes because I'm not ordinarily a decietful person and it really bothered. The result was I received a reprimand for deceptive conduct. It was the only reprimand, oral or written, I have ever received. I am including the incident on my sf 86 but I wondered if you could tell me if this will prevent my getting an interim or actual top secret clearance. |
|
| Lynn (San Diego) |
on 18 Dec 2009 at 11:40 am |
|
| I was denied a secret clearance for my current position because of financial problems. I have filed a chapter 13 and have my bills paid through court. I was offered a position at VA hospital that requires a MBI clearance and I had to fill out a SF85P. Do you think I will have any problems passing there background investigation? |
|
| Confused no more (Michigan) |
on 17 Dec 2009 at 10:28 pm |
|
Thank you very much MR Henderson
It seems I wasn't aware that my employers going back 3yrs, finances and education 7 yrs, and that 2 of the 3 references were contacted after my interview with the SI before I was granted my final clearance. The job is a MRPT but requires daily access to NCS material so an LBI was also done .
The employer of the HRPT position let me know that the only thing needed for them would be a BI going back another 5 years on friends, neighbors, foreign influence, employers, etc. which they would initiate with an offer.
Thanks Again |
|
| Roger (MI) |
on 17 Dec 2009 at 5:09 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson
I want to thank you for your patience in answering my questions. I did have an interview, where the investigator went through SF86 and some additional questions. He knew that I had interim clearance.
I will be reporting to duty soon and eagerly looking forward to serving.
Your kind effort has been helpful to me, as it had been/will be helpful to many others.
Thank you. |
|
| Ricky Anand (Virginia) |
on 16 Dec 2009 at 10:58 am |
|
I was just recently denied suitability to work on a DHS contract althought I have been working there for the past five years. I was denied under financial responsibility. I have been extremely delinquent with paying my bills and also had a foreclosure. My question is; was this a permenant decision by DHS or can I apply for DHS federal contract positions if my credit scores increases and I am able to improve my financial status at a later date. And if so is there a waiting period before I can apply for DHS contract positions.
Thanks |
|
| TC (new york) |
on 15 Dec 2009 at 11:50 pm |
|
Mr.Henderson thank you for the wonderful blog, if it is not too much can you answer this part of exert for me:
"The reason your investigation was stopped is because DISCO found an investigation on you that was already completed by OPM. We cannot process another investigation for you. The investigation already in progress has to be adjudicated and transferred."
I had a PTS (85P) from FAA i believe it was for moderate risks, all my personal references was interviewed m including me; I don't know it was MBI or LBI; I had a offer from TSA and recently this what I got for the contracting farm's FSO; she told TSA is going to use info from PTS, so my questions are (1) what they are going to do with SF86 information? (2) I have a one big problem with PTS info(work history) and sf 86 info, for PTS i named the employer info but forget the name of the contracting farm, my employee verified that i was a self employed contractor, but in SF 86 I put the information about my main contracting farm as a sole employer but not the physical place i worked, I was not thinking that mush at that time though and I did not much help from the farm regarding filling PTS 85p form. some time i used to work from home, some time at the clients site how can i incorporate with the person interviewing me for SF 86, and I forget to disclose information about 2001 t0 2003 (employee) it was part time IT job in DC while I was a full time student in NY my college professor can varify that and so the manager for the farm. I was mostly working from home, and some time stayed at friend’s home in DC which was verified in PTS.
So my concern is how i can take care of this problem information in PTS an SF86. My background in term of criminal is clean, financial. I had few late payments, one delinquents which was paid, and for foreign influence i keep in touch with my grandmother and uncle by phone in Bangladesh, and aunty in London, they are citizen of Bangladesh and Britain. US has a good relationship with Bangladesh. So what are my chances to get secret clearance?
Thank you so much. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 13 Dec 2009 at 8:13 pm |
|
Roger:
If you are being considered for a Top Secret clearance, a Personal Subject Interview (PRSI) by an investigator is a standard component of the investigation (Single Scope Background Investigation). A PRSI is not a component of an investigation (NACLC or ANACI) for a Confidential or Secret clearance. When a potential security/suitability issue exists, a Special Interview (SPIN) of the applicant is conducted by an investigator. A SPIN can be added to any type of investigation. A SPIN focuses only the existing security/suitability issue; whereas a PRSI covers everything on the SF86 plus a few other questions.
If required, SPINs and PRSIs are almost always conducted after an interim Secret clearance is granted, but they can occur before or after an interim Top Secret clearance is granted. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 13 Dec 2009 at 7:39 pm |
|
Slightly confused:
You do not have a national security clearance. National security clearance investigations are based on an SF86. Investigations conducted based on an SF85P can not be used as the basis for granting a national security clearance.
Most Moderate-Risk Public Trust (PT) positions are based on an SF85P and a Minimum Background Investigation (MBI) or a Limited Background Investigation (LBI). Most High-Risk PT positions are based on an SF85P (or an SF85P plus an SF85PS) and an LBI or a Background Investigation (BI). If no references were interviewed in person (only letter inquiries), you probably had an MBI. An employer must nominate you for a position designated as High-Risk PT before the government will conduct the necessary investigation. If you are nominated for such a position, you may be required to submit a new SF85P (and possibly an SF85PS) and a new LBI or BI will be conducted. OPM has something called a BGI. It is an investigative product designed to upgrade a recent LBI to a BI. Other agencies may have similar limited investigations. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 13 Dec 2009 at 7:19 pm |
|
NerousinMaine:
Your “disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace” offense should be evaluated under the “Criminal Conduct” guideline of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Absent any aggravating or complication factors, a single misdemeanor offense is not normally a potentially disqualifying condition under this guideline. For more information I recommend my 2-part article on Criminal Conduct. One part is posted at http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/72/efffect-of-criminal-conduct-on-security-clearances and has a link to the 2nd part. |
|
| dr (kentucky) |
on 13 Dec 2009 at 1:58 pm |
|
I had a security clearance revoked in army they said I lied about paying my bills. I was young and stupid but did not lie.
That has been almost six years ago had bankruptcy and divorce. All these last 10 years I have been in Army Afghan and Iraq.
I am getting out and need a naci clearance. Will I be eligible?
I have never had and criminal nothing. A couple of traffic tickets beside this.
Can I get this fixed?
Thank you. |
|
| JohnF (California) |
on 12 Dec 2009 at 3:39 pm |
|
Mr.Henderson,
I started working for a Federal Contractor in June 2004 and received my SSBI clearance in Sept 2004. In August 2008 I applied to CBP for a position as an officer. I was offered the position tentatively until my background investigator found a letter of reprimand in my personnel folder from a previous manager over a work incident for which she was terminated a little while after. I raised my voice to her and she made me out to be 'beligerant' as she described in the written reprimand.
