|
Post by sealaw90 on May 9, 2014 9:59:34 GMT -5
Gaidin, the contractor cat who performed my interview (ironically, contracted by OPM), said the words, "Just give them the date this investigation was completed next time - for any investigation." Why he would have said that if it has no effect is beyond me. However, that is exactly what I will do. I can't imagine a TS/SCI would be insufficient to hold this position... Ace, it's not ironic, OPM is now the lead agency for almost all BI's,regardless of the agency/department you work for.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on May 9, 2014 11:12:01 GMT -5
I mean that, in this context, OPM is, again, in charge of a cryptic process that I must go through. "Ironic" is, perhaps, the wrong word here. "Strangely enough" with a sarcastic font might have been better, no question.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on May 9, 2014 14:15:45 GMT -5
Unless things have changed dramatically, and they probably have, every security clearance, and especially TS/SCI, should be terminated immediately upon end of the assignment.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on May 10, 2014 11:10:02 GMT -5
When going through the security clearance, just relax and answer the questions. And never assume that the person interviewing you has access to any other security clearance reports regarding you or in any way affecting you. When going through mine, the interviewer asked me about my spouse's potential allegiance to the country where he was born. My response was that he had none to my knowledge but the investigator could ask him personally. He's in the ALJ office four doors down. Poor guy apologized profusely but clearly had not been given any info except the questionnaire I had completed in preparation for the interview.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj on May 10, 2014 13:39:09 GMT -5
This is a different level security clearance than the one we insiders have now?
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on May 10, 2014 14:46:03 GMT -5
Unless things have changed dramatically, and they probably have, every security clearance, and especially TS/SCI, should be terminated immediately upon end of the assignment. TS/SCI are generally good for 5 years. Secret used to be not reviewed, but I think they're doing them every 10 years now. Because of my MOS, I require a TS/SCI (at least through the end of 2018), despite the fact that everyone else in my unit, in the same grade and duty position, only require a Secret. So, I've had 4 investigations since 1993.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on May 12, 2014 16:11:12 GMT -5
Obviously you haven't finished your assignment but I'll bet my bippee, it will be terminated upon transfer. If not, there is a terrific problem with security clearances and if OPM is in charge, SURPRISE, SURPRISE! I cant't think of a worse agency to trust with anything related to national security than OPM. I repeat, I had three TS/SCI BIs in four years and DOD, DOJ and whoever did the investigations for OHA, could care less whether or not you had any kind of previous clearance. But considering the disasters that have befallen us (Snowden, the Navy Yard shooter, the Norfolk NS shooter) I pray to Heaven somebody wakes up before we have worse outcomes than now.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 12, 2014 16:35:54 GMT -5
Westernalj, it is much more extensive than you now have.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on May 13, 2014 14:32:08 GMT -5
Obviously you haven't finished your assignment but I'll bet my bippee, it will be terminated upon transfer. If not, there is a terrific problem with security clearances and if OPM is in charge, SURPRISE, SURPRISE! I cant't think of a worse agency to trust with anything related to national security than OPM. I repeat, I had three TS/SCI BIs in four years and DOD, DOJ and whoever did the investigations for OHA, could care less whether or not you had any kind of previous clearance. But considering the disasters that have befallen us (Snowden, the Navy Yard shooter, the Norfolk NS shooter) I pray to Heaven somebody wakes up before we have worse outcomes than now. Well - my current assignment in the USAR and I don't expect to end it until the end of 2018. I hold whatever is required for my current position (yes - I had a completely separate application while I still held a Secret from DoD) - and a TS/SCI for DoD. I expect to hold whatever is required for ALJ alongside my TS/SCI (which is pretty much the highest a "regular" person is ever required to have.) But the twist is this - I went into eQip to complete my application for the clearance for my job with ODAR. However, my renewal for my TS/SCI was also active. I completed the one for ODAR and both eQip files disappeared. The information cross-populates, as well. When I ultimately completed the eQip for my TS/SCI, all of the information I had updated for ODAR had carried over. I don't think the clearance is necessarily the issue (as many of them have subltely different requirements), but the results of the investigation can be used, up to a point, to grant the clearance (or, if significant enough, deny it), without the necessity of doing a full-bore 15-year investigation from scratch. As OPM does all of them now (as opposed to the days where DIS did them for OPM, FBI did their own, etc.), perhaps that is one of the "efficiency" improvements they have made or have attempted to make. Again - just going by what the guy told me - and I know there has been a significant change for DoD since the DIS days - as my old first sergeant's civilian job was with DIS.
