DOD Announces Improvements To The Personnel Security Clearance Process
The Department of Defense (DoD) released information on February 25, 2011 about improvements made to the personnel security clearance process. Over the past four years, the DoD has worked with the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management to streamline processes, make changes to policies, introduce extensive information technology improvements, and eliminate a backlog of approximately 100,000 pending cases. These improvements led to a 72 percent reduction in the time it takes to process an individual’s security clearance – from an average of 165 days in 2006 to 47 days today….”
“The Department of Defense was steadfast in its commitment to substantially improve performance in this area,” said Deputy Chief Management Officer Elizabeth McGrath. “Not only because of the personal inconvenience experienced by individuals when navigating the clearance process, but also because delays in processing security clearances can cause delays in placing highly-qualified individuals in the cleared positions that need them. . . .”
Comment Archive
An average of 47 days for a security clearance? Someone’s been eating tainted mushrooms. Either that or they forgot to say that the 47-day average was for the fastest 90%, not including “initiation time of 14 days.”
Don’t know if the “47 days” came from Beth McGrath, but she was quoted in February 2010 as saying, “For example, until recently, the federal investigative standards for security clearances had not been revised since the days of J. Edgar Hoover. The lack of revisions was not because the policies were so good, she said. Change didn’t happen because it required people to challenge the status quo and figure out how to fix it.”
I wonder where she was when:
Someone forgot to tell her that the newest revision of the National Investigative Standards was put on hold in summer 2009 and probably won’t be implemented until 2013.
William,
Great points. While I will agree things are better, it’s not because of the process. There is strength in numbers and, if folks would simply look at the record amounts of Investigators that have been brought on-board in the past 10 years, it would clearly show why there has been an improvement. While some new and good policies have had a hand in this, the fact that we work like “Dogs” has seemed to have slipped past the briefing cards/slideshows these talking-heads use. Simple formula; More Investigators/Review Staff = more cases closed. Man, that formula took me about 3 seconds to create–I’m a math wizard and figured this whole thing out!!!!! 🙂
I wish they would utilize people who actually work in the field to assist in their “improvements”…
When are one of these big shots going to finally thank the Investigators? Never a word about our hand in ‘fixing’ things.
Fed,
They won’t. I have been TDY 4 times in the past 7 months, but they don’t see the impact we have in the field. Right now, how many of OPM’s direct investigators are overseasa working? I will say, my company does thank us for hard work and I must admit the company’s leadership does a fairly good job and reaching out to people–so I guess I can’t complain about them. It’s the people inside the Beltway who could care less.
BW:
You’re absolutely right. More money to hire more investigative personnel was always the only solution. Everything else (technology, reorganization, reductions in overhead) was just icing on the cake.
I was really upset by Ms. McGrath’s statement in February 2010. She passed judgment on people she probably never met and has no idea what they did or may not have done to try to improve the security vetting system. There were many good people who “challenged the status quo” and many good recommendations were made and adopted to improve the system. Everyone knew “how fix it,” but that involved additional funding to hire more investigators and that was never approved. Consequently all the improvements failed to achieve a faster turnaround time because the basic problem was funding. Back in the early 1990s DIS’s total budget was around $250 million and was reponsible for 90% of all federal security clearance investigations. From 1992 to 1994 there was a RIF that reduced the number DIS field investigators from about 2400 to 1250. It was a nightmare that outsiders referred to as part of the “peace dividend.” For DSS the so called peace dividend never materialized in the anticipated reduction in security clearances. The total number of DSS personnel that transferred to OPM in 2005 was about 1600, but that included support and supervisory personnel and more than 100 people at the DSS Personnel Investigations Center, which became the FIPC Baltimore annex. Almost 3 ½ years after 9/11, the number of DSS field investigators had remained unchanged but the number of clearance requests had skyrocketed. Ms. McGrath needs a history lesson before she criticizes something she seems to know nothing about. I know there were other considerations, but I still have difficulty coping with DoD’s unwillingness to increase funding for DSS, but their apparent ease at finding a lot more money to pay OPM for the same service.
