DoD to DoD TS/SCI Clearance Crossover issues

SECURITY CLEARANCE Q&A
#1

First, I want to say thank you for everyone who contributes to answering and providing insight on clearance questions and scenarios. Really helps provide transparency and clarification.

I currently possess an active TS/SCI that was adjudicated by DoD in late 2019 (in JPAS). Investigation took 3 months tops. I supported a FBI contract shortly after receiving it, and obtained a CI Poly as well as an SCI from them (in SC). Departed shortly after due to the contract falling, so I am now back with a DoD agency under a contract. Have an SCI with them, granted in 2020 (JPAS). Recently, received an offer from a contractor to support a DoD Ft. Meade Agency in MD. They were willing to sponsor for the whole shabang with full scope poly even if I didn’t have an active TS/SCI. But since I have it, I asked if they can cross it over, especially since it is another DoD agency. They said they tried, but they still need me to complete an SF86, going back 10 years, and submit the online e-QIP? The 2019 DoD TS investigation also went back 10 years. I have the archival copy of my SF86 from my 2019 DoD TS investigation, and I literally copied everything over to the SF86 they want me to fill out but added a few additional new notes as The only thing that has changed from 2019 TS investigation till now was that I moved to a new place earlier this year, and have had worked at 2 additional places/employers since then (not 2 jobs at one time), and paid a debt in full just recently. The debt was listed on my previous investigation that was adjudicated. Only difference was that I paid it off fully now. I asked the security assistant if this is going to be a new investigation? She said that what they will do is, once the online e-QIP is filled, submitted, and initiated, an investigator or adjudicator will weigh on the new information to be adjudicated. At the same time, once the e-QIP is underway, that will prompt the agency to schedule the full scope poly at some point… that is also required for the position. My question is, is this considered a new investigation? To save time and hassle, why can’t they just accept my recent 2019 DoD TS/SCI BI for crossover since the new agency is still under the “DoD umbrella”, right?? Any input would be greatly appreciated. @Amberbunny2

#2

Maybe they will… at least the investigation. You’ll still need to do the poly and the whole package will need to be adjudicated.

1 Like
#4

Yeah I am hoping they accept the BI. At the same time, a bit skeptical as to why a whole new SF86 needs to be filled and submitted when in the past, whenever I would have my clearance crossover to a sub agency still within DoD, or even to FBI, I never had to fill in a whole new SF86. Is this a prerequisite pre-screen or something for some DoD agencies?..particularly if the agency requires a full scope poly?

#5

Moving between agencies always depends on the gaining agency entrance rules. I’ve submitted Equips, and hard copies and the date used for initiation of a clearance may be one or two forms prior. To me…I interpret it as a quick “no-no-no” check…anything red flag? No. Anything significant in crime? No. Any significant foreign? No. Okay, let him in. You are in best position to know if anything in any area has slipped. If credit great, no crime, fabrication, or unreported foreign contact, no drug use…no worries. Sometimes its as simple as bureaucracy. They likely cross you over after a quick review of updated info. But use the date of previous investigation.

In 2011 I had a brand new TS from Dod. It took 18 months to complete. Joined a 3 letter…they insisted on crossing me over at Secret, after submitting an sf86. Then…4 months later to get their TS and full poly I had to send another SF86.

2 Likes
#6

Oh wow, looks like reciprocity is still not as smooth as congress wanted it to be lol. I just thought that if my 2019 TS investigation was adjudicated by DoDCAF, then wouldn’t the MD agency be able to process it quickly as they also utilize DoDCAF, perhaps? But sounds more like they have their own internal security process. Thank you so much for taking the time out to respond and provide relatable insight on this matter. You definitely gave me hope that it’s not as odd as it seemed. Seems that each agency, especially if it’s a 3 letter agency, especially those requiring full scopes, do their own preliminary SF86, as if it’s a pre-screen, and then adjudicates that info, while probably referencing the 2019 BI. I’m sure the 2019 BI will be compared and fingers crossed, should make things move more expeditiously as there has barely been any significant change over the past year.

1 Like
#7

The MD agency which loves the polygraph is like all IC agencies in that it does its own adjudication. Even active duty military have to go through another layer of adjudication before they can go to work there. And nothing happens quickly.

3 Likes
#8

I appreciate the insight squirrel. Good stuff. Looks like it’s going to be nice initiation game with each IC Agency owning their individual gates to their castle in a way.

1 Like
#9

Yeah that kinda sums it up.

#10

@sbusquirrel @Amberbunny2 @backgdinvestigator @fed-investigator Does anyone know…once the new e-QIP gets submitted for the Ft Meade Agency, will my current supervisor be contacted? I am currently on a sub-DoD contract that is holding my TS/SCI/CI Poly, and will have to list my current supervisor’s info in the new e-QIP. I do not really want my current employer to know that I will potentially be departing in the near future. Will the investigator know not to mention my future employment endeavors or anything about Ft. Meade to my current employer?..Should I make a comment about this in the e-QIP?..or is it inevitable?

#11

The investigator will not specifically mention your new agency, but a DoD Contractor/sub contractor will know that once an investigator comes around that someone submitted you for a new clearance. The eQip notices tell you that your current and former employers can be contacted.

2 Likes
#12

Hence the term “scattered” castles…and each insists they are the only ones doing it right.

2 Likes
#13

Supervisors are regularly contacted as a matter of course, even if you request otherwise.

Best you get out in front of it.

1 Like
#14

Lol, Hope one day they can become united and uniformed instead of “scattered”…but till then, paperwork galore :upside_down_face:

1 Like
#15

Looks like it’s bound to happen, so will have to break the ice sooner or later to the supervisor once the eQIP gets submitted. Thanks for your feedback :slight_smile:

#16

Gotcha, makes sense. Thanks for the feedback and insight :slight_smile:

#17

Question. I work in the financial industry as a consultant. The manager I have is from a client side, not from my consulting company. Should I put his name as my current manager for the SF86 purposes? Another thing is, they guy never actually saw me as everyone is working remote…but we do interact daily.
I do have someone designated as my manager at my consulting company, but all he does is approve my timesheets, he knows nothing about me.

#18

That sounds good to me. This is the sort of thing that you can explain in detail with the investigator.

Interesting situation with covid and remote working… I guess supervisors won’t be able to say too much anymore except confirm that you worked for a certain company during a certain time frame.

#19

List the client side manager.

#20

Thank you. Another question: I will be filing out another SF86 soon. In 2019 I was fully adjudicated for TS but never actually got the job, so no clearance granted. That was with DOJ. Then a short time later a DOD contractor started processing me for another TS/SCI job, but they couldn’t see the DOJ investigation at all, so they started their own from the scratch.
Now, just last week I was made aware that a 3 letter DOD agency is going to send me a CJO and I would have to fill out an SF86 for the third time within 3 years.
I know that one of the questions on SF86 will be whether I had an investigation in the last 5 years. Should I mention that first DOJ investigation, even though DOD could not see it, or just list the current one with DOD I am still being processed for?

#21

I believe you can’t have two investigations going on at the same time, but I might be wrong. Do the folks at the new DOD position know that you’re still processing a clearance for a different DOD position?