That seems to indicate a collection of info post BI. Developed or reported info, or continuous evaluation. I know when I pushed adjudicators to explain it deeper…they clammed up and took the position I was asking “specific incident info” on a candidate. That was nonsense, but it was like a script they followed. I know I pushed too far several times and got that line. Fascinating.
Thank you for everyone’s contributions, you’ve all really helped to broaden my understanding of how this process works (however randomly and seemingly without reason at times.) I’ll definitely update if I have any news and please feel free to post more if you think of anything else that might help!
I had the same issue. My arose from having a FS poly in JPAS and SC BUT, it was never “adjudicated”. Not sure why an “unadjudicated” poly would be in any system, but it was and was affirmed by some agencies that it was adjudicated and told by others that it was not. It realky is a bad system and leaves a person in limbo. In clearances, you hace to accept that noone knows it all and there really does seem to be no regulated practice or policies that go for all agencies. I know it’s shitty news, but ot’s been my bad experience and sounds like yours.
1 Like
The security process on some levels is a systematic failure. It gets most people through but at a cost of placing many good people in tough situations with no clear path forward. I believe that’s part of the reason why there is such a big push to revamp the process.
1 Like
That sounds odd… I didn’t think they would even put a polygraph date in JPAS unless it was “successful.” Anyway it sounds like yet another messed up situation that will be very difficult and time-consuming to resolve.
unless…one withdrew from processing post poly. I’ve seen that requested several times. I find it best to let them roll. But withdrawal of processing should remove the investigation. The IC community in particular is very close hold on how they treat stuff. They get care blanche to do as they desire. There is limited ability to force an answer from them.
There was a program where they put a bunch of people in for SCI requiring a full scope, folks who did not have SCI previously. Several people stopped their processing after our CSSO got an unofficial/infomal/you-didn’t-hear-this-from-me heads up that things were not looking good and if they got turned down for SCI they might lose their collateral clearance also. Sometimes this was after the poly, sometimes not.
1 Like
Had a few of those Secret Squirrel! Since there was no threat to national security, more technically disqualifying due to knowing how certain board members voted…we would withdrawl package.
1 Like
Hey Amberbunny question for you. Let’s say an individual is attempting to crossover to a 3 letter agency in VA as a contractor. The crossover is denied due to “unadjudicated info”. This is possibly due to the fact that this individual has a current government application in with the same agency, and has already submitted the SF86 to them. If this individual withdraws the gov application and tries to crossover as a contractor again, do you think it would go through? Assume this individual already has the required clearance and poly
Once info is submitted/collected…none of that info is adjudicated. It could be completely innocuous residential info or job history…could be mental health treatment, crimes, arrests, charges. I find it a catch 22. It absolutely doesn’t mean it is bad info…just info not yet adjudicated. It does seem to be possible to cancel processing, and “pull it back.” That is logical. It makes sense. But we are talking about government bureaucracy. I really don’t know cancelling will close the loop and allow your current clearance to cross over. Many times people post about another agency picking up the investigation in process if cancelled. I don’t really understand why that situation is possible and not getting the “oh no…unadjudicated info” response. Canceling still means that info isnt adjudicated. To those agencies who love to claim “Unadjudicated info,” I say…who cares? If a new agency picks it up they need vet and adjudicate the same info…as long as it is adjudicated…let it go.
It’s been a while and I’m trying again with a new contractor and the same client agency and now getting the same “unadjudicated information.” The contractor wants to know 1) if there’s anything in my individual iSTARS file and 2) if a 4311 marked reinvestigation would allow for the adjudication of this information.
I have no idea what this means, of course, and I’m having a heck of a time finding a point of contact with my agency to speak with their security officer. Do you know if this information can be found in Scattered Castles and would it be divulged with a regular clearance verification by the contractor going through my agency? Someone from my agency suggested I might file a FOIA request, but the other posts about those on this site seem to discourage those.
So here’s the deal. If you are sure there isn’t disqualifying financial, criminal, foreign, drug, suoremacist org issues…you require a complete BI. That means you cannot crossover on a 4311. However, I’ve solved this by submitting 2. One for reinvestigation with fresh sf86, and one for crossover. Normally…a fast review of SF86, if it has no showstoppers…they can approve crossover AND initiate reinvestigation. Those forms need processed together and I would add bold type stating both are submitted. If they see a minor issue they may want to complete the re investigation before allowing crossover.
Again, if you know nothing is there don’t fear it. It was once explained to me by a very senior clearance department person that if a BI started and they did the few crim checks, finance check…none of that info is yet reviewed by adjudications. Therefore…that info…is…unadjudicated. Seems stupid to me that it can’t just be flushed in those situations but their thought was “Something” may have been revealed in that info. They won’t know until it is adjudicated.
It takes a skilled, experienced security manager who works closely with senior client security office and clearance division to make that magic work. I’ve done it dozens of times. Almost like voodoo. Truth be told the government security person was the wizard. I was just along for the ride. But I learned so much from this mentor. Amazing leader.
1 Like
Thank you so much for this–I’ll pass this along to the security officer and see if they’ll do as you suggest. I’m confident there’s nothing and I’m just stuck in some weird beaureaucratic sinkhole. I’ve lived better than a girl scout so I could work in the federal government, so unless they take issue with some foreign nationals who married into my family, I’ve got nothing of concern. I really appreciate all the help you’ve given me (and others–it seems like you’re the wizard now!)
1 Like
Excellent topic. I can see there are quite a few of us who had trouble with this. In 2018, I successfully crossed over from DEA upon retirement to work at NMEC in Bethesda, Maryland on a contract. When I left the position, I had no crossover issues in working an IC contract in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as well as a law enforcement contract in Fredericksburg at FBI HOTU. In the summer of 2021, following a successful adjudication of my clearance update and later an FS Poly, set me up for another IC position with LEIDOS, although none of the selected candidates knows where the job stands. I was recently offered a contract position at the ODNI in Bethesda, Maryland. However, the subcontracting company informed me yesterday, that ODNI had rejected the crossover. No reason was given for the crossover rejection, but it would be certainly nice to know, moving forward and applying for other contract positions.