William,
Unfortunately, I see history repeating itself. The ongoing push to hire more federal workers can only end in one way in my opinion and that is yet another RIF. For some reason, we never pay attention to history. I have a strong suspicion that OPM will try to field more folks, but in the end will get shot-down through a RIF or huge freeze. But, we all know this goes the way of the political climate at the time, so who really knows. Congress will continue to place unreasonable demands on us and will not back-up their words/rhetoric. Sadly,the only time anyone pays attention is when there is a huge breach in security, which can only mean that we didn’t do our jobs correctly????? even though we all know better.
I just need a little help…When doing security clearance paperwork, what happens if I honestly don’t know when I worked at a particular place? I know I worked there, but I can’t remember dates or even what I was paid. What should I do? I know I can contact the Social Security and request some sort of form for employment history but I need this like next week. Is it ok to leave it out because I honestly can’t remember?
Debbie,
Just put down the dates to the best of your knowledge. When you meet with an Inv if you need to due to the type of investigation you are having explain to him or her that you honestly can’t remember the dates you were employed there. He or she will then indicate it in their notes and put it in their report.
Anyone know when the award dates are for the contract?
According to the Federal Business Opportunities web page the proposals are due 04/05/11. Here is a link to the site:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=0aea188f0e890e7b6c2eb50b0a9889f5&tab=core&_cview=1
Yet within the proposal it says the closing date is 04/18/11.
Thanks
Considering the break back to sub work.
Investigator:
Thanks for posting the link to the RFP. I was looking for information that described how the ESI works when derog info surfaces after the ESI is conducted. Found what I was looking for in he RFP. I think there is going to be a disincentive for the person who conducts the ESI to do it as early in the investigation as possible. This would result in ESI info reaching other investigators later and delaying the completion of the case.
Bwah ha ha. Day 313 and counting with no serious derogatories and 10 years of previous TS/SCI work in the active duty Navy with zero security discrepancies. Currently 36 days “pending adjudication” at Army CCF. Actually wrote my senator. Anyone have a shovel? It’s getting deep in here.
If this is truely the case, then why has my PR been pending for the last 2 years. My investigation was started in October of 2008 and completed on Feb. 2, 2009. It has been pending ever since. My security team can not inquire about it and say as long as it’s pending I still has access to TS. However, if I apply for another job, I get turned down because of the pending status. I am now in the situation of losing my job because they are running out of work and I am unable to get other work because of a pending status. According to my security team, they see no reason for my status to be pending for 2 years. This is costing me my career.
I do many ESIs as I am primarily near a military base and it is very frustrating when I complete an ESI and then I get a message saying please discuss this unadmitted info that was listed on a previous SF 86 for a previous investigation. I wish they could do all the behind the scenes work before they even schedule out the ESI. I don’t mind recontacting a SJ for info that is developed when other investigators find information in records they obtain.
47 days. I wish. My periodic review has been open since September 2010, and to my knowledge they’re only looking into an unresolved incident report left on my personal files from my last unit. Then again its an overseas investigation and I heard those take much longer anyway.
Investigator,
I hear ya–I stopped doing follow-up if I don’t have the info 24 hrs in advance. We need to force the SPIN to kick-in. If we have to follow rules, everbody does in my opinion. It’s rare lately that the cases are briefed behind the scenes quick enough. I’m guessing the review staff have the same problems we have. I can only imagine their work difficulty factor has increased two-fold. Guess we are all feeling the pain and I can only assume once the hiccups are worked out, it will get better.
To whom it may concern,
I submitted for my TS,SCI Poly last March 2010 already have a TS, had my poly in July 2010, and I am still waiting on the adjudication process to be completed. So, where is the reduction in time as mention in the article posted by William Henderson on 01 March 2011? “Clearance Process” reducing the the time from 165 days down to 47 days today. Did I miss something or did my file get lost or missed placed? Maybe my investigator had an emergency and no one took on hisher case load. Please help to understand this process.
