Applicant Employment Listing

According to discussion with subjects and other FIs, lately FSOs seem to be encouraging applicants to list the company or department, who has offered the job, as an actual employer shown in the present position.

Why is this done? Do I misunderstand something?

As an FI, and from my point of interaction, this is incorrect and it would be of valuable service to the investigative process for this advice to be reevaluated.

From what I can tell, the SFs list actual activity from present backward - not possible or probable activity pending due to some sort of future action.

When FIs are working the case- If the subject is not yet paid and not considered a volunteer, the pending employment is not true/actual employment and shouldn’t be listed.

Lately unemployed or job changing applicants are having the SFs processed. The present employer is shown but subject is the applicant, not the employee. There is no record of employment but one is attempted - which wastes time and money; there are no coworkers, but that is a required part of the investigation- again wasting time and money. Finally, some applicants have no firm desire to work for the potential company- many times took a job elsewhere and is again wasting time and money.

So again I’m wondering what the reasoning is behind the incorrect listing that an applicant is an employee? There is a time and cost saving situation here if this error isn’t made to begin with.

Looking forward to a better understanding of what’s going on with this situation.


This is a common bad habit many contractor companies have done for years. The urban myth is that a company can’t start an investigation unless the Subject is employed. This creates many, many, delays in the field work.

We end up doing special interviews because the sponsoring employer reports “no record of employment” (HR/Security need to talk to each other). The Subject interview gets scheduled to the home office instead of the Subject’s actual location (causes delays if the home office is in CA, NY, FL, MD, VA, WA, CO, or TX where there is more work than investigators and the Subject is actually in AZ, UT, ID or NM.

I have the experience to realize a Subject is probably not in the DC area working (Listing Job location is so important!) but actually in my area after reading the case papers. (this normally happens when I get the residence) I make a call to the Subject and ensure their location. This gets the subject interview moved to me. Many investigators just press on until someone mentions the Subject is still in the area.

Another way to look at this - can you imagine the bottleneck if the military listed every recruit as already being in basic training when they still have months to wait? All of the military recruit cases would sit at the basic training sites until an investigator could read the case papers and throw up the BS flag and rescheduled the case to the correct location.