General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAsk a background investigator anything (former USOPM contractor) (retired)
Feel free to ask me anything. I've sent my bona fides (name redacted) to Skinner and Thom Hartmann to prove I know what I'm talking about. Actually, I've said so much over the years, that former coworkers could probably identify me if they were so inclined. I'm tired and sick and don't really care who knows what.
_______________________________________________
from a response regarding what clearances are about.
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.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Agency adjudicators are supposed to compile and determine suitability for the clearance requested. Sometimes however, investigators are able to get an idea when someone may or may not pass depending on what you find or what lies the subject has been found out on.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023683962
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)increased government scrutiny. Have you looked at it and do you think it can help with the process?
Would you rather have been a federal employee doing the same work?
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I haven't heard if the bill. I don't stay in touch with the old job. I don't think anything will change until the profit motive is gone. Money is the root of ....
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Every time I see the new stats on reduced number of government employees I think about the profit motive that is driving it. The taxpayers are getting screwed and yet pretty much no one, including on DU, seems to get it.
JFTR - I am not and never have been employed by the federal, state, county or city government.
HolyMoley
(240 posts)What sort of in depth investigation, amount of scrutiny would have been conducted with someone like Alexis?
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)and MBI should check the details of the last 5 years of your life for issues.
Depending on what job he had, he might have been required to have a higher clearance.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)When hubby received his ATS for the first time took over a year.
When we married I tripped it.
Naturalized citizen who served somewhere else as an officer (in a medical corp) and my dad was in the Russian Army as a private at the end of the good war. He is at the time in his seventies...
These days things are so lax, due to that profit, that it might or not tripped anything.
We need to remove profit from many areas of the state. You are correct that it is a problem.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)I just heard on my TV that Hagel has just ordered a review of security issues, including the security background clearance process.
Also, the Inspector General is about to issue a very bad report.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)seems to pay attention?
I wonder if the OIG for USOPM is connected to any of these contractors. If so, there will be no change. If there is turnover it will just go to another contractor and nothing really will change.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)I am sure there are several "love" relationships (profits, politics and politicians) that will get in the way of actually fixing the problem.