Thanks
Ronald
If the average is 47 days, the bell curve is skewed. My SSBI for a public trust opened 238 days ago.
Hire more investigators? Are you joking? with the budget in the toilet now and that is your answer? How about following some of our allies methods and once hired and you sign an “official secrets” document, you are held liable. Brits, French, etc. don’t believe in the antiquated, insane, methods and thinking that we employ in our system of periodic re-investigations and polygraphs. Yet they seem to have less problems then we do with leaks. Or they take care of them quicker.
How much time, money, and manhours could we save. We won’t do it though as it goes against our “guilty until proven innocent by reason of ridiculously long background investigations.”
I’ve been cleared since 1980, but only recently was upgraded to SSBI. My wife and I moved from Los Angeles to Northern Virginia in January of 2010. My investigation commenced on 18 Jan 2010. I was interviewed by a USIS contractor for whom mine was her first solo investigation. She spoke so quickly and quietly that I had to ask her to repeat each and every question. My wife reported that she had to tell this greenhorn the meaning of “Foreign National”. In March of 2010 I received a call at my cell phone, from a second USIS contractor, in Los Angeles, California. He reported that he’d been instructed to open an investigation on me. I immediately informed the LA investigator that an investigation was already ongoing. The LA investigator was shocked and dismayed.
Four-weeks later I received a second call from LA reporting that he was now instructed to interview my friends and coworkers, and he asked if I might supply him with names and contract information. He did not have a copy of my SF-86. In May of 2010 my investigation went to adjudication where it was sent directly to DOHA in Arlington, VA. It has been sitting there with several hundred other investigations. After multiple phone calls to DOHA, I was told that there are inconsistencies between the two-investigations. Why are there two-investigations, and why was this not caught earlier in during the investigation process? Meanwhile, I still have my original clearance and endorsements. I’ve got news for the DoD: forty-seven days turnaround is someone’s wet dream in literary form.
Ronald:
One problem with the numbers is how they are calculated. For instance in the article they claimed an average of 47 days. Usually when they boast about turnaround time, they’re actually quoting the average for the fastest 90% and they frequently leave out the “initiation time” of about 14 days. Initiation time is the time from when the SF86 is submitted until the investigation is opened. For DISCO cases, their stats do not include cases that are sent to Intelligence Community Central (IC) Adjudication Facilities (CAFs) for SCI eligibility and cases with major issues that are sent to DOHA. In past years DISCO has sent 5% to 10% of its cases to DOHA. The IC CAFs are taking an average of 125 days to adjudicate the fastest 90% of the cases they receive from DISCO. Then there’s the difference between Secret clearances and Top Secret clearance. The split between TS and Secret is about 25/75 with Secret clearances taking much less time. So when they get averaged together, applicants for TS clearances are amazed that their cases are taking so much longer than the claimed average for all clearances.
All the DoD Adjudications facilities, to include DOHA, will be moving to Ft. Meade, Md this year. All of them lost seasoned adjudicators since most were located outside the area. There are lots of green adjudicators out there and the minor issue clearances do go fast. Rule number 1, never fib on the SF86. It will almost always require a trip to DOHA, or an initial Statement of Reasons, and a very long review. At least with the new facility, all DoD will have one place to complain to.
As to the clearance history, the old DSS system used to close 1800 favorable cases a day with no human intervention. OPM is still working on the technology.
Investigator-
I am seeing a ton of that. I get back from interviewing my subject, type up the case, get ready to transmit and- bam- case message advising stuff that needed to be covered. I’m submitting the cases as-is with a message indicating that the work was completed prior to the message and if the information is necessary they can schedule an ESI3… They should NOT be releasing the cases to the field until they are scoped and all messages in… A lot of the stuff lately has to do with the recompete (especially the RZ’s).
