|
|
 |
|
Home > Career Transition Center |
|
Information for U.S. Military personnel transitioning to a
civilian career. |
|
Also see: GI Bill
| VA Home Loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 Share Article
 E-Mail This Article  Print Article |
|
 |
|
| Employment Suitability Versus Security Clearance |
by 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There are 3 stages at which the offer of employment you accepted can be withdrawn by the agency—the initial HR review, the HR adjudication, and the security clearance adjudication.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
|
 |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DESCRIPTION:
MilitarySpot.com - Online Military Community and More!
KEYWORDS: military, air force, army, marines, navy, coast guard,
news, information, resources, afghanistan, aircraft, aviation,
bases, boots, buddy finder, career transition, channel,
classifieds, clothing, credit repair, discounts, education,
gear, gi bill, helicopter, iraq, jobs, life, loan consolidation,
medal, military loans, mypay, myspace, pay, personals,
photos, pioneer, rank, real estate, record, recruiting, relocation, reviews,
service, shopping, singles, social networking, surplus, tactics, time, training,
uniforms, va home loans, vehicles, veterans, videos, watch,
weapon
LINKS:
military -
military loans
-
military shopping
- military singles
- pioneer military loans -
va loans |
|
|
Military Career Transition
