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.
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.
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.
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.
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.