Chris,
What type of unresolved incident? You are right that if a unit overseas has to be covered, it may take a longer period as the investigators are sent in TDY–could be a rotation issue.
Anthony Galasso
Sounds to me like your security personnel are feeding you a line of xxxx. They absolutely can inquire for you so don’t take no as an answer. Is it because your contract is running out and they simply don’t care anymore? Keep bugging them to check.
What a Joke
Sorry to hear what happened. It is not the norm. There are a number of scenarios, which may have caused the two reports–none of them are excusable. Sounds more like an internal problem and I don’t know why two cases were sent to DOHA without an internal investigation directed by OPM.
Michael,
238 days is a long time–what agency requested the background?
For those that posted above on the length of time their clearance is taking please don’t blame just the investigators. We are getting the cases as done as quick as possible as we have deadlines to meet. I have 14 days to get cases done. Not 14 business days, 14 days so that means I am working on some weekends to get peoples investigations done. Once we transmit the case and it is reviewed we no longer have control of it. That is where the adjudicators take over and we as investigators have no control over that. As for the individual above having two investigations going on at the same time that has happened in the past but it is rare and should have been caught. Also there could be a slight chance the investigator did not know what a foreign national was but foreign national coverage and definitions are gone over in training both in class and on the job prior to an investigator being sent out on their own. If she did not know what a foreign national was then she was not paying attention and should not be an investigator.
I don’t know what to think. I’m at 308 days now awaiting completion of an incident-driven reinvestigation. Have held DISCO Secret since 1993. Submitted SF-86 in MAY 2010, had background interview in SEP 2010, observed that DSS made a credit report inquiry in NOV 2010 (excellent credit BTW), and nothing since. Can’t get my FSO to give me more than a vague “Nothing has changed” response when I ask about my status in JPAS. I realize it’s out of the investigator’s hands now, and in the adjudication process, but it’d be nice to know *something*, you know?
Question that someone may be able to help with. I currently hold a TS/SCI clearance and am planning on EAS’ing within one year (March 2012 ish). I’m currently in a billet that only requires a Secret. My 5 year mark is coming up in August and would like to get the SSBI-PI under my belt so I can leave the military with an active TS/SCI. I don’t want to misrepresent my intentions, and I know these investigations are very expensive to conduct. Couple questions:
-Would it be inappropriate to not make my EAS known to my security manager (not sure the security manager talks to the admin psystem)
-Does anyone know the current backlog for TS/SCI SSBI-PRs? Would it even be worth starting if by the time it was adjudicated the gig would be up?
-What would happen if, say, in October I decided that I wanted to stay in. Would I be able to pick up where I left off and do a PR, or would I have to do the full SSBI again?
Thanks for your help.
Army O:
There really isn’t any investigative case backlog. I think OPM is working at a good steady state right now of about 1.5 month’s worth of cases pending. So, SSBI-PRs should only be receiving slightly slower service than initial clearance investigations. I don’t know about Army CCF, but DISCO’s total pending adjudications increased significantly last fiscal year from 2,037 cases on 1 Oct 09 to 17,936 cases pending on 1 Oct 10. They got that down to 16,068 by 30 Nov 10, but it’s hard to say it was a temporary reversal or trend. The larger the pending caseload, the longer it takes for a case to make it through the system. This doesn’t bode well considering that DISCO started eAdjudicating in September 2009 and granted 5,900 Secret clearances during FY2010 using eAdjudication. The problem with DISCO is that they are moving from Columbus, OH to Ft. Meade later this year. A lot of DISCO adjudicators don’t want to move, so they are quitting their jobs. Army CCF has been at Ft. Meade for a long time, so they should be unaffected by the move, unless DISCO steals some of Army adjudicators. All 10 DOD CAFs will be in the same building at Ft. Meade this year. Many CAFs will only move a short distance from other locations in the greater DC area and some adjudicators may be allowed to telecommute. I think there will be some shuffling of personnel from one CAF to another. All of this will have a negative impact on pending adjudications. The last published data I saw for Army CCF showed an average end-to-end processing time for the fastest 90% of SSBI-PRs as 118 days, but that was from 1st Quarter FY10. Newer data should be available soon.
