|
Post by 71stretch on Dec 8, 2014 12:31:45 GMT -5
My supervisor informed me this morning that she has been instructed, thanks to "personnel reform" that all references must go through our primary administrative agency. Of course, no one there is equipped to answer the questions. She is going to advise the contractor to ask the agency's permission to call her back. We will see. I have other former supervisors on my reference list, which will help. Current one has been in that job only about a year,but she was a reference for me before that, too,so she knows the drill.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Dec 8, 2014 13:09:17 GMT -5
My supervisor informed me this morning that she has been instructed, thanks to "personnel reform" that all references must go through our primary administrative agency. Of course, no one there is equipped to answer the questions. She is going to advise the contractor to ask the agency's permission to call her back. We will see. I have other former supervisors on my reference list, which will help. Current one has been in that job only about a year,but she was a reference for me before that, too,so she knows the drill. I am sorry to hear of this "glitch" observer53 regarding your present supervisor. I understand the fear of the company/state government you work for in this litigious society and the need to almost run everything through "legal" first prior to taking any action to avoid any possible legal ramifications for the employer. I am not condoning the practice, but only stating the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Dec 8, 2014 15:43:03 GMT -5
Thanks, MPD. The advantage is that if she does get to talk to them, she's known me and my work for 20 years, has answered the questions at least once before, and can do it again. This new procedure works fine for the basic job reference we're all familiar with, but not for something like this.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 19, 2014 10:55:30 GMT -5
I guess the background checks have begun. I received a hit on my linkedin account from "SSA ODAR Investigator at KeyPoint Government Solutions" today. Remember when I posted this? About "KeyPoint" .... well.... we got this email just a few minutes ago. So be careful and check your credit reports & be on the lookout for fraud, just like you would if you had the Home Depot, Target, or other such security breach. NOTE TO ALL SSA EMPLOYEES SSA recently received notification of a possible security breach with the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) contractor, KeyPoint Government Services. KeyPoint Government Services performs background investigations on Federal Government employees. OPM will be issuing notifications to 48,439 individuals across the Federal Government that their personally identifiable information (PII) may have been exposed as the result of a network breach at KeyPoint Government Solutions. To date, we confirmed that a total of 20 SSA employees were affected by the KeyPoint data breach. The Office of Human Resources will contact affected employees to provide them with relevant information.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 19, 2014 10:59:29 GMT -5
I put this on it's own thread due to the importance.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Dec 19, 2014 12:29:31 GMT -5
I guess the background checks have begun. I received a hit on my linkedin account from "SSA ODAR Investigator at KeyPoint Government Solutions" today. Remember when I posted this? About "KeyPoint" .... well.... we got this email just a few minutes ago. So be careful and check your credit reports & be on the lookout for fraud, just like you would if you had the Home Depot, Target, or other such security breach. NOTE TO ALL SSA EMPLOYEES SSA recently received notification of a possible security breach with the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) contractor, KeyPoint Government Services. KeyPoint Government Services performs background investigations on Federal Government employees. OPM will be issuing notifications to 48,439 individuals across the Federal Government that their personally identifiable information (PII) may have been exposed as the result of a network breach at KeyPoint Government Solutions. To date, we confirmed that a total of 20 SSA employees were affected by the KeyPoint data breach. The Office of Human Resources will contact affected employees to provide them with relevant information. When this email first hit my inbox this morning, I deleted it in 2 seconds. After all, since I'm only 1 out of ~50,000 SSA employees, and only 20 SSA employees were affected, those are pretty good odds, right? Then I read your post and, well, I think my odds just went up - way up. Gulp.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Apr 10, 2017 11:44:23 GMT -5
A job I'm applying for has an FBI background check (though it doesn't involve classified information). Will the FBI want addtional references? Would this be more neighbors /community people or legal or both? Any other "wish I'd thought of /known about ___________ before I had the check, then I'd have ____________ed" suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Apr 10, 2017 11:59:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Apr 10, 2017 13:17:59 GMT -5
Who you give them for references, really doesn't matter, as those names are merely starting points.They assume that whoever you list as a reference will be positive. If they are not positive, your judgment is seriously called into question and any prospect for any type of clearance becomes dim.