Last month - two years after the incident - my Treasury clearance I obtained in Sept 04 with my employer was revoked because I was found unsuitable for the position of Customs officer last year. Consequently my employer had to lay me off. I am now applying for another contractor position where a Treasury clearance is required. I have no other issues in my background and great credit as well as Letters of Recommendation from my previous Manager and Supervisor from my most recent job
Is there a time frame I have to wait before I apply for another position that requires a Treasury clearance? If I apply now, do I stand a decent chance of getting my Treasury clearance back?
Thank you Mr.Henerson for all your advise |
|
| NervousinMaine (Maine) |
on 10 Dec 2009 at 10:21 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm sorry that I was not more clear regarding the type of clearance. I was required to apply for a secret security clearance (SF 86, electronic version, I believe). I was told the clearance would take a while but HR would submit the paperwork to OPM for some kind of interim clearance while the secret was being processed. You addressed three of my concerns (counseling, foreighn spouse, late payment) but I was hoping that you could comment on the disturbing the peace violation I described in the earlier post. Basically, I was given a ticket for disorderly for urinating outside of a train station late at night, it was reduced to disturbing the peace and I paid a fine of $350. Could that type of violation be a problem? (I have never had any other legal issues in the past). Thanks. |
|
| Roger (MI) |
on 10 Dec 2009 at 8:30 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson
Thank you for providing some insight for the questions I asked before.
I now have an interim clearance and a starting day for a federal agency. Meanwhile, the security clearance process (full) is being conducted by OPM. I just heard from an investigator working for OPM for an interview to go the application (SF86) that I submitted.
Is this routine process? I thought that if I did not have an interview before the interim clearance, I may not have any after the interim clearance is granted.
I understand that OPM and the agency security office have two parallel processes. You had indicated that if the interim clearance is granted the final clearance is "almost never" denied, unless new things crop up.
In any case, I have decided to join the agency very soon with the interim clearance. Because I do not have any issues to worry about, I hope all will be well. I am a naturalized citizen. |
|
| slightly confused (Michigan) |
on 09 Dec 2009 at 3:57 pm |
|
| I received my final adjudication for a moderate public trust position as a contractor for the DoS involving sensitive but unclassified material, after filling out the sf85p, equip, and meeting with an investigator. My question is that I am interested in advancing to a high risk trust position and wondered 2 things. First is whether I have a security clearance at my current level? With the 2nd being is there anything I would need to do before applying for the high risk position since the sf85p form going back 7years is used for both positions. As far as I know none of my references were contacted that were listed on the form I submitted a few months ago since I figured they would have contacted me about it. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 08 Dec 2009 at 8:14 pm |
|
NervousinMaine:
I can’t figure out the sensitivity level of the position you are applying for. All applicants for federal employment must fill out an OF306. Depending on the sensitivity level of the position an SF85, SF85P, SF85P + SF85PS, or SF86 are required. None of the forms ask about paid accounts that were previously less 180 days delinquent. Only the SF86 and SF85PS have questions regarding mental health, but both forms specifically exclude marital counseling.
A foreign national spouse is only an issue for a national security clearance. It is not an issue for an employment suitability determination, even if it’s for a High-Risk Public Trust position. There’s little you can do to improve your chance of getting an interim national security clearance if your spouse is a foreign national. That does not mean that your Japanese spouse will definitely make you ineligible for an interim clearance.
With that said, the most likely problem for receiving an interim clearance is the mental health counseling. Ask your mental health counselor for a letter (on his/her letterhead stationary) stating that you do not have a “condition or treatment that could impair your judgment or reliability, particularly in the context of safeguarding classified national security information or special nuclear information or material.” If the position does not require a national security clearance (i.e. confidential, secret, or top secret), the last part of the sentence is unnecessary. In the letter have the counselor state that he/she is willing to answer any questions regarding your treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis with any government official by telephone, fax, mail, or in person (include address and phone numbers). If your counselor is willing, have him/her include information in the letter about dates of treatment, medications (or that no medication was prescribed or recommended), diagnosis, prognosis, and referrals. Submit the letter to the security office that initiated your clearance paperwork. Fill out any medical information release form that your counselor uses and have a copy of the release placed in your record at the counselor's office. I assume you completed an “Authorization for Release of Medical Information” as part of your application for the government (last page of the SF86 or SF85P). I can’t guarantee that the letter will help at this stage, but it might. |
|
| NervousinMaine (Maine) |
on 05 Dec 2009 at 8:41 am |
|
Mr. Henderson, I am nervously awaiting a suitability clearance for a job with the PHS Commissioned Corps for the DOD behavioral health partnership that is scheduled to start at the beginning of the year. I have already visited the site (Fort Bragg, NC) and my potential future supervisor is awaiting my arrival. I have also given my notice at work and put a deposit on a house in NC. I was told several weeks ago that my orders would be issued before now, provided I clear the suitability/interim security requirements. I didn't expect that to be a problem. However, there are a couple of minor issues in my file that I disclosed that they are looking at closer:
1.) On July 4, 2008, I was given a citation for disorderly conduct which was reduced to disturbing the peace. I had urinated outside of a train station late at night after drinking with a friend. I paid a fine of $350 and the matter was closed. I have never had any other infractions (except for a couple of speeding tickets) prior to or after the July 4 incident. I do not have a history of alcohol related offenses and this is not reflective of my character.
2.) I had brief mental health counseling in the past 5 years for issues related to my marriage.
3.) My wife is a Japanese national (she is a permanent resident (green card).
4.) I was 120 days delinquent on a credit charge in 2006. We had moved and I forgot to provide a forwarding address to a department store card. I paid the bill and my credit history is otherwise excellent and I have a high credit score.