An SSBI-PR costs $2711.
FrankinTampa,
Problem is, I’m not sure the Defense Industry can police itself. The military has a system of keeping an eye out. So, who watches the Defense Contract Agencies–nobody? There still needs to be a level of trust in your employees. Most are good people and there are those who make poor and VERY poor decisions in between the investigations. Who finds-out this info; I’ll tell ya Nobody that’s who, if no periodic check is conducted. I for one cannot buy-off someone saying “I promise to be a good boy or girl, so give me access to the nation’s secrets forever.”
Nothing but misinformation. It tells you how un-informed these officials are when making these announcements. Public Deception. That is what it is. “Not only,,,,,, but also because delays in processing security clearances can cause delays in placing highly-qualified individuals in the cleared positions that need them.”
Her statement totaly contradict to what is happening. You would think that the individual who just received his clearance is on his way to fill in the position in which the agency (the government agency) requested his/her clearance for. The red tapes and the buracracy starts after the clearance is issued. Agencies
conduct their own investigations and have the cleared individual fill in more paperwork including another SF86. So if you count the days from issuance of the clearance to filling the position makes her statement false and deceiving.
Army O,
I see alot of your situation. If your PR starts it doesn’t matter when you EAS. The Army will continue the background until you leave for sure. Your PR may be done before that, so press on with it. It’s required, so nothing is wrong with continuing.
Mr. Henderson,
My clearance has been in adjudication for about 8 months now and it’s with Army CCF. I know you stated earlier that they shouldn’t have a backlog but the move from DISCO might affect them a little. Do you know what the hold up might be on my Clearance? Anything I can do facilitate the process?
Thank you
I’ve never seen seven commas used in succession like that before.
know360:
Eigh months in adjudication is way too long. You’re not authorized to contact CCF directly, but your security manager can. He/she should have contacted them several times by now. Sometimes cases get misplaced and all it takes is a phone call to get things back on track. If your security manager has called CCF about your case previously and did not receive a satisfactory answer about the status of your case, have him/her call again and tell the person at CCF you’re getting angry and contemplating a congressional inquiry. Before you do that make sure you’re info about how long the case has been in adjudication is correct. Ask your security manager for a print out of your JPAS record–the part that shows the investigation summary and adjudication summary.
Well PIPS is ready for the new SF-86 but we as investigators still have not seen it, at least I haven’t seen it yet.
Not liking the new PIPS. Don’t like having to retype things!!!!!
I agree BW. I am doing a lot of copy and pasting.
Yeah, the new PIPS. Like how you can’t move between screens without retyping the case name and number… I love the “updates”.
Looks like OPM got the message about having the retype the case number on each screen.
Mr. Henderson,
Thank you and I appreciate the advice.
Hopefully my Congressman can get me an answer.
OPM did get the message about the f-ed up PIPS. We FEDS hated it too.
Question for Mr. Henderson
I see on this board ppl pitching in questions so I thought I could do so too.
I was granted a final secret clearance, NACLC, conducted by OPM and adjudicated by DISCO very early this year. I guess you can call it a DoD clearance. Neither, the investigation nor the adjudication process involved any polygraph or CI,SI Interview. Except a PSI with OPM rep as part of the investigation. Now, my sponsor sent me for a CI poly and a SI with this agency with the impression given to me that it would be a “formality” and the result would be convyed to them within..two weeks. (And off course, they had me fill in a “manual SF-86” as part of a nomination packet to submitt to their client prior to scheduling me with them). First, as it turned out, it was not a formality. It was a serious SI. And to my surprise, they had me take fingerprints just after my SI. Five weeks is gone by and nothing has happened. The ppl at my sponsor either hide information, or they really don’t know waht is going on to tell me. I suspect it is both. What they do tell me is to “wait”. And by the way, during the SI, I was asked questions beyond the 7 year which I had not disclosed on either the e-Qip nor the SF86 as per instructions by the sponsor. What is going on if you could please elaborate? And also I called the client front disk recently to inquire. She only took my first and last and came back and said that she cannot find me in the system. I asked her if she was looking in the JPAS ? she said yes.
