You contacted your senator yet?
No, I have emailed my Security officer as well as my hiring official a few times. Have always felt like contacting my Senator isn’t the best way to go. Everything I have read for the last year has been to sit back and wait…
Well, you can either read or talk to people that actually contacted their senator. I contacted mine and sent me a letter from OPM. OPM said they would expedite the rest of my clearance. I am at day 315.
You call the freedom of information number? 724.794.5612.
I am about where you are in the timeline. I sent a letter to my Senator at the one year mark, and was finally interviewed two months later. I have no idea if it actually made a difference or not, but it certainly didn’t hurt. If nothing else it gives you a sense of being able to do something…
Yea, I’ve called about 10x and keep getting the “pending” notification. Last I heard from my Security Office was the estimate was 16 months, which has come and gone…
Ima agree with krazyk, just call your senators office, or better, look it up on Google and go in person and tell the aide who’s working. That’s what my friend did and his case starting picking up. They’re elected to help you, so you may as well try.
Yea, I’ve done some research on it since his first suggestion, just never really considered it. I’ll be working on a letter tomorrow.
I have attempted to contact a congressman, but his staff were unfamiliar with the process and went nowhere. After, I attempted to contact a senator who is far more senior and experienced. However, likely due to the volume of requests she gets, that did not go anywhere either.
In any case, I am sitting at 17 month since SF86., 6 months in adjudication, and seemingly no end in sight.
I decide to share my experience.
I was not born in the US
I got a job off on 12/16
submitted Equip on 2/17
Investigation opened on 4/17
As up to date haven’t hear anything.
By the way, what is the process to leave another citizenship, other than the US one?
I have already looking for other jobs. Wish me luck!
I kept coming back to this forum throughout the process, so I think it’s time I shared my timeline for an initial DoD TS, working for an aerospace contractor.
1/17: Submitted eQIP, fingerprints
10/17: Contacted my representative’s office
11/17: References contacted, had my interview the same week
1/18: Received notice of award of my clearance, 380 days in total
A couple of notes about me: Early 20s, recent college grad, spotless background, no foreign relatives/contacts. In my interview, the investigator said it should be a pretty easy case for him.
When I contacted my rep’s office, the staffer that got back to me said she was familiar with the backlog (probably a lot of people needing clearances in this district) and said she would do whatever she could to expedite the process. Given how soon after I was contacted, I have that feeling it helped the process along. I emphasized my clean history, so maybe she convinced them to put an easy case to the top of the stack, who knows. My advice is to contact your rep, be very nice, and thank them for their time (getting through clearances is a thankless job).
1 Like
I have never worked, in 15 years, a case expedited by any political figure. We have priority cases - there is a set priority list - and some agencies pay the extra money to expedite field work completion.
I can give you a dozen suggestions/hints on how to help your background investigation to be quicker, but by the time most people read my post - they have already submitted their EQIP. This is part of the problem. Applicants should not be tossed an email and told to “fill it out”. You really should be instructed/briefed on how to fill out the form correctly before the EQIP submission. In my experience, the agecies and units that do this have their background investigations quickly returned ( i mean in a few months, less than six).
1 Like
Sorry but the company I just left was submitting clearance applications about 2-3 years ago and getting them back in 90 days pretty reliably. Then the time crept up to over a year. Now the new submissions are getting processed quickly, down to six months.
Same people processing eQIPs, same people doing pre-screen, same people releasing forms to DSS.
I see a lot of posts from investigators here basically blaming applicants that their cases are taking so long. Now I’ll admit that some people do submit sloppy forms, but the eQIP application does a lot of checks. eQIP can also be difficult to use and some things are not remembered from one session to the next… I’m thinking of all the little check boxes. I remember one time the investigator asked me when my sister died, she was still alive! But somehow eQIP marked her as deceased and I failed to catch the change.
I’m not saying that investigators are to blame, but to imply that people are responsible for the processing delays is simply inaccurate in many cases. In fact my last investigation went pretty quickly, then languished in the post-investigation stage, literally for years.
(end rant)
There are a lot of moving parts and I am not trying to blow sunshine that submitting a perfect EQIP is the magic cure all. On the other hand, an application completed correctly (or even close) helps the field investigation close cases quickly.
Some sloppy forms is an understatement. Sloppy/incomplete forms are the normal, not the exception.
