Has anyone had any former Subject’s call them back months later and get questioned/confronted by the Subject about information in their report? Subject states they were called by their adjudicator and the adjudicator told them some of the information in the report and the Subject now wanted to know details from their investigator. Seems to be a very strange situation.
Usually when they call they ask why they didn’t get their clearance. Then I tell them that I don’t recall any details about their case. Then they remind me that I interviewed them less than two months ago. Then I tell them that, after two weeks or so, all the details run together . . . .
You will have that situation if you are in this field long enough. I’ve had the criers, the yellers, I even had one ask if I could be a witness in their DOHA hearing (I declined). I usually don’t remember them and even if I do, I don’t discuss the ROI.
I’ve even had to interview several people in the military who did not get their clearances about others on their team. Those were interesting conversations.
I realize having Subject’s call back their investigator is not uncommon. It’s adjudicators calling the Subject (probably under a mask of anonymity) and reminding the Subject’s that the information in our reports is what denies them their clearance. Meanwhile, these pissed off Subject’s live in the same town as us and we could run into them regularly on the job. (But we aren’t allowed to carry any sort of self defense against their possible anger/outrage) Does anyone know if adjudicators do get anonymity when dealing directly with Subjects?
I always tell subjects I have nothing to do with granting or adjudication of their clearance. I hope Investigators don’t make subjects believe they somehow control the investigation when they dont. In 22 years I’ve never had 1 subject call to ask anything about the adjudication or granting of their clearance . They do however call all the time about when their case will be completed.
Investigators have a lot to do with the Subject’s clearance. I always tell Subject that adjudicators read the report and decide on their clearance. However, whether or not Subject’s understand or believe this is another question. Investigators don’t control the investigation but they control the words in the report that adjudicators read the words. Words matter.
I had a subject who months later was adjudicated and approved. He was however not selected to the position he had desired which would have kept him from going back to Iraq. This had nothing to do with his clearance not being approved. I did have a source that was very negative and shed much light on some violations that he had not disclosed. He called me most upset about me interviewing this source. I merely told him I couldn’t discuss his case and hung up on him. End of story.
Let’s hope he doesn’t know or is able to find out your address. We really do deserve a lot more anonymity. People losing jobs are often quite distraught, belligerent, and vindictive.
You should always contact the investigative agency when this happens and report that your Subject contacted you pertaining to his case and made threats or became argumentative. You did the other thing by saying you cannot discuss his BI with him but also should report the conversation and his demeanor, attitude, and threats to the investigating agency and even the adjudicating agency if possible.
On this topic, I have obtained copies of all my investigations once they close. Sometimes I’ve gotten the results before adjudication was complete.
While the overall report is always fine, I often see errors in how something I told the investigator was incorrectly transcribed and reported. This kind of mis-reporting could affect the adjudication for some people.
It begs the question - why aren’t investigators allowed to make an audio recording of the interviews(with the subject and sources)?
I’ve never heard of adjudicators calling the subject. I would assume that is not normal or appropriate, but I’ve been doing this for five years and the adjudication process is still a mystery to me! Generally, the agency would ask for a subject contact or a TESI to clear up any questions.
I would bet dollars to donuts that this is a case of misunderstanding and that it was actually an investigator and not an adjudicator who contacted them.