Your references will be asked who else might know foghorn and has foghorn ever had any type of difficulty or disagreement with someone? Those individuals will also be asked the same questions. It is the second or third or subsequent layer of individuals who are far more likely to remember and tell the agency about something you might prefer not to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Apr 10, 2017 13:18:17 GMT -5
It's been awhile, but I did not have to provide additional references.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 10, 2017 13:37:25 GMT -5
six years ago, several of us were surprised when they talked to us and wanted to know why we were going into Mexico or Canada... They were also interested in ex-spouses...
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Apr 10, 2017 13:53:01 GMT -5
As you have not indicated what type of clearance the position requires, it is hard to say how deep the inquiry will be and who would be the best person to use. I used to be the security manage for a Navy Reserve Intelligence unit, so I was responsible for seeing that about 100 people had their TS/SCI clearances kept up to date. Generally, someone who knew you from the time that you were a child, through the present, can address a lot of concerns. Such as you were really born where you say you were born, that your parents were born where you say that they were born, and can go along way to mollifying any concern that you are some sort of a sleeper.
As indicated in another post, foreign travel, particularly to certain countries, will receive close scrutiny, as will contacts with foreigners. Travel to countries that are not necessarily perceived as being averse to the US, is a concern, because those countries may more freely allow access to citizens from countries that we are more suspicious of. If you are asked about foreign travel, I would strongly suggest checking your passport and any other records to accurately answer the question.
As I indicated in my prior post, these background references are usually a starting point for further inquiries. Anyone who knows you well and can say that you are a responsible person who can be trusted is a good reference. If you have any problems in your past they should know about them and be able to explain why that problem is not likely to recur, ie that .08 DUI from twelve years ago was an aberration and I haven't seen him touch a lick of liquor and drive since then.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Apr 10, 2017 14:12:26 GMT -5
Always thought being a clearance investigator would make a terrific post-retirement gig, so I've asked some of them over the years what they are really looking for.
The most important matter to security clearance investigators, you have control over. You need to tell the truth about everything and anything they ask. The quickest way to lose a clearance or to be denied one is to be caught being disingenuous. Whether it is about finances, alcohol/drug use/abuse, or a work disciplinary situation - if they are asking about it you need to be forthright. And if they have any details about it, you know they've already spoken with someone with knowledge anyway. Too many people assume they will be denied if they speak of any negative situation and fall into the trap of misrepresentation trying to make themselves "look good." If you have a problem, be prepared to discus it and why it is no longer a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Apr 10, 2017 15:03:21 GMT -5
Stevil hit the nail on the head. Being forthright about any "problem" is important. I can guarantee you that if there is some problem that has left a trail, they will find it. Arrests, lawsuits, your name in the paper, they will find it if you are going for a TS/SCI, if all you need is a Secret or Confidential they will not shake the trees as much, but I once had a civilian secretary when I was on active duty who need either a confidential or secret and she got shot down because her name was involved in an investigation into a suspicious pawn shop. She was never charged with fencing hot items, but the suspicion of it at the time(1980s) was enough .
Misrepresenting something in connection with any of these investigations is the kiss of death to any investigation into whether you should be trusted at some level . I am also sure that it is a federal offense,that you don't what to commit.
Generally, you will know that the process is under way when you start to get calls from your references and the other names that they supply, because they will be contacted and interviewed before you are.
|
|
|
Post by Teuful Hunden on Apr 10, 2017 15:12:21 GMT -5
I had a TS/SCI clearance in the early 90's when I was assigned to CentCom. They went back 15 years to every address I listed. They spoke to the next door neighbors, listed references and also spoke to individuals they discovered through their investigation. They also checked criminal records and i believe credit but not sure.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Apr 10, 2017 16:50:52 GMT -5
Mjolner--it's confidential. Shows how times change--back in law school I had a clearance and it was way less involved.
alj0311--financials, IRS tax checks are stated to be part of the background check.
Time to make sure all old mortgages are off the family manse and office!
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Jun 3, 2018 21:00:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by generalsherman on Jun 3, 2018 21:43:21 GMT -5
Sorry to respond to this year-old thread, but what exactly is an IRS check? What do they look for, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Jun 4, 2018 10:23:02 GMT -5
Not sure as I would have to read the requirement in context.
But generally an IRS check refers to confirmation that you do not owe any back taxes. Every so often there is a newspaper story about how much money current federal employees owe in federal back taxes.
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 4, 2018 10:28:49 GMT -5
Sorry to respond to this year-old thread, but what exactly is an IRS check? What do they look for, anyway? I understand that they will also want to know if you've been audited, how often etc. For one office that doesn't matter but for anyone on the board it would be in play.
|
|