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Mar 28, 2016 14:27:33 GMT -5
So I am randomly reading old threads with interesting titles and this is certainly one! So a background check involves interviewing me, my neighbors, my references, and my cats? Do the cats and I have to take a polygraph? I seem to remember that being required for ALJ's before the class action.
Judgymcjudgypants
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 28, 2016 15:22:18 GMT -5
Cats by their nature will lie, so there is no reason to give them a polygraph. Our cat constantly lies about having already been fed by either my husband or me, depending on which one of us asks her. Not trustworthy. Dogs invariably wag their tales during testing, which gives invalid results--makes the needles jump. Also, no polygraph for you either. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by Serious, J. on Mar 28, 2016 15:41:41 GMT -5
They're going to interview my ex?
I don't imagine he'd have anything good to say. Especially since our most recent communication revolved around how the Chinese have his SSN and other personal info, thanks to OPM.
ETA: And it's all my fault due to my security clearance application.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Mar 28, 2016 15:55:08 GMT -5
They're going to interview my ex? I don't imagine he'd have anything good to say. Especially since our most recent communication revolved around how the Chinese have his SSN and other personal info, thanks to OPM. ETA: And it's all my fault due to my security clearance application. While my ex is a pretty reasonable person, his personal info has also be previously compromised through OPM and may not be as willing to be helpful also. This may well be an issue for many of us.
|
|
|
Post by blondswede on Mar 28, 2016 23:05:14 GMT -5
Cats by their nature will lie, so there is no reason to give them a polygraph. Our cat constantly lies about having already been fed by either my husband or me, depending on which one of us asks her. Not trustworthy. Dogs invariably wag their tales during testing, which gives invalid results--makes the needles jump. Also, no polygraph for you either. Pixie. I had to like this twice, it's so funny, Pixie!
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Mar 29, 2016 8:03:20 GMT -5
The title of this thread seems to mix up two different things. A public trust position does not necessarily require a security clearance. Well, it is and it isn't mixing up 2 different things. You're correct that no "clearance" will be issued and an ALJ, except under a few rare circumstances I can imagine (and very likely inapplicable to ODAR or OMHA), will not be granted access to classified information, as that term is widely used. However, the background investigation process is the same, done by the same folks, with the same outcome - the person either passes the background check at the appropriate level of sensitivity or the person doesn't. A successful public trust background investigation is required to hold the position of ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Mar 29, 2016 11:26:24 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I simply disagree with your characterization.
For people outside the security clearance system, you are making a distinction without substance, IMHO. Certainly a TS/SCI (single scope or poly) will have greater sensitivity and cover a greater length of time. You're correct about differing adjudication standards. I never meant to even imply that a public trust background investigation would be of the same sensitivity as a TS/SCI.
However, the public trust background check will be conducted via the auspices of OPM, use the eQip system and be conducted by the same personnel and contractors. They will report favorable and unfavorable information in relatively the same format. The conclusion of the investigation will be a pass or fail.
If that isn't clear enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree. No harm done. I'm a lawyer. People disagree with me (civilly and uncivilly) a lot. I'm used to it. No worries, mate.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 29, 2016 12:12:47 GMT -5
All right we both have had our say on the subject. It has been civil. But I think no more discussion on the topic debated by Ace and Grump need be held. I'm not locking the thread, but just telling both of you to move on to something else. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Mar 29, 2016 14:48:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the response, Pixie.
Judgymcjudgypants
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Mar 30, 2016 8:58:31 GMT -5
The basic form is the SF-85P. Unless I'm mistaken, ALJs are listed as moderate risk, public trust positions and receive a Level 5 background investigation, under normal circumstances.
ETA: Prior to being offered a position, ODAR only asks for a FCRA release and an OF-306. The BI doesn't initiate until you're hired (and, they fire you if you fail - again, unless I'm mistaken.)
|
|