Which, if any, of those could jeopardize my chances of an interim clearance? Is there any way I can increase my chances of a favorable outcome? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 03 Dec 2009 at 2:47 pm |
|
Charly:
Unless there is more to your relationship with your wife’s friends than you indicated, it’s doubtful that the situation you describe would be considered a potentially disqualifying condition under the Foreign Influence criterion of the Adjudicative Guidelines. To be a potentially disqualifying condition the contact/relationship would have to create a “heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.” Whether or not a heightened risk exists depend on both the identity of the foreign country and the existence of a significant bond of affection, influence or obligation. |
|
| Charly (Massachusetts) |
on 03 Dec 2009 at 12:47 pm |
|
| We are planning a trip to Europe. My wife has some childhood friends who are living in Munich, Germany she'd like to visit. They have invited our family to stay with them. I am worried if we do that if we do that it might be considered a disqualifying factor under Foreign Influence category when my clearance comes up for review. Would it be more prudent to stay at a hotel there? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 01 Dec 2009 at 8:09 pm |
|
Corey:
It is standard procedure during the Personal Subject Interview (PRSI) for an investigator to limit his/her questions to the timeframes specified by the questions on the application form, unless there is specific justification to explore earlier conduct. If there have been no alcohol-related incidents or suspected alcohol-related problems in the past 10 years, I don’t believe there would be justification to question you about alcohol-related incidents that occurred more than 10 years ago. Excessive absenteeism or tardiness at work is an example of a suspected alcohol-related problem. For a standard MBI only the PRSI and possibly some police/court records checks are conducted by a field investigator. All other standard investigative components of an MBI are completed by letter inquiries and computer checks |
|
| Corey (WI) |
on 27 Nov 2009 at 12:00 pm |
|
| Mr. Henderson, I am a former federal civilian employee and am considering reapplying for federal employment. The position I'm looking at is a public trust position requiring a MBI investigation (SF85p) and a personal interview with an investigator. I have 3 alcohol-related incidents on my record that are over 10 years old, the last which occurred while I was a federal employee. There was no disciplinary action as I left federal employment for private sector. One of the incidents was listed on my original OF306 as it applied to the questions on that form. My question is, when I fill out the OF306 and SF85p and have no derogatory information to report during the last 10 years, is the investigator required to go outside the 10 year scope due to the incident on my original OF306, which is about 19 years old, or should those past incidents no longer be a factor due to the time that has passed? Thanks for your time, sir. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 25 Nov 2009 at 9:07 pm |
|
Mike:
If you submitted an SF85P and underwent a BI (as opposed to a MBI or LBI), the position you were cleared for was a High-Risk Public Trust position. Unfortunately BIs based on an SF85P do not meet the requirements for a national security clearance at any level. BIs based on an SF86 can be readjudicated for Secret clearance eligibility, but not Top Secret. |
|
| Mike (Virginia) |
on 24 Nov 2009 at 5:38 pm |
|
| I recently received an adjudicated CBP suitability BI. Most application for DOD and contractors do not list this type of clearance choice on application. How easy is this to convert to TS? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 24 Nov 2009 at 12:05 am |
|
Dave:
You can submit a Privacy Act request to the CIA and get a copy of your background investigation. It won't tell you exactly why you were found unsuitable, but the investigative reports should give you a good indication as to why. Usually if any serious derogatory information surfaces during an investigation, the applicant is given an opportunity to deny the allegation or to admit and explain it. Most people know why they are found unsuitable from the questions they are asked during a security interview. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 23 Nov 2009 at 11:59 pm |
|
Alex:
Secret clearance in 2005? I thought you said you received an interim TS/SCI seven years ago. Please explain. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 23 Nov 2009 at 11:54 pm |
|
Alex:
I doubt that everything just disappeared. You should have a JPAS record. The record should show your status as “Loss of Jurisdiction.” In the history portion of your record there should be notations for your prior NACLC and your prior secret clearance, as well as your SSBI. If you had your PRSI and poly in May, why do you say that your “life and career has been on hold since 03/09?” |
|
| Alex (Michigan) |
on 22 Nov 2009 at 9:04 am |
|
Dear Mr. Henderson
Thank you so very much for spending your personal time to answer my request twice. I had a Personal Subject Interview and a CI Poly last May. My case was closed while I was still employed but no action was taken. Three months later every thing just disappeared. My question is if I was dropped from getting a TS, why doesn't my lower clearance (secret) shows since it was granted and closed in 2005.
Thank you again
Alex |
|
| Dave (Chicago) |
on 19 Nov 2009 at 4:45 pm |
|
| After eons in processing, I received a letter today from CIA saying I was deemed unsuitable for employment. The letter stated no reason and said that I was not entitled to any sort of appeal. Do I have any recourse to find out why I was deemed unsuitable, or am I just being hung out to dry? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 17 Nov 2009 at 7:58 pm |
|
Thadius:
The adjudicative criteria for a TS clearance is exactly the same as the adjudicative criteria for a Secret or Confidential clearance--only the investigations are different. If a person can not be trusted with TS information, they can not be trusted with any level of classified information.
If the same adjudicative agency is involved for both your Secret and your Top Secret clearance, yes your Secret clearance will be revoked. If another agency adjudicates and denies your TS clearance, the fact that you were denied the TS clearance will be communicated to the agency that granted your Secret clearance and there is a strong possibility that your Secret clearance will be revoked after that agency reviews the investigation that resulted in your TS clearance denial. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 17 Nov 2009 at 7:49 pm |
|
Mark:
A traffic offense is a criminal offense. Furthermore, the OF 306 asks for information about felonies, misdemeanors, and all other offenses that occurred within 10 years. Bill L. is a former DoD adjudicator. DoD uses the same adjudicative criteria for security clearances and public trust determinations. Aside from DISCO/DOHA, most of the DoD adjudicative facilities have previously had very limited exposure to public trust cases. I’m a former investigator. What I know about adjudication is based on limited feedback regarding people I investigated and from reading hundreds of cases at the DOHA website, more than 95% of which were for security clearances.
I agree with Bill L. Having 3 alcohol-related offenses is a serious security/suitability concern; however, because they occurred over a period of 15 years, they don’t present strong evidence of a pattern of alcohol abuse, and therefore not strongly predictive of future conduct. They show poor judgment and to a certain extent a pattern of law violation. If I were an adjudicator I would want to know what your friends, neighbors and associates think about your drinking habits. I would also want to know from you how much and how often you have consumed alcohol during the past 15 years. If you disclose a drinking problem or other people think you have a drinking problem, your chance of keeping your public trust position will diminish greatly. You need to show that you have truly learned from your mistakes and are taking positive action to correct your problem. If you haven’t done so already, I suggest you contact your companies “Employee Assistance Program” and do whatever the counselor recommends. Adjudicators like people who acknowledge a problem, accept responsibility for it, and take corrective action, particularly corrective action recommended by a professional counselor.
