Should Sexual Behavior Be Considered in the Adjudication Process?
The topic of sex crimes/sexual assault in the military has been all over the news recently. Several high-profile incidents involving service members and sexual assault have brought the topic into the spotlight, with defense leaders going so far as to keep those working in sexual assault prevention off of the DoD furlough list.
Sexual behavior is currently a separate adjudicative guideline but an expert in the clearance process pointed out to me via email that there is some movement to remove it altogether – the disqualifying issues within the ‘sexual behavior’ guideline all fall under other areas, as well.
The clearance investigation process is meant to be intrusive, but many have argued that it’s more overly complicated than intrusive – would eliminating ‘superfluous’ guidelines such as Guideline D: Sexual Behavior be a step in the right direction?
Comment Archive
Doesn’t really have any relevancy to the article but it is the newest one so posting here, big news for TS PRs in industry:
http://www.dss.mil/about_dss/news/20130607.html
Welp, that sucks.
I have come to a revelation about my company. Investigators in my company are not investigators. We are students. The reviewers are the teachers. Each case we do is a “test” and we can only pass or fail the test. Our quality branch are the ones who makes the rules on how to grade the tests. If you get something wrong on a “test” we can appeal to get our failing grade changed but that is few and far between.
I am tired of being a student and I am tired of always hearing yes you as investigators may be burnt out but the customer is happy so we will continue to bombard you with work. Just be happy you have work to do. I would be happy if my company cared more about its employees than our customer.
It doesn’t help when the answers to the test aren’t in the textbook (Investigators Handbook) but in one of 500 emails you’ve received that immediately changes the way you do your job. And that these emails come once or twice a week.
I honestly don’t know how OPM gets away with constantly changing the terms and requirements of the contract. I know of no other government contract that allows for such changes without renegotiating the pay rate. Maybe because they have multiple companies vying for work no one is afraid to stand up to them?
… Willing to stand up to them (not afraid to)- early…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22836378
Looks like there will be a position opening up at Booz Allen!
I hear that Omniplex settled a Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Case contract dispute OPM a year or two ago. Even though the company apparently received a considerable chunk of change from the government,I don’t think they are doing any work for OPM are they?
As for the Booz Allen position. I am guessing that the position required a TS-SCI with a polygraph so it will be interesting to see comes out, if anything, about this guy’s background and the FSO that granted the clearance.
…interesting to see what comes out, if anything…
They should just ban anyone with a TS from having sex. Problem solved.
Or just ban anyone who’s had sex from having a TS. Problem even more solved.
Hey now, let’s not get crazy with the banning and the sex.
Fed,
Not banning all together, just folks with a TS. Oh, by the way, none of contractors hold a TS, just the FEDS do
🙂
Well that’s lame.
I would love to read Snowden’s original ROI– think that neighbor brought up his lack of eye contact?
Is it time to discuss the privatization of National Security and the ridiculous number of clearances out there?
Time to reign it back in, the military contractors have got so large, no one can mind the roost anymore.
Background Investigations should not be a for profit business. My company is more concerned about making money than our country’s National Security. They don’t care if you can’t get the correct number of sources for an item as long as it is done by the ACD we are given. If a source calls us back after we transmit our I-note for not being able to meet with them and they want to be interviewed we are told we should meet with them. Yet we are also given a guilt trip saying that even though the case hasn’t closed but is in our review process it will now be a financial penalty toward our company since we won’t get the case completed in a timely manner.
[…] information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, […]
[…] adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative […]