Another wait? Investigator in a different state (state to be moving to vs. state living at)


#1

I have been waiting (since Aug 2017) to be contacted by an investigator, then one day an email from an investigator just made my day a little brighter. The investigator is in the state which I would be moving to if I get the final clearance to satisfy the job contingency. He had to transfer the case to the state that I am living in … any idea how far this would push me back behind the bus? It’s been about a week now and I haven’t heard from an investigator in the state that I’m living in.


#2

There have been mixed reports from readers of these forums. Some say it delayed things (which they only found out months later) while others said the transfer to the local investigator went quickly.

I guess it all comes down to workload.

In any case, a week is like a millisecond on the time scale of background investigations :confused:


#3

Thanks for the response. I guess I’m just gonna to lower the anticipation and take the waiting ticket for the next call. Hopefully it would be too long. :slight_smile:


#4

My transfer took one day. I have read people waiting much longer.


#5

Mine took 3 weeks but it was same state different city. I called the original investigator after 3 weeks and two days later i received a phone call to schedule an interview from the other investigator.


#6

The missing information is: why was the case scheduled to the wrong state in the first place?

This is a common error that seriously delays field work. Subjects will list the prospective employer’s information and job location on the SF86/EQIP instead of the Subject’s current location. This can seriously delay your case if your employer is in a high tempo work zone.

Real life example: I was assigned to do a Subject’s residence in a mid-sized metro area. A quick look at the case papers and I guessed (correctly) that the Subject was not working and living in the DC area but in my area. Had the Subject listed the correct job location on his EQIP - his clearance would have been started 8-10 months sooner because the ESI would have been assigned earlier. This scenario is not unusual.


#7

This is happens unfortunately because the prospective employers specifically tell people to put them down as the current employer on the SF86. Seems to cause a lot of unnecessary confusion.