There is no overarching federal rule regarding self-reporting of derogatory information for a person who holds a public trust position. You will have to ask your security manager about your agency’s rules. If you honestly made a mistake on your prior OF 306, then when the time comes you will have to explain why the mistake occurred. Usually plausible reasons for making a mistake are accepted without becoming a major issue. There is no “typical” response for being found unsuitable for a public trust position; however, I’ve never heard of disciplinary action as a response. People are either moved to other positions or they are terminated. If you hold a federal “competitive” service position, you have certain “due process” and appeal rights before adverse action can be taken against you. Some agencies have extended these rights to “excepted” service and contractor personnel. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 17 Nov 2009 at 7:01 pm |
|
Alex:
Your case was dropped by the Army Central Clearance Facility (ACCF) because you terminated your employment at the Army contractor before they completed the final adjudication of your investigation. Your investigation sat unadjudicated for the entire time you were in a war zone because the investigation was probably never fully completed. I suspect that a Personal Subject Interview (PRSI) or Special Interview (SPIN) was needed to complete the investigation properly, but because you were in a war zone, and therefore unavailable for interview, the PRSI or SPIN was never conducted. As soon as you terminated employment with the Army contractor, ACCF lost jurisdiction over your case. This is normal, because you were no longer in a position that required a security clearance from ACCF. SORs are only issued by an adjudicative facility when they intend to deny or revoke a clearance. DISCO was not involved in adjudicating your case because they don’t adjudicate for SCI. Your case originally went to DISCO, then from DISCO to OPM, then from OPM back to DISCO, and from DISCO to ACCF, where it sat until they lost jurisdiction because of your employment termination.
At this point your prior unadjudicated SSBI is over 5 years old and of no value. If you want to seek employment that requires a security clearance you will have to start from scratch. Having a “Loss of Jurisdiction” entered in the status field of your JPAS investigation/clearance record is neither positive nor negative. |
|
| Thadius C Bolton (Garner North Carolina) |
on 17 Nov 2009 at 3:13 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
i currently have a secret clearance but am wanting to get a TS clearance. If i am denied a TS clearance would that take away my secret clearance? |
|
| Mark (TX) |
on 17 Nov 2009 at 2:44 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
Further below is a post by me and a response from Bill L. I wanted to pose my question to you since you may have more familiarity with Public Trust/IT determinations.
One thing I need to add is that I just found out my driver's license has been suspended for 2 years. I have been approved to get an occupational driver's license. The DWAI (reduced from DWI) in 1994 was not disclosed on my original OF306 in 2002 because I believe a DWAI is considered a traffic offense (rather than criminal) and my fine was less than $100. I'm concerned if this will be an issue when I disclose it on my next investigation, which will require another OF306 and a SF85p (the first I'll have to complete for this position even though I've held the position for almost 8 years). If my investigation, which shouldn't come due for another 5-7 years, finds me unsuitable does the agency typically terminate the employee or opt for other disciplinary actions (demotion, etc.)? For my current charges, if either the DWI or Failure to Stop and Give Information are dismissed do I still report them? If either are reduced do I report the reduced conviction or what the original arrest was for (the higher charge)?
I know this is a long post, but currently have another job offer in the private sector. I hate to lose all my years of service (16 including military) and the retirement benefits that I would have if I was able to keep my federal position. Please give me your thoughts. Thank you very much.
BILL L.'s REPLY
Mark (TX),
In my opinion, if you comply with all requirements of the court and continue your efforts at alcohol consumption control/reduction, you may be okay. However, I am not well-experienced in Public Trust/IT determinations. If your agency sees your skills as good assets to the organization and there are no other issues, you may be good to go.
MY POST
Bill L., thank you for all your advice...greatly appreciated. One thing I forgot to mention is that in this latest DWI and Failure To Stop and Give Information, I also refused a breath test. I need to know your honest opinion, this recent incident (June 2009 - DWI/Failure to stop and give info) along with the DWI in Jan 2000 and the DWI in 1994 (reduced to DWAI) is there really any chance of me keeping my current Public Trust, Information Technology position when my reinvestigation comes around? My job performance evaluations have always been above average and my current supervisor would hate to lose me. I have a wife and two young boys who depend on me and I need to know if I should start pursuing private sector employment. Thanks again Bill, I hope you enjoy your weekend. |
|
| Alex (Michigan) |
on 17 Nov 2009 at 8:30 am |
|
Mr. Henderson,
My previous employer was an Army contractor. I am not employed at the moment.
Thank you Mr. Henderson
Alex |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 16 Nov 2009 at 9:16 pm |
|
Roger:
1. No.
2. No two agencies do things exactly the same way.
3. Almost none, unless unfavorable suitability information surfaces during the investigation that was not listed or fully explained on the SF86. |
|
| Roger (MI) |
on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:58 am |
|
Thank you for some valuable advice provided couple of months ago.
I am undergoing security clearance for a federal agency. I sent the forms through e-QIP four weeks ago. I have completed drug testing couple of weeks ago. The HR dept. told me that if further information is needed by the security office I will be contacted.
I was contacted to answer few additional questions regarding couple of related foreign nationals. Very simple questions - all my answers were negative. The contact from Security office told me the information is sufficient.
My questions are:
1) Will I be informed whether I am eligible for interim clearance before actually providing it?
2) The additional information I was asked was for Question 19. Is additional information sought as the specialist is reviewing the application or after the entire application is reviewed?
3) What are the chances of not getting full clearance after an interim clearance is given? I want to consider all risks involved before joining the agency.
Thank you very much. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:19 am |
|
Alex:
Who was your previous employer, the Dept of Army or an Army contractor? Are you still employed by the Army or a DoD contractor in a position that requires a clearance? |
|
| AMN (WV) |
on 14 Nov 2009 at 1:27 am |
|
I have a question about Public Trust Clearances, I was termed from the company that held the contract because the previous company I worked for said I had been termed. However, because I was able to collect unemployment from day 1 and going by Project Manager recommendations I put on the SP85 application that I hadn't been terminated from any job in the last 5 years. When I provided the paperwork and all info to the Security Officer she said things looked favorable but the owner company holding the contract was mad and termed me. I've contacted the Security Officer recently and she said all my paperwork was shredded because I was no longer at the VA. (The company also stated that I was termed because I accessed confidential information) however, that was not the reason on my termed letter.
At this last job I was there for 6 weeks when I decided to leave however, my manager beat me to the punch line and as we were in his office, and the HR Manager walked by he called her in and told her to get rid of me because he couldn't deal with me anymore. To say the least the HR Manager has told me that she cannot say why I left the company that the only information she will provide is dates of employment and salary, however, if a background check is done for this type of clearance is she required to disclose the reason?
Anyway, now recruiters are contacting me about jobs that require a Public Trust Clearance. Should I disclose to them what happened with TST? I did just now with one company and she said she was going to check with their Security Office and get back to me.
