What security clearances are about

[Recursion]

Since this has come up in the Snowden case and the Navy Yard shooting, I wanted to correct what seems to be a common misconception. The primary information gathered in a clearance process is about foreign connections and travel. That's what they are looking for most and that's what they care about. Yes, it's an outdated mindset. Unfortunately it's what we have right now.

You can, if you want, download the form you have to fill out for a clearance (you can't turn it in to anyone without a sponsoring government agency):

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

Clearances are not an attempt to find intrinsically trustworthy people. I can't stress that enough. Clearances are an attempt to find the people least vulnerable to undue foreign influence. They ask about criminal history, drug use, credit history and debt, etc., but mostly because they are worried that these could be used to blackmail you.

I don't think this is a particularly great system, but it's the system we have.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Mostly it seems to be about accounting for every place you have lived your entire adult lifetime...

[Marrah_G]

2. When the check was done on my son it was pretty involved

They interviewed friends, family, neighbors, the local police, his high school.... They asked about any interaction with police, even not ending in an arrest. Even now he makes sure to stay squeaky clean because he loves what he does and doesn't want to lose his career.

I am so shocked that this guys background issues did not prevent his clearance. In my opinion, it should. If they knew his history and just let it go, then we have a big problem. If they didn't know then we have a big problem.

Ugh... I'm never going to get to sleep tonight..so angry, shocked and freaked out.

[Recursion]

4. They're saying the attacker only had Secret. The check for that is pretty perfunctory

At least 10 years ago, the background check you get when you join the military qualifies you for Secret automatically (though it doesn't actually grant it automatically).

[Marrah_G]

6. I hope they are rethinking their policies on this

[Recursion]

8. The whole process has been outdated for at least 20 years

Sigh.

[bottomofthehill]

3. There are specific questions about arrests and firearms arrest.

Arrests may go back 7years, but I think you are asked if you have ever been arrested (not convicted,but arrested) on a firearms charge. Looks like there should be 2 yeses there. Anyone else shocked that he has a TX conceal carry permit???

[Recursion]

5. A "yes" to either one doesn't disqualify, it just warrants further investigation

For that matter, a "yes" to almost anything doesn't automatically disqualify you.

[bottomofthehill]

10. Right, but once looked into it should

Discharging a weapon twice because someone was disrespecting you is a pretty clear indicator that you lack the stability necessary to hold a clearance

[Recursion]

11. That's what I'm getting at: you're looking to the clearance process to be something it's not

It's not meant to weed out people who are intrinsically dangerous sociopathic assholes. It's meant to weed out otherwise good people who can be blackmailed by another country into giving away government secrets.

It may find the intrinsically dangerous sociopathic assholes, but that's not what it's set up for.

[bottomofthehill]

7. They also ask mental health issues

The father stated he has PTSD from 9/11. Someone did not do their best work on the clearance.

[Recursion]

9. Someone's father stating that does not equal an actual diagnosis

And, for that matter, a diagnosis of PTSD doesn't disqualify someone from a clearance either (there's a fine line here; we want soldiers to come forward when they have problems, so it specifically can't end somebody's career).

[bottomofthehill]

12. Agreed, fathers comment is not a diagnosis, and one has to be careful with mental health issues

But a police report that states that he had an anger fueled black out where he fired two rounds.......that would be cause for concern for any type of clearance, public trust forward.

[HipChick]

13. Was he ever treated for it?

It seemed like it went untreated..

[DURHAM D]

14. According to reports on tv he was treated several times by the VA.

I find this a little strange given that his PTSD supposedly is from 9/11 when he was living in NY and he didn't join the Navy reserves until 2007 and received an early discharge for "Misconduct Issues" in 2011.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. The security world is still hyper homophobic because for years they listed being gay

as something one could be blackmailed about, although apparently having multiple affairs with random members of the opposite sex was always seen as Mighty Fine Stuffs.
The entire system and culture is debased, inefficient and as it stands it is a waste of money which does not protect us from anything. Ft Hood, this guy 'military and trusted'. 'Top Secret Clearance'. Waste of money which achieves nothing at all.
Fetid and rotten system. They need to clean house, fire everyone and replace them with new people for a new time of history.

