I am literally an investigator. I do the investigating. We don’t arrest Subjects. Or allow lawyers.
1 Like
Then you don’t work for a federal law enforcement agency either. People with powers of arrest do their investigations. They can, will, and have in the past arrested or provided evidence to other law enforcement agencies to arrest subjects they interrogated for employment. Which is why they read subjects their rights before interviewing them. And all investigators will press the limits if not exceed what is legally permissible to ask when doing investigations. Especially when talking to psychiatrists about their patients.
Have a good night Jim!
Happy Holidays. Stay Safe.
This has been quite the thread!
The disconnect between your understanding of the process and the reality of the process is pretty big here.
By submitting to the process you’ve already opted in. That’s where the choice lies - participate fully and maybe receive a security clearance, or refuse some questions or stop the interview and definitely do not receive a security clearance. The government is totally agnostic as to the outcome.
There are plenty of people with some dirt - personal history that it better left in the dark and not examined or made part of any record. No judgment from me. Those folks don’t seek jobs requiring background investigations because they can’t or won’t withstand scrutiny. That, sir, is your demographic. Withdraw now from consideration and save yourself the stress.
Again you should run all this by your FSO or Human Resources team!
5 Likes
Good luck with your interview. Your investigator getting permission astonishes me, but so be it. I imagine you’re not going to say alot. This sounds like a triggered interview which is normally your chance to tell your side of the story as we already have the records from the court/cops/unit.
I am curious. Please let us know how it goes.
1 Like
Investigators may not allow lawyers at the interview but the DCSA Office of General Counsel does.
I will definitely give an update after the interview happens in a few weeks.
I feel like I should clarify that the investigator did not want my attorney at the interview and my attorney had to contact his supervisor
I was told that ultimately the Office of General Counsel was the one that made the decision that I am allowed to have my attorney participate in the interview and is allowed to advise me during the interview.
I’m sure the old guys here still have their doubts but times have changed and so has Dcsa.
They must have changed the handbook and forgot to tell us. Investigators don’t give a crap, we just do what the handbook says or suffer the consequences. Not buying it.
.
5 Likes
Investigators have NO law enforcement authority…we know it and most Subjects know it too. I stand by my post, bringing a lawyer serves what purpose??
1 Like
No, there is no reading of the rights…we Investigators have NO law enforcement authority. We cannot arrest anyone, we cannot tell someone they will be charged, we are there (truly) to get Subject’s side of the story. It CAN be adversarial if/when we know the Subject is hiding something/lying about something.
Be honest, be forthcoming. Read the first 5 pages of the SF 86, and actually read the questions. When the investigator asks you something, LISTEN to the question…and answer honestly, even if it’s humiliating, embarrassing, and something you’d rather not discuss.
1 Like
There is no change. no announcement of any change either.
3 Likes
Do you actually want this job? Because the way you’ve been approaching this sounds to me you don’t want this job. Why go through the trouble of getting a clearance if you’re not going to be forthcoming? At that point, just find a different career.
3 Likes
I’m already in the military.
1 Like
Then you know that obtaining the clearance is just the beginning. You will have to report every time you want to leave the country, any change in marital status, or if you begin cohabitating. If you have a change in financial status (inheritance, gambling losses, pay a bill late …if you’re arrested, charged, or even (in some cases) just have to make a court appearance (like for a speeding ticket). You are just entering the stage where you have to account for/explain/report any transgression.
2 Likes
Question. How do you KNOW the subject is hiding something or lying? And if you KNOW this, what is the point of interviewing them? Why not just write the report at that point indicating the subject is dishonest? To be the devil’s advocate, every police officer that gathers information to prosecute someone tells them they “just want to hear their side of the story.” That is why smart people insist on having a lawyer present when talking to the police, even if they are told they are not a suspect.
When we have documentation we know. We ask the question, listen and note the response. I usually give them a second chance, by reasking the question. If they still give an answer that I think is not the truth I tell them what I know.
Sometimes it’s that the information is wrong. This at least gives the Subject the chance to deny it. So your idea of just writing up a report denies the individual the chance to deny.
Sometimes the information we have is accurate, but Subject misunderstood the question, or was told by someone to answer it differently, or they just flat out thought they could get away with it.
Most folks are honest when asked. The ones who deny can usually explain what the situation was.
We don’t just pull information out of the air. There is a reason we ask the questions, and it truly is the Subject’s opportunity to explain what happened, the circumstances, what they have done since to mitigate the issue.
If someone does not intend to be truthful, they shouldn’t be in this industry.
1 Like
So what might be more accurate is to say “It CAN be adversarial if/when we think the Subject is hiding something/lying about something.” (even with zero proof) The problem here is we all have biases. When I see someone with long hair or tattoos, my immediate thought is there is no way this hippie is going to tell me the truth, especially about drug use. Of course that makes truthful people who like David Lee Roth long hair or tattoos as collateral damage. If the information you have is wrong (Mr. Smith told us you used cocaine in the 1990s as a matter of routine recreationally), the applicant cannot disprove this statement. So who do you believe? These types of conversations can devolve quickly which is why smart people want a lawyer as both a witness and to end badgering and overreach. The applicant can’t help what untruthful things people say about them, what the bias of the investigator(s) are, or that they cannot disprove negative untruthful aspersions cast upon their character by people who may simply not like them and see this as an opportunity to stick it to them. By the same token, investigators must deal with people who think nothing of being dishonest and have had plenty of practice being dishonest their entire lives without being caught. Unfortunately, honest people often believe that having an attorney makes them look guilty of something, while a dishonest person will serve their own self interest over all else, leaving the honest person more susceptible to coercion by the investigator while the miscreant escapes the interview unscathed.
Last thing I’m going to say about this topic. You just answered your own question about why it looks bad to bring a lawyer to a clearance interview and why the investigator will automatically think you are trying to lie or hide something.
Jim,
You seemed to have glossed over a key component of what I said…when we have documentation. So, yes if an employers provides documentation that Subject was terminated for reason XYZ and Subject continues to say they have never been terminated, we don’t outright accuse the person of lying…we ASK the question. If the person again says they had no problems at an employment and have never been fired, we inform them of what we have learned.
As I said, some folks will say “oh yea, I forgot about that” or “nope, that never happened” or “I was given a letter saying that I was part of a reduction in force” Giving the Subject an opportunity to provide clarification is a key factor here. If an attorney is present and steps in saying “don’t answer that” how does that look to an adjudicator?
And yes, we as humans have biases. Investigators work hard to overcome those, and are trained to NOT insert their opinions, biases, conclusions, into the report. We report what the individual tells us, we do not provide an assessment of those statements.
I have sat across from long haired hippies, from arrogant folks who thought rules didn’t apply to them, and from people who were dealt a crappy hand in life. Those are my perceptions. I report what they tell me, not what I infer from their appearance or tone.
2 Likes