Now I have another position that is a subcontractor to the US Senate and I just found out that it also need a Public Trust Clearance, however, I was told that they would do a 5 year criminal background check, drug test, and credit check. Nothing mentioned about employment history. So do they do different checks for Public Trust clearances based on the agency you are working for?
I have friends that have had security clearances for a while and some tell me not to disclose this information and just disclose it when I fill out the SP85 application. Others say I should just say everything upfront. |
|
| Alex (Michigan) |
on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:41 am |
|
Mr. Henderson,
I have been working as a linguist for US Army for the past 7 years with Interim TS/SCI. During my 7 years deployment in the war zone, I thought by the time I get home I would find my investigation completed and my TS clearance is adjudicated, instead I came home only to found out that my TS adjudication has been dropped with no explanation. I waited for a letter of Reason (SOR) to inform me why I have been dropped. I wrote Disco three time and until now have gotten no answer. I do have a copy of my background investigation from OPM and INSCOM. I do not know where to go from here. My life and career has been on hold since 03/09. I have talked to several lawyers but said I need a letter of reason (SOR) which I never got. Please advise what action you recommend. |
|
| wrzne (il) |
on 26 Oct 2009 at 3:32 pm |
|
| I just got my EOD today... guess the issues are not sufficient to be deemed unsuitable. |
|
| Kum (Wash dc) |
on 25 Oct 2009 at 7:33 pm |
|
Hi I have Job which needed Secret clearance I joined based on the Interim security clearance after filling SF86 (No history of any sort except I am a naturalized citizen)
Its a been a month and I feel the Environment is not to my liking so took another interview and got an offer .Would it leave any bad remark on my history for future security clearances? I have a week to respond to the new offer to accept which does not need a security clearance except be a US citizen
Comments plz |
|
| wmikal (TX) |
on 25 Oct 2009 at 12:22 pm |
|
Ive not had much experience related to the security check process. Ive recently had an interview that included a full medical check, job interview by a panel of three and told i was going to be recommended for employment. The SP85P i filled out had no criminal charges etc, I listed my bankruptcy in 06 and i currently am climbing the good credit ladder. NO credit cards just a truck payment and a small secured loan at the bank. I had some IRS dealings back and forth but I believe its corrected. That dept is just so screwed up. Don't do drugs never been convicted of a felony etc. The check is an O2B, risk level 5. If the IRS shows missing a tax return or owing something i don't know about am i going to miss this job opportunity? Its for a contractor working in Afghanistan that has a very high salary due to risk. It serves my welding abilities. What do you think?
regards
wmikal |
|
| wrzne (IL) |
on 23 Oct 2009 at 9:41 am |
|
I am in the process of a NACI, non-sensitive low risk. Over 2 years ago I was arrested for DUI, Implied Consent Violation, Possession of Marijuana, and Poss of Paraphernalia. All charges were dismissed as the marijuana was not mine and the person took responsibility, and the rest were dismissed because they had me on video begging for a breath test and I was obviously not impaired. Furthermore the officer failed to show up to court three times. I also quit two jobs with no notice (also over 2 years ago) for good reason, one was because the boss did not pay me for 36 hours of overtime and refused to correct the problem and the second was due to a family emergency and horrid manager who failed to provide me health insurance as he promised after 6 months of being on the job. With these issues affect my suitability determination? None of the positions i quit are related to my current tenative offer.
Thanks in advance! |
|
| ben jones |
on 14 Oct 2009 at 12:52 pm |
|
| I have been a contractor at DHS for almost 4.5 years now. I have a secret clearance and I just was arrested for a DWI a few days ago. I am in the process of reporting the incident through my FSO. I have nothing else negative anywhere on my record and have an excellent reputation with my client. Is it your experience that I will be removed from the contract? |
|
| Alex (Michigan) |
on 13 Oct 2009 at 2:53 pm |
|
My name is Alex K. I have been working as a linguist for US Army for the past 7 years with Interim TS/SCI. During my 7 years deployment in the war zone, I thought by the time i get home I would find my investigation completed and my TS clearance is adjudicated, instead i cane home and found out that my TS adjudication has been dropped with no explanation. I waited for a letter of Reason (SOR) to inform me why I have been dropped. I wrote Disco three time and until now have gotten no answer. I do have a copy of my background investigation from OPM and INSCOM. I do not know where to go from here. My life and career has been on hold since 03/09. I have talked to several lawyers but said I need a letter of reason (SOR) which I never got. Please advise what action you recommend.
Thank you so very much.
Alex Kalani |
|
| fed2contractor (Virginia) |
on 11 Oct 2009 at 5:46 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
I am a contractor with an intelligence agency currently in a situation being investigated by the OIG. I have posted details of the investigation on another website. For the sake of not having to retype the entitre situation, could you please have a look at my posting on Federalsoup.com. The address to my posting is:
http://community.federalsoup.com/4/OpenTopic?a=frm&s=4944011921&f=8671088191
I believe that I will come out of this situation with my clearance reinstated, however, my company is only giving me until 16 October to have this all resolved or I will be let go, so I am concerned that I will fall into a Loss of Jurisdiction situation if this isn't resolved this week.
Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. |
|
| jd (CA) |
on 10 Oct 2009 at 3:38 am |
|
| As a federal contract guard will informal probation for a DUI be an auto disqualification? I have been working on the contrat for 4 years now and I got a DUI. |
|
| Help/Guidance (Oregon) |
on 06 Oct 2009 at 3:55 pm |
|
Situation: Was recently fired from company after 18 years - 3 months ago.
Charged 2 personal items to company expense account to get vendor discount. I paid for items when asked about when the bill came in. I was terminated for violation of zero tolerance policy on personal expenses. I am deeply regretful and take personal responsibility for my actions. I have sought counseling from church, employee assistance program, family and friends. I have joined church-based support group and have volunteered with local group raising funds for sports teams. This has had drastic and life altering impact on my life. Trying to get second chance opportunity with either the government or contractor.
No other issues, no record, nearly perfect attendance, high evaluation scores, etc. Just 1 recent issue - total lapse of judgment.