Here are common errors/practices that slow down the process. I have to personally deal with these examples on a too regular basis.
Subject lists the company that wants to hire him instead of where they are actually working - even worse, list the future employer’s HQ address as the current job location. RESULT- if the future employer is in a high tempo area for NBIB - the ESI is not assigned quickly and the case is needlessly delayed. Once the ESI is assigned and the Subject is really in North Carolina instead of N. Virginia - the ESI is reassigned to NC, then the case starts. I was once sent TDY to a company HQ with 15 cases (Maryland) and only one person actually worked at that location - the rest were spread across the country.
Subject only lists a cell phone or incorrect email on his EQIP. RESULT - up to ten days, after trying all other attempts - for the requesting agency to find the Subject’s current job location.
Subject lists the house he owns in Seattle as his residence for the last ten years - but turns out to be in Europe for the last six years. Excuse? “I intend to return to my home in 2 years when my tour is completed”. RESULT- i lost several hours over three days trying to find him - he was scheduled to the Overseas office.
The list goes on. These are not the extreme examples, but common examples. I could rant about cases where there is no way someone will pass their clearance - like the company that resubmitted a Subject for a SSBI in the fall when DOHA denied the Subject a secret in the previous spring.
Agencies can help by having folks take the time to thoroughly complete the form. This helps us to accurately schedule the cases.
Federal Agencies/DoD can help by accepting each other’s adjudication - again, I have worked cases where the Subject complained he just had a Subject interview with another local investigator within the last month.
There are other actions the Feds can take to help the process, but these take cooperation - not simply passing laws requiring one agency or another to make quarterly reports.
Still waiting
CJO: 6/2016
eQIP: 7/2016
Polygraph: late 8/2016
BI Interview: 2/2017
Adjudication requests more info end of 5/2017, returned within two weeks
Haven’t heard anything since. I assume I’m still in adjudication, but there’s been no movement. Recent college grad (year and a half out at this point), no criminal history, federal student loans only debt, couple of non-US citizens all listed, adjudication requested info on my mental health history which I’ve been forthright with and not witholding anything on (was never institutionalized, just take medicine).
At this point I assume it’ll never actually finish and have been moving on with my life accordingly. Hopefully I’ll hear something, but I doubt it.
I can definitely understand the issues you have listed with a sloppy/incomplete SF, but I can also tell you that some times, wrong advice is given on how to complete the form. In my case as a first time applicant straight out of college, (and this is referencing your first example), I had originally submitted my eQIP with my current employer listed. I then received an email from the sponsoring company stating that I needed to go back in and change the employer to them (the sponsoring agency).
Fast forward to my actual meeting with the BI, this issue comes up as I have currently found another job in the mean time and these records are not correct. BI was not happy that they had told me to put the employer of the CJO, instead of accurate information. Also, for whatever reason the sponsoring agency told me that I did not have to list my high school and to just put the college information, as it was my latest degree. So not being familiar with any of this, I did this as instructed by the employer and the BI wasn’t too happy about that either.
So not only can incomplete/sloppy applications come from the applicants themselves, they can also be given the wrong/misguided instructions on how to do so. All of this puts a strain on the system, the applicant, and the employers. I feel like there should be some type of training provided.
I was in the same boat but my BI was just like “ok that’s weird”. Also why did they ask for your high school information? I didn’t have to put that, graduated from uni just a bit ago, since I went to high school before I was 18. The eqip states to put information either going back 10 years OR until your 18th birthday.
Honestly, I don’t know why I had to list my high school. That was my understanding as well as to how the SF worded it, but for whatever reason the BI wanted it. Maybe because I was 18 at the time of graduation? I’m not sure.
I’m pretty sure that the SF86 calls for high graduation info. Only for the school you graduated from. If you attended nine schools over a ten period, they don’t care.
1 Like
It’s confusing for many, and I can see why. The two questions are effectively saying: List all educational institutions you have attended–both within the past 10 years and beyond the 10 year scope–except for those you attended prior to your 18th birthday. Even the schools you attended for a semester or received no degree/diploma.
If you graduated or were still in high school during or past your 18th birthday, OPM expects it to be listed.
Many folks read it as: List all schools you’ve graduated from within the past 10 years. Also, high school doesn’t count… which is incorrect.
They need to combine both questions into one.