I have an active TS and recently received a cleared job offer after filling out and submitting a lengthy SCI questionnaire with company A. I declined that job and accepted a different cleared job with company B. Recently I’ve been talking to company C about an IT job with a large defense contractor. Even though I’ve got an active TS, even before a phone interview and way before a job offer, they want their own lengthy SCI prescreening questionnaire submitted, disclosing a whole bunch of personally identifiable confidential info about myself. They claim its to verify the candidate will meet the DOD clients needs. This seems premature , invasive , excessive and a security risk to me as the database could be leaked or hacked. What would you do? Is this common in the industry and acceptable? Thanks!
My first civilian job requiring SCI did not do this… then a few years later I got a job for a different company that required a questionnaire (before the final job offer, before you ever submit an SF-86/eQIP). Not everybody does this, but many places do. Some companies do a very good job and know what their customers will accept; other companies seem to just be risk-averse and reject anyone with other than a squeaky-clean questionnaire.
There is also a pre-screen that is completely separate from security, sort of private sector suitability. I knew a couple guys who had current/active clearances and the new employers verified that there would be no trouble crossing them over but they still had to wait several weeks to go through this other check, which is done even for people not requiring a clearance.
Is it invasive? Yes. Is it a violation of privacy? Maybe. And your concerns about data been stolen are valid as well. You don’t have to comply… but you won’t go any farther in the processing either.
Yes I have filled out the SCI security questionnaire for another job AFTER I got an offer. I then got the final job offer. This is the first time a company wants it even before a phone interview. Apparently they are rejecting every applicant. They won’t disclose what the deal breakers are. Very weird. The problem is they could be building up a database of 1000 job applicants most sensitive data. And who knows what they do with it or how they guard it.
Has this happened to anyone else? I didn’t interview with the other mentioned defense company and got a job with a different defense company that does SCI application after hire. That’s how most do it right?
Perhaps you need to discuss this with a clearance lawyer instead of seeking information from people with experience in this process. I understand you already know Mr Bigley is a lawyer/former BI.
Lose your passive aggressive unhelpful attitude. My situation doesn’t require a lawyer. The terrible attack and advice you and your cronies were giving to a young man who honorably served his country and made a mistake was shocking and unacceptable. That’s why he needs professional advice, not from the internet mob. Everyone from president on down seeks legal advice from a lawyer when confronted with a legal issue. Let me educate you: one of the Navy Seals who claims to have killed Osama Bin Laden wrote a book . He mentioned being honest in answering certain questions and getting massive grief for it. He said if he had it to do over again he would have answered differently . Do you think that honored vet is a criminal traitor like you and the other forum members are implying the other young man is?
As a reminder to all on this forum, be professional and don’t post unless you have something to add to the conversation. As noted, this site does not provide legal advice or a how to guideline. It merely provides a venue to exchange experiences and information to educate people on background investigation and security clearance processes.
I thought Santa was supposed to be jolly?
It is rather expensive to have a security clearance processed. I’m not surprised a company would want to prescreen an applicant and as a tax payer I believe I rather appreciate that prescreening if government funds are involved.
I not sure I will completely understand why some of the folks make it as far as they do in the clearance process - especially the cases that have attitude issues or the lack of personal responsibility for their own stupidity.
I think I like the idea of weeding issue laden applicants out before spending a ton of money to show the applicant is issue laden.
Your posts aren’t helpful. You complain, yet want answers other than those presented on these forums. In my experience, the people who complain a lot about the security process and during the security process get sifted out pretty quickly.
No whining allowed.
Yet you filled out a Tier 5 SF86…? Anything can be hacked. OPM, Google, etc. I have zero experience as a clearance investigator, yet it seems to me that you’re trying to hide something and you think that throwing a fit about the SCI paperwork will shield your secrets.
Or this is just how you respond to anything that slightly inconveniences you.
Anyone crying over the questions in the SCI questionnaire didn’t read the ones in e-QIP or those on the OF-306; in essence they’re all the same.
Suck it up, buttercup!
Adjudication is merely a suggestion to the hiring official that an applicant meets standards or not.
That hiring official could still be concerned the applicant has issues which don’t suit the employment. And on the flip side, the issues, which adjudication might say make an applicant unemployable, could be just what hiring needs - ie a hacker for NSA; a former drug dealer for DEA and so on.
Adjudication for a security clearance isn’t necessarily an employment guarantee.
As already mentioned, a variety of applications hold many of the same questions that are part of the SFs, 306, supplementals, interviews and others: Home loans, apartment applications, standard employment details. Credit pulls, law checks, references and more take a dive into an individual’s world of whatever privacy is.
Also, you can’t make an “invasion of privacy” argument ever if you use a smart home IoT setup, Google, Amazon, or Facebook or any of products from their subsidiaries. Big media knows far more about you (and in a far more invasive manner) than the US government ever will though its questionnaires.
And there you have it - Santa is a troll!
A rude one at that - poor thing.
Looks like Harpoon is getting a lump of coal from Santa this year for Christmas.
The currents of fate have carried Sean M. Bigley away from the realm of law, and any claims bearing his name are now bereft of power.