Section 6601 of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ263/pdf/PLAW-117publ263.pdf) states “The heads of the elements of the intelligence community, including the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, shall implement the plan submitted under subsection (d) and take all such actions each head considers appropriate and necessary to ensure that by December 31, 2023, the median duration of the onboard period for new employees at each element of the intelligence community is equal to less than 180 days.” The time is defined as beginning when the candidate applies for the job.
I received a CJO from NSA and when I submitted the security paperwork, my recruiter said “The security team will review the forms, and it may take them up to 4 weeks before sending out links for scheduling polygraphs/psych interviews.” After waiting a year and a half (from the time of applying) and having never been scheduled for those interviews and with none of my references contacted, I was told that the position for which I received the offer was eliminated and therefore my processing would be discontinued. The recruiter had confirmed multiple times throughout the wait that I was “actively processing”. My investigation should not be particularly complex.
So I contacted my representatives and the official statement that NSA sent to one of them includes this: “Please be assured that NSA meets all requirements contained in the portions of the fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) that address timeliness associated with security clearance processing. However, while timeliness of security clearance processing is important, it must always be balanced with the critical need to conduct thorough security investigations in order to properly protect highly sensitive national security information.”
How could that be possible considering:
My recruiter told me “the average time is about 6-12 months between offers”. How many NSA timelines posted on this forum are under 180 days?
The median DCSA time for initial top-secret cases for the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2024 was 249 days (https://news.clearancejobs.com/2024/11/13/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-a-security-clearance-times-go-up-in-2024/). That number excludes the slowest 10% of cases while the Sec. 6601 requirement does not. Also, DCSA’s definition is “from the time of agency initiation of information collection from an applicant to the date adjudication is reported in a repository” which is less time than in the Sec. 6601 definition.
It’s widely known that NSA and other intel agencies tend to take longer than DCSA. Even the intelligence careers website itself says: “The Intelligence Community hiring process can take a little longer than other agencies” and “The entire process takes, on average, 9-12 months and having a security clearance already may not speed up the process” (and they define the start of the process as when the CJO is given).
Considering all this, how is it plausible that NSA and every other intel agency is meeting this legal requirement to keep their median processing times under 180 days?
Gonna be honest, some people just get screwed over. It’s the nature of the beast, sorry dude. I know someone that had something similar happen. It sucks but there are always people that get left out to dry, just part of working for fed gov.
Requirements are meaningless when there is no workforce to actually do the work/investigations/processing. I think the current administration is trying to get it down to 80 days. Ridiculous timelines mean that no one gets hired and nothing gets done. Things are only going to get worse with the declining numbers of working age adults throughout the country.
The top of the 2023 NDAA says “Public Law 117–263”. Laws are not “guidelines” or “goals”. I don’t see any disclaimer similar to “serving suggestion”. Regardless, NSA has officially stated that they are in compliance with the section I quoted. How likely do you think it is that their median processing time (and that of every other intelligence agency), defined as starting when candidates apply, has remained under 180 days since 12/31/2023?
It’s understandable that you may be frustrated at the process/real world results.
Unfortunately, your experience may be common. And that others may note, or discussions parsing in to law and meanings of words and actual definition… regardless, what is likely happening, as your experience, is really held accountable by an enforcing body - which in this case, would be congress I believe.
Just as a 25mph speed limit in a designated area is law. It would be the law enforcement body to enforce such law and address any that persons that decide that 26mph is within reason.
I’ll add that Section 6601 says "In this section, the term
‘‘onboard period’’ means the period beginning on the date on which
an individual submits an application for employment and ending
on—
(1) the date on which the individual is offered one or
more entrance on duty dates; or
(2) the date on which the individual enters on duty.
So the ending date is not when a clearance is granted.
I contacted both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees multiple times starting in March but they are not responding which I think is wrong. They are responsible for oversight of the Intelligence Community and I’ve pointed out a potential violation of law which they themselves created (the portion of the NDAA I’ve mentioned is also known as an Intelligence Authorization Act). I encourage anyone reading this who also wants answers to call both of them (phone numbers on their websites–House has a different one for majority and minority parties). It’s also worth trying the offices of the representatives on those committees.
I’ve been harmed by this potential violation of law and a year and a half is a lot more than 180 days. If a person notifies a police officer that they’ve been harmed by someone going 75 in a 25 mph zone, they should not only get a response, but also have the law enforced.
And again, regardless, NSA claims to be meeting this. How plausible do you think that is?
On the DoD side they publish statistics on the “fastest 90% of cases” and the timelines cited bear no resemblance to real world experiences. I don’t know when their clocks start running and if they count weekends/holidays/early release days or what. Their internal statistics show cases completing a lot faster than what people are experiencing in the real world.
Its their game and they get to make the rules, including the rules about following the rules.
Unrealistic expectations often result in disappointment. Not everyone gets a ticket for running a red light and scaring people in the surrounding cars. Keep up hope.
Sure, a police officer might not give someone a ticket for going 26 in a 25 mph zone, but the traffic citation analogy does not apply perfectly to this matter. If an entity is responsible for enforcing a law and they refuse to do so, that’s dereliction of duty.
You’re telling me the DCSA timeliness statistics are significantly inaccurate and/or misleading and you’re just going to shrug your shoulders and say we should just accept that those in power can get away with anything? The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence states “HPSCI is charged with oversight of the United States Intelligence Community” and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence states that part of their mission is to “provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States”. We the people have the right to ask our representatives to enforce a law that they themselves made and have jurisdiction over. By the way, the Senate Intel Committee voted unanimously to approve the 2023 Intelligence Authorization Act, though I’m not sure about the House Intel Committee.
For future reference in speaking with others I’m going to clarify my main message I intended to convey.
I empathize.
I am not trying to be “right” about anything specific.
Nor am I trying to convince you that you are wrong about anything.
I used an analogy to convey that sometimes in the world we live in, processes and/or humans making decisions, don’t always seem to go the way they should. And I wish they did sometimes.
Just wanted to clarify my broader input from before.
It’s called prosecutorial discretion. It doesn’t just apply in a criminal justice setting. It’s a selective enforcement of rules using an ever changing human based perception of importance. Some states still have laws against oral sex, but I don’t think many people are getting charged with these “crimes” Sad to say but sometimes we humans only think about injustice when it happens to us personally.
This issue continues to get scrutiny from congressional types. I dont think they even published their optimistic numbers until a few years back. Members of congress keep getting contacted by their constituents stuck in clearance limbo. They also hear from defense contractors complaining about losing talent to the commercial world when people get tired of waiting, or dont even want to consider going down that path.
But bureaucratic inertia is one of the most powerful forces in the universe, so it will take time to clear this up.
I do think that @Paint is right that in this case the best way to put pressure on the bureaucratic inertia is Congress, the intel committees have real pull with the IC agencies and in this case it seems they’re explicitly violating the law
To the OP, I am sympathetic to your frustrations (whenever I read investigator types write ‘no news is good news’ I want to scream), but for your own sanity, I feel that you need to be disabused of a few things. What you seem to what the NDAA text to state is, “all security clearances must be completed in 180 days or fewer.” We both know that’s not what it says. What it says is simply that agencies must undertake measures to ensure that the median time is 180 days or under. A) Agencies may have in fact taken such measures (and apparently your congressperson agrees) and neither the agency nor congress is obliged to share the internal workings of the agency’s security process with you. B) I don’t think I need to explain to you what a median means, so you also understand that does not mean all clearances must be adjudicated in under 180 days.
Again there is a need for reform on this front–and your frustrations are not without warrant–but the cited text is not the silver bullet you want it to be.