Do the DOD 3 letter agencies have their own BI investigators or do they contract out that work to places like Raytheon or Liedos or LM or whatever other companies?
3 letter agencies “diisbanded in 2006.”
I don’t understand what that means. Can you explain?
It’s often a combination of their own and contractors.
Many contract investigators work on clearances for 4,5,6,7, or more different government agencies all with different guidelines. Some have just as many credentials from those various different agencies. Many agencies have and want their own guidelines and and want to feel their investigations are more unique and special than everyone elses.
1 Like
They may rely on contractors to do the background investigations, but I think they all have some kind of security department to do other kinds of investigations. But it has been my impression that a lot of the people working in those departments started out with the agency’s police force. So it may be tough to get in to that line of work as an external hire. Tough, but not impossible.
1 Like
For what it’s worth, my BI was an OPM employee.
Who normally does the credit check for candidates? Is that the BI?
And what exactly do the BIs pull from court cases you’ve been apart of? I assume it’s the whole case with transcripts and outcome and whatever. Do they read through and interject their own opinions for the adjudicator like “ah! This case shouldn’t have been dismissed!” Or “what a ridiculous situation, I can’t believe this even made it to court!”
Just for the record…I called it people.
This is really too complicated of a question to ever answer in a forum or even anywhere really. Every subjective human involved has a subjective opinion. Human investigations aren’t math problems with clear answers. 
1 Like
1 Like
We do not interject opinion in a report.
2 Likes
probably best for most subjects. i do miss the contracts that required us to report the Subject’s cooperation, or lack thereof, in the investigation process, in the ROI.
1 Like
I fully assumed cooperation would be something reportable. Like akin to deceptive behavior of sorts.
This is all good information to know. I really appreciate everyone that took the time to answer!
Surely that can’t be true.
The investigator will write its report about the subject and what transpired in the interview.
While I agree that most of it should be fact based, I just can’t believe that the report will not contain subjective impressions from the investigator’s point of view.
Whether it is to describe the subject’s tenure during the interview, how forthcoming or evasive he seemed on some issues, whether the subject appeared sincere, or writing details about an issue (from the investigator’s understanding and recollection of the discussion).
I’m also sure an investigator will share any concerns that he may have perceived during the interview.
To me, these are biased opinions that will make it into the report (not that I’m complaining).
It all depends on what the agency wants. Many who answer questions on this site only work for 1 agency so their answes only reflect 1 agency’s requirements, such as DSCA.
It is really not hard to not interject opinion. We are trained to report the flow of the interview, what question was asked, the answer, a rephrase of the question, the reply and finally the confrontation.
This isn’t rocket science.
1 Like
you have to tie it in, but unless they end the interview, nope.
1 Like
Nope. The report is required to not only provide the issues/concerns but the mitigating information whether found or provided by the Subject.
This is why when Subjects get stubborn about the questions getting too personal, they are normally hurting themselves.
2 Likes