Is there any chance of obtaining public trust clearance? |
|
| Michael M (DC) |
on 01 Oct 2009 at 10:31 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
That is very helpful thank you so much. I will call the IRS and see what they recommend. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 30 Sep 2009 at 8:50 pm |
|
Michael M:
Call the IRS or research it on their website. Alternatively you can ask a tax attorney or CPA. Generally adjudicators don't regarding this type of situation as significant if the applicant has taken steps to correct their mistake. Many young people return home from college during the summer and earn several hundred to a few thousand dollars involved in what I call “informal employment," like lawn maintenance. For the most part investigators and adjudicators are primarily interested in how they spent their time during the summer. I’ve never hear of a young person’s failure to list this type of income on their federal tax return becoming an issue for a security clearance. I don’t know what your particular circumstances were, so I can only offer this type of example. There’s a retired personnel security adjudicator that answers questions from time to time (Bill L. (Annapolis, MD)). He may be able to give you a definitive answer. His last post was on 29 September under the article, “Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances. Try reposting your question there and address it to him. |
|
| Michael M (DC) |
on 29 Sep 2009 at 12:11 am |
|
| I just turned in my SF-86 and in the process of the filling out the form became nervous about prior employment/volunteer activities. I coached my niece's girls soccer team on the weekends and the team gave me a couple thousand dollars in cash for the season. I did not report this as self-employment income on my taxes but felt obligated to list it on my SF-86. Should I contact the IRS and inquire if this is taxable income and explain the situation to the interviewer? How will this effect my TS clearance? Thanks. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 21 Sep 2009 at 10:23 pm |
|
JD:
DOD uses the same Adjudicative Guidelines for security clearance and public trust determination. I believe DHS used 5 CFR 731.202. Neither has changed for a few years. As I explained in the article, agencies have the authority to create job-specific employment suitability criterion (i.e. near-zero tolerance for drugs for FBI and DEA agent applicants). I’ve never seen a list of DHS job-specific criteria, but I know some exist. Likewise I don’t know whether any job-specific criteria have been added or changed recently. I wouldn’t place too much importance on what a field investigator says about your chance of getting a favorable determination. The investigators work for a contractor and do not receive information about the outcome of the cases they work on, except on the rare occasion when they run into someone they investigated who was denied a position.
If you are denied a public trust position by one agency, you may apply for a security clearance and/or public trust position at any other federal agency at any time. You are not required to list the denial of a public trust position on an SF86 or SF85P, but you are required to list the investigation. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 21 Sep 2009 at 10:01 pm |
|
Dave:
I think you misread my article. In paragraph 4 it says:
“Most Intelligence Community (IC) agency jobs . . .are “excepted service” positions. Consequently if an agency withdraws a job offer for an excepted service position due to employment suitability reasons, they generally only inform you that you were found to be unsuitable for the position without providing any specific reasons.”
It’s possible that the agency was processing other applicants for the same position, and one of the other applicants received a favorable security clearance adjudication before you did. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 21 Sep 2009 at 9:54 pm |
|
| Dan: I don’t know what your chances are. As indicated in the article, agencies are authorized to create job-specific employment suitability criterion (i.e. you can’t become an IRS agent if you have ever violated income tax law). |
|
| JD (WV) |
on 21 Sep 2009 at 12:39 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
I am in process with DHS-ICE for a suitability investigation (Level 5 Public Trust). The investigator told me last week that though he had not completely delved into my file, I was "on the fence, leaning towards no" in terms of a favorable determination. This is due to 2 misdemeanor convictions from 2006 (from the same day - DUI and lying to an officer about it), which I explained in a letter (no interview), provided evidence of rehabilitation, etc. (which is true) and I have never been in trouble before or since.
Question 1, he mentioned "the way things have been going" as a reason I might be denied - do you know of any recent mandates at DHS or elsewhere that would be a reason for this? For example, has DHS/DOD/etc. recently put out a new list of guidelines or offenses that hurt a suitability determination more than others?
Question 2, if I am denied, am I able to get a different position with a different agency requiring a clearance/suitability check, or is there a certain timeframe I have to wait after an unfavorable determination?
Thanks in advance for any help/guidance.
Sincerely,
JD |
|
| Dave (Maryland) |
on 21 Sep 2009 at 10:27 am |
|
Mr. Henderson,
I was offered a COE from a federal agency. I had three polygraphs, a pysch test/eval and a background investigation. Three weeks after the third polygraph I received a letter stating that they were unable to give further consideration to my application.
During the third polygraph I was given the impression I was doing well. After leaving the third polygraph I really thought I was going to be approved and I was stunned to receive the letter mentioned above.
After reading your article above it sounds like I should have been told why my pre-employment process was terminated.
Can you comment on what you think may have happened? I want to thank you in advance for taking time to answer.
Dave |
|
| Curious (Sanford FL) |
on 20 Sep 2009 at 10:45 am |
|
Mr Henderson,
I have been offered a job with a federal agency I worked with for 15 years and had left 5 years ago. Even though I wasn't fired by the agency, I was charged by their IG department because of a call to the fraud, waste and abuse hotline. I had to go to court for the charge and ended up pleding guilty to a misdomeanor. I left the agency but not becuase I was told I was going to be fired. I am highly trained by that agency and I was offered the job without an interview. I already hold a clearance higher than what the agency requires because I currently work for a government contractor. My question is - What are my chances of getting this job? I have already spoke with the security office and they said they would review the SF86 I submitted and the SF-306.
Thanks, Dan |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 18 Sep 2009 at 6:47 pm |
|
Mark:
I don't know what affect supervised probation will have on an employment suitability determination. Employment suitability criteria are very broadly worded and do not include any specific examples of disqualifying conduct. Because of this, decisions based on the same set of facts probably vary widely from one agency to another--like the different sentences handed out by different judges in different jurisdications for exactly the same offense. |
|
| Mark (TX) |
on 17 Sep 2009 at 9:25 am |
|
| What if the probation is supervised? That is likely what I will get. Thank you. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 16 Sep 2009 at 7:52 pm |
|
Mark:
For a national security clearance currently being on probation/parole is a potentially disqualifying condition; however, unsupervised probation generally will not result in a security clearance denial. There are no employment suitability criteria that specifically address probation or parole. My best guess is that unsupervised probation as a result of a DUI conviction would not be a significant factor in an employment suitability determination. |
|
| Mark (TX) |
on 16 Sep 2009 at 9:24 am |
|
Sorry Mr. Henderson, I meant to say PROBATION instead of PAROLE.
Thank you for your reply, Mr. Henderson. Can you tell me if getting a favorable adjudication is even possible if a person is on probation.
Thanks |
|
| Mark (TX) |
on 16 Sep 2009 at 9:23 am |
|
Thank you for your reply, Mr. Henderson. Can you tell me if getting a favorable adjudication is even possible if a person is on parole.
Thanks |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 14 Sep 2009 at 9:04 pm |
|
JC:
I assume you were previously granted a security clearance. If you didn’t self-report the domestic violence offense when it occurred and the financial problems when they occurred, the LOI will probably also list your failure to report the information as required by DoD 5200.2-R. As you are probably aware, if they revoke your clearance, a bar to reenlistment will be placed in your file.