Thank you
Kubra,
Some agencies have their own suitability requirements unrelated to the clearance process. They normally get the extra information during the subject interview, sometimes what was a seven year question on the SF-86 becomes a “lifetime” question during the interview. And sometimes they ask things completely unrelated to the SF-86. Depending on the agency, you may not be in JPAS. There are other clearance databases…
Kubra:
Sounds like you’ve been nominated for a Special Access Program (SAP). It’s normal to submit a new SF86 for SAP access that requires a polygraph exam. I think it’s unusal to have a SAP that requires a CI polygraph exam, but not an SSBI. SAPs have their own unpublished rules about standards and processing, so anything is possible. Some have country-specific rules about foreign connections. A normal NACLC does not include a Subject Interview, so yours must have been because something in you background triggered the need for a Subject Interview.
SAP access requires a separate adjudication. I think 2 weeks is the absolute minimum time that an adjudication can be completed if everything is absolutely clean. And your case might not fall into this category because a Subject Interview was required as part of an NACLC. There is also the possibility that the agency has initiated or intends to initiate an SSBI on you. The person who told you it would only take two weeks may not have known that you only had an NACLC. As “Contractor” said in his reply post to you, there is another database for SAP access. One reason for your employer’s inability to give you much information may be because there are 3 types of SAPs:
Acknowledged – SAP whose existence is publicly acknowledged.
Unacknowledged – SAP with protective controls which ensures the existence of the Program is not acknowledged, affirmed, or made known to any person not authorized for such information. All aspects are handled in an unacknowledged manner.
Waived – SAP that the approval authority has determined the existence of which should not be included in annual reports to Congress, because such reporting would adversely affect national security. These SAPs are reported to the chairman and ranking minority member of each of the congressional defense committees.
Hi All –
I’ve kept up with this board for about six months and I appreciate everyone’s time, effort and good information.
I’m a senior investigator with an OPM contractor; I’ve been on for about six years working DoD cases almost exclusively as I am located in a large military area. I’ve been looking at the possibility of transitioning to adjudications as a federal civilian (I’ve given up on transitioning to OPM as a federal investigator after seven applications without response – I don’t have veteran status or any other preference points).
I’ve taken several DoD DSS CDSE online courses (on my own time) for training certificates in DoD personnel security, including introduction to DoD adjudications (the prerequisite to the instructor led, 8.5 days DSS adjudicator certification training in Maryland). I’m willing and able to immediately relocate to the DC metro area. I’ve got a BS CJ degree, about 15 years LE experience and about 6 years OPM experience. I’ve spent time researching the locations and hiring authorities/recruitment web sites of the CAFs and writing a solid resume. My question: if the CAFs are so behind, where are the job opportunities? There are literally NO ads on USAJOBS (or any other web site I can find) for federal civilian adjudicators. None. How is that possible? What am I missing?
If anyone here has adjudications experience, does my education/employment background sound desirable to the CAFs? This isn’t a pipe dream, is it?
Any information/help is always appreciated. Thanks.
No doubt SAP or maybe a 3-digit. Nobody else hand writes the form.
Blues Clues,
I’ve been wondering the same thing…
Mr. Henderson,
Any insights/advice?
Blues Clues and Contractor
Start with Jupiter Corporation. I recalled they were performing the work and they may be an inside track for ya.