[Recursion]

16. Yup (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Loved your India shots, would love to go there.

nt

[LannyDeVaney]

18. You all are treating a clearance as 'one big thing'

There are multiple types of clearances, and Secret is one of the most prevalent and involves the least vetting. It's often required just so you can walk around an installation without an escort. Top Secret clearance does a full check on old friends, neighbors, etc... Secret application does ask about arrest records, but I believe it only goes back a certain number of years (7?)...can't remember.

If he was a contractor hired to work at this installation, they would have sent his secret clearance to the building he would be working in, he would have had to provide ID to get a CAC (digital ID card - requires fingerprint) and then he most certainly would have been able to go in/out of the building as well as go anywhere on site that didn't require a higher clearance (and he would never get in those anyway).

[NightWatcher]

19. I conducted SSBI's (background checks) for USOPM (actually a contractor)

Security clearances are supposed to check a subject's background for "issues". Foreign associates, a high percentage of debt, mental health, alcoholism, criminal history, and other items that would deem someone as "unfit" for a clearance. I used to travel to every county or district where each subject resided to check for criminal records. NACLC's (National Agency Criminal Legal Checks) are supposed to be conducted for each subject. Criminal records checks and credit checks are supposed to be ran and judged for each subject. Interviews with associates, former coworkers, neighbors.... are conducted to find patterns of issues that might deem a subject as unfit.

Unfortunately the way it goes now is that each case for a SSBI (Single Scope Background Investigation) for a security clearance has a requirement that investigators speak with 10 people who know the subject. Every place of employment and residence that the subject has been at in the past 10 years is supposed to be checked and persons interviewed about the subject. To be paid for the investigation, the contracting company must talk to at least 10 people. Lazy investigators will often ask the subject which ten people they should talk to. Once the threshold of 10 is reached and most records obtained, the contractor gets paid. There is no importance for finding out subjects who should not be adjudicated fit for a clearance, just talk to 10. If they cant find people who knew the subject at each residence or place of employment, they'll talk to friends who are aware that "oh yeah, he used to work at ABC and live in Smalltown, VA" and that would count as coverage for those items, without ever talking to a neighbor who could tell you that the cops were called to the house on a regular basis to break up fights or that he was fired for showing up to work drunk.

(Will cross post as an OP)

[Raine1967]

21. This is enlightening.

Do you think this is a good process?

I said below that I didn't believe that private contractors should be in charge of giving a green light to clearances. I am now left wondering if the requirements should be changed.

I still believe that it should not be profit based.

[NightWatcher]

22. I dont like that money is the driver instead of a quality product

The contractor prefers and hires younger investigators whom they can pay less. Then they focus on number of investigations completed on time to get paid for being within the contract specs. When I left it was easier and easier to get interviews done via phone or less thorough means. Somethings get found out, but lots more gets missed when speed and output is the driver.

I don't think this is one area where private contractors should be doing the job. Up until the summer of 1996 it was the investigations arm of a federal agency. Then one day, magically the agency became a private company that was able to charge the government more for the same product.

[Raine1967]

20. Thanks for this, Recursion.

It has been my understanding that the Navy Yard shooter had a secret clearance -- it is the basic security clearance. Snowden had Top-secret -- and proceeded to hack identities if I recall correctly.

I moved here (DC area) a few years ago, and the first time an FBI agent left a card on the door kinda gave me a scooby-doo 'huh' moment. I later found that a co-worker of my husband had listed him as a reference and that it was a basic background check for these sort of things. Said friend is now working as a contractor.

I think that it would be nice to overhaul the way they go about granting clearances, however I do believe there is a lot of things that are misunderstood about this issue.

My biggest issue is that the Government has allowed to have some of these clearances outsourced to private companies. I strongly believe that Government should be the only entity that approves of clearances.