A dismissed domestic violence charge from 7 years ago probably isn’t very significant anymore, but no one can tell you if you have a chance of retaining your clearance based on your statement that you “have had some major credit issues to include a bankruptcy.”
If you have not previously had an opportunity to explain your financial problems to a security clearance investigator, your bankruptcy occurred 2 or more years ago, and you have not been delinquent on any debts since your bankruptcy, you should provide more information and I try to answer your question. You can also read over my 3-part article on “Personal Finances and Security Clearance” posted on this website.
Otherwise I strongly recommend you contact an attorney who specializes in security clearance cases as soon as you receive your LOI. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 14 Sep 2009 at 8:40 pm |
|
Mark:
Adjudicators generally do not have a preference for how you go about correcting your behavior. They will judge you based on your past conduct and the degree of success you achieve in controlling your use of alcohol. The court may have you go to some formal counseling program. Do whatever the court requires.
All aspects of the federal government's Personnel Security Program (PSP) are changing right now. A totally new PSP will probably be in place by summer 2010. I wouldn't count on a 5 year grace period before you have to submit an SF85P. |
|
| Mark (TX) |
on 13 Sep 2009 at 10:18 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
I have 3 DWIs since 1994. The first DWI in April, 1994 was reduced to DWAI. I got my second in Jan, 2000 and my third in June 2009. I completed all orders by the court for the first two incidents and each case is closed. I have not been to court for the June 2009 incident, yet. I currently hold a position that was converted to a Public Trust position. I believe I will be required to fill out another OF-306 and my first SF-85p for this position to undergo a MBI investigation in about 5 -7 years. I disclosed my 2nd DWI on my original OF-306, but did not list my DWAI because to my understanding this was a traffic offense (rather than criminal), I don't remember having any probation and my fine was minimal - less than $100. I did not have to submit a SF-85p for this position originally so there was no follow up personal interview with an investigator to get clarification as to whether or not the DWAI should be listed. I will be disclosing the first DWAI in my OF-306, along with the 2nd DWI and the disposition of this 3rd DWI when my MBI investigation comes due in the next 5-7 years.
Here is my question/concern - I have been attending AA for about a month now and have abstained from alcohol completely. I got a sponsor in AA last week. I do not feel I am an alcoholic, but did make some stupid choices under the influence of alcohol. I believe AA will help me strengthen and maintain my resolve to abstain. I feel I owe it to my family. I have stopped contact with people/places that I previously associated with drinking and have started a workout program to help deal with daily stresses. I'm concerned about the affects these alcohol-related incidents may have on my job when I undergo the MBI investigation in the future. I have no other issues in my background so if I do not have any other law infractions in the future, comply with all court orders for this most recent incident and abstain from alcohol use would it still be beneficial/necessary to undergo counseling with a Licensed Clinical Social Worker in order to mitigate concerns and keep my job? Or, would active involvement with AA, remaining abstinent and passage of time without incident be sufficient? Thank you very much for this informative forum. |
|
| JC (Colorado) |
on 09 Sep 2009 at 7:33 pm |
|
| Had a domestic violence 7yrs ago did everything that was dictated by courts and everything was dismissed, have had some major credit issues to include bankruptcy. Learned today I will be receiving a LOI for my clearance. Do I have a chance to get my clearance if I provide proof of my dismissed case and progree in my credit. I need a clearance to get promoted to E8. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 09 Sep 2009 at 5:37 pm |
|
Clean and Sober:
List the incident on your SF86. Explain what your remember about the incident in the comment section of question #22--Police Record. There is no need to provide information about any illegal drug use that occurred more than 7 years ago, unless you occupied a position of trust and responsibiliity at the time (i.e. policeman, fireman, security clearance holder).
Absent any subsequent illegal involvement with drugs, a single arrest/citation/conviction for possession of marijuana 30 years ago is no longer adjudicatively significant.
You can not assume that there is no record of this arrest/citation somewhere at the local, state, or federal level. Most criminal arrest/citation data is submitted by local police to state criminal records repositories and to the FBI, as well as to the local prosecutors office and the courts. |
|
| Clean and Sober (Livonia, MI) |
on 06 Sep 2009 at 8:46 am |
|
Hello. I experimented with marijuana, and the last time I used marijuana was 25 years ago. I stopped consuming alcohol in 2004.
Questions please, on whether I should report a "probable" marijuana charge over 30 years ago.
This single event of a possible arrest/criminal charge is very vague in my mind, and the following statements are to the best of my recollection:
* In Arkansas, around 1974-1976, the car I was driving stalled, and I had to leave it on the road. I am only about 75 percent certain of the town this may have happened at.
* I vaguely remember being contacted by the police, about a single marijuana cigarette that was visible inside my stalled car.
* I do not remember the follow-up action to this discovery by the police officer. I do not remember whether I did or did not have to go to court. I do not know if I was placed on probation, or was given a conditional discharge, or whether I was convicted of a misdemeanor.
* In my defense, I do remember being able to join the U. S. Army with no difficulty, about two years after this episode of the marijuana cigarette discovery. I do not remember having to address the marijuana cigarette during my enlistment.
Two questions please, regarding how to ... or how not to ... address this on my SF-86
1. Because this was a single isolated event that occurred over 30 years ago, can I safely assume that there no longer is any existing criminal record that the police found a single marijuana cigarette in the possession of my stalled car?
2. If I should go ahead and report this single occurrence on my SF-86, should I go ahead and provide a summarized report of my marijuana use, even though my last use was around 1984?
Your friend,
Clean and Sober |
|
| Robert (Crooksville Ohio) |
on 01 Sep 2009 at 10:52 pm |
|
| I was wondering how i can get a job with KBR. I would love too make my life better. And make my family's life a lot better also. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 31 Aug 2009 at 8:43 pm |
|
GT:
As long as your company continues to sponsor your clearance request, DOHA will continue processing/adjudicating your case. |
|
| GT (Maryland) |
on 31 Aug 2009 at 5:17 pm |
|
I also have a LOJ. I was being processed for my 5 year PR and had to leave the company because the contract ended. I applied with another company a year later and got an interim secret and I was told to leave the job site because the LOJ overrules the interim. I am waiting on adjudication but don't know how long the adjudication is going to take. From what I have read in these forums, I did have an incident that was going to be adjudicated but didn't get finished before I left the last company. I have been in contact with a rep at DOHA (not an adjudicator) every couple of weeks to check on things and he tells me they are working on it.