BW,
Thanks for the Jupiter Corporation lead. Apparently they do have a hand in DoD adjudications. Here’s a tidbit from their site:
“PERSONNEL SECURITY: JUPITER brings a wealth of personnel security experience and training for DOE, U.S. Air Force Central Adjudication Facility, TSA, and U.S. Army Central Clearance Facility in investigative and administrative reviews, e-QIP, classified document and records management controls, adjudications, post-adjudicative reconsiderations and appeals, and adjudicative call centers.”
Anyone have the scuttlebutt on Jupiter?
Please keep the advice, insight and information coming! It’s most appreciated.
Jupiter’s a good company. They did good work for Army CCF and also worked for AFCAF, but their Army contract terminated a couple of months ago. Not sure whether DISCO/DOHA may use Jupiter in the future. Funding a contract may be a problem. There should be a number of Adjudicator positions becoming available within the next few months. The deadline for 9 DOD CAFs to move to Fort Meade is 15 September and most DISCO adjudicators will not move. Some from other CAFs may not move. Don’t rely entirely on USAJOBS for listing. Try some other job boards.
Thank you, Mr. Henderson. Much appreciated.
Blues Clues,
Also, last I heard there was a waiting process for funding. As William said, USA Jobs not a good place at all. If I were you, I would call one of the sections and ask for guidance–I bet they would help. If I hear anymore, I’ll let ya know. Stay on Jupiter because I bet when the need arises, they will have no choice but to recall them back into it or they will fall behind. I think William is right and many folks will not move to Meade area and they will be short-handed.
Good luck
BW
Finally got an e-mail last night from our training department about an online training program for the new SF-86.
Mr. Henderson
Thank you for taking the time to read my concern and provide feedback. I appreciate it. Your input about SAP access w/o SSBI as being un-usual raises another question for me. In fact several, if I may.
Is it not that an SSBI is a requirement for TS access only and require 10 year disclosure in the front-end (e-QIP)and that it can only be adjudicated by DISCO and not by these individual IC agencies. Could they do an SSBI on me without my consent? Remember I did a 7 year history in the manual SF86 as I was instructed by the FSO which I was OK with it since my initial e-QIP was for seven years anyway as my contengency called for obtaining favorable final secret, CI poly and SI. Period.
Further, who is doing the SSBI investigation and adjudication for them ? Is it referred back to OPM and disco ?
Last, speaking of foreign contact. I did not disclose a foreign contact in my e-qip and later in the manual SF86 because if I remember correctly both forms require disclosure if the contact is “continous”, which in my case it is not. It was a one time contact over a week during my few weeks vacation overseas. However, I did disclose it at my SI with OPM but not at my SI with the agency. The only thing that this could cause a trigger is if folks at the agency see the OPM report but not realize that it was a one time contact and that it was not continous. I regret that I did not bring this up at the SI with the agency to point out that it was not disclosed in the forms because it was not continous. Can I clarify it now ?
Thank you
kubra
Contractor
Thank you for the answer. I was shocked when she told me that she cannot find me in the JPAS.
Kubra
Kubra:
There are “designated” SAPs that require an SSBI for access to SAP information at the Secret level. DISCO does not adjudicate SAP eligibility; it’s done by the IC agency (customer). Sometimes an investigator, who receives an SF86 with only 7 year’s worth of information, will collect the addition 3 years of data during the Subject Interview.
You consented to an investigation when you signed the SF86 and general release form. That authorization is good for up to 5 years. Investigations for some SAPs are done by the IC agency’s contract investigation supplier; some are done by OPM. The term SAP includes SCI and RD.
Regarding foreign contacts, the word is “continuing” not “continous.” Continuing generally means you had contact in the past and you anticipate contact in the future. The more important qualifier for a foreign contact is the existance of bond of affection, influence, or obligation. Investigators ask for all foreign contacts, even those you are not required to list on the SF86. If it’s important, they will recontact you for additional information. It doesn’t sound significant to me.