If I am not actively working for the new company, will DOHA drop my case? Will I have to start all over again? |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 06 Aug 2009 at 7:12 pm |
|
Worried in TX:
Adjudicators like it when people acknowledge a problem, accept responsibility for it, and take corrective action, such as seeking professional counseling and doing what the counselor recommends. If the counselor feels that no treatment is needed, then don’t it. Just do whatever the counselor recommends.
It only takes one really strong mitigating condition to overcome a potentially disqualifying condition. Of course a combination of mitigating conditions makes it easier for an adjudicator to justify granting a clearance. The “period of coverage” for an investigation is only the basic timeframe that must be covered in an investigation. Whenever an issue is present, an investigator is required to go back as far as necessary to provide the adjudicator with a clear, complete picture of the issue. There is no time limit for alcohol related offenses, so the investigator should ask about all alcohol-related incidents regardless of how long ago they occurred. |
|
| Worried (TX) |
on 05 Aug 2009 at 3:30 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson, this is a follow up question to a response you previously provided me (above). Recap - currently hold moderate risk public trust position (no security clearance). Have a recent DWI (haven't been to court, yet) and a DWI from 2000. I read your articule, "Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances" as you suggested and it states:
MITIGATING SECURITY CONCERNS
The following conditions may mitigate Alcohol Consumption concerns:
Problem is not serious.
Problem is not recent
Positive changes in behavior
Rehabilitation
My question is, are all of the conditions listed above to be satisfied in order to mitigate concerns? For example, if I go through an alcohol evaluation and I'm not diagnosed as an alcohol dependent or abuser and not recommended for a rehabilitation program, will that affect my ability to mitigate the alcohol (DWI) concern? Or, would satisfying the first 3 conditions be sufficient?
Also, when federal investigators conduct a personal interview with an employee undergoing a investigation, are they permitted to ask questions about things outside the scope of the investigation? For example, when I tell the investigator about my DWI, which will be the only incident within the 10 year time window on the OF306, can he ask if I've had any other related incidents outside that 10 year scope? If so, can that actually be used against me in the adjudicative process?
Thank you very much for your informative responses, Mr. Henderson. Your time is greatly appreciated. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 29 Jul 2009 at 3:20 pm |
|
| Jeff: At the top righthand corner of this article is a box "Related Articles" with a link to an article, "Drug Involvement and Security Clearances." Read the article and if you still have a question, post it there and I'll try to answer it. |
|
| Jeff (CA) |
on 28 Jul 2009 at 11:16 pm |
|
| Sorry, I was referring to marijuana as the substance |
|
| Jeff (CA) |
on 28 Jul 2009 at 11:15 pm |
|
Mr. Henderson,
I hope you can answer this question. I received an Army ROTC scholarship, and have accepted it. I'm filling out the security forms, among others, and they ask about substance use. I have done it a handful of times (maybe 5) about a year ago and I was honest on the DODMERB medical history about it and still got the scholarship. Will the experimental marijuana use affect me in the future? If so, how? I just hope I'm not DQ from the army. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 23 Jul 2009 at 3:38 pm |
|
Worried in Texas:
Two DWIs spaced 9 years apart may not suggest a serious alcohol problem, provided there has not been a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and there are no other indicators of current abuse or dependence. If you have been diagnosed as an alcoholic or alcohol abuser and you successfully complete treatment and aftercare and abstain from future alcohol use, you shouldn’t have any problem maintaining your Public Trust position. DoD uses the same adjudicative standards for security clearances and public trust positions. Other agencies use the suitability standards in 5 CFR 731.202 for Public Trust positions. I believe that most, if not all, federal agencies will allow an employee to remain in their position regardless of how bad or how recent their alcohol problem was, if they promptly seek help through their EAP and follow through with all program requirements. Click on the “Recommended Articles” link just above and to the right of this webpage and you will find a list of articles, including one on “Alcohol Consumption and Security Clearances,” which will give you more information about the alcohol issue as it applies to security and suitability determinations in the federal government. |
|
| Worried (Texas) |
on 17 Jul 2009 at 11:17 pm |
|
| Mr. Henderson, you are definitely the most knowledge person I've found on the web. Can you give me your thoughts on my situation, please. I currently hold a Public Trust position (Minimal Risk, I believe) since 2002. I was convicted of DWI in 2000 (prior to having a family), which I disclosed on my original OF 306. I was arrested for DWI last month and am concerned about the possible consequences. I haven't been to court, yet, but if I am convicted of a 2nd DWI do you think this will prevent me from getting a favorable suitability determination during a MBI, which I believe will be in the next 3-5 years. This is understanding that I have no other incidents of any kind and that I comply with all court orders and close the case. I have requested alcohol counseling through my agency's EAP program and I have started attending AA meetings. I have not drank any alcohol since the incident and will stay sober from here on out. My family has already suffered too much grief for my mistake and it has really opened my eyes to the fact I need to stop drinking completely. Please give me your thoughts - this has really caused me a lot of stress and sleepless nights. I don't know if it makes any difference, but I previously held a TS/SCI clearance. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 02 Jul 2009 at 5:38 pm |
|
I believe you mean "Loss of Jurisdiction--LOJ." LOJ ususally occurs between the time a clearance application is submitted and a final clearance is grant, if the person leaves the position where the clearance was needed. It can also occur when:
1. SCI access is denied but the person still needs a collateral security clearance.
2. When an unfavorable incident report is submitted on an individual who had a final clearance but left the job that required the clearance before the matter was investigated/resolved.
3. When an interim clearance is withdrawn. In this case if the person continues to hold a position that requires a clearance, the investigation will continue until it is completed and a final clearance is either granted or denied.
In all of these cases the individual is not eligibile to have their clearance reinstated because they either did not have a final clearance or there is an unresolved security/suitability issue present in their case. |
|
| William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) |
on 02 Jul 2009 at 5:22 pm |
|
| A DUI conviction is a potentially disqualifying condition for a federal security clearance. However this type of potentially disqualifying condition can be mitigated based on evidence of rehabilitation, which includes passage of time without recurrence, as well as evidence that it was an isolated incident without any other evidence of alcohol abuse. If there is sufficient mitigation, a clearance can be granted. |
|
| Jon B (Jacksonville) |
on 01 Jul 2009 at 10:24 am |
|
| Please let me know if a DUI will keep you from getting a clearance are a wavier?. |
|
| Madhu (Maryland) |
on 01 Jul 2009 at 7:49 am |
|
How long will loss of adjudication reinstate to active Top secret clearance? I know a person whose got this status as soon as his project got over and he doesn't know he got it. I know once TS is given , it is valid for 5 years. Where does Loss of adjudication come to place? What needs to be done in that case.
All the employers want TS active and the job market is bad to get job the very next day?
Please reply me |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
