Drunk OPM Investigator

we are not unionized.

what an great friend you are…willing to snitch him out instead of helping him. its not like you work together and you’re forced to report it, you just have a “hunch feeling”.

well if it makes you feel better, your “friend” probably does not have much say in the outcome of an investigation. as long as he’s not too drunk and he gets his notes right, the subjects he interviews should be fine.

So instead of trying to get your friend help, you’d rather report them, get them fired, have them possibly lose their clearance and prevent them from possible future employment?

You do know that would most likely have a negative effect on their alcohol problem right?

Surprised so many are encouraging the original poster to butt out, assume it’s being handled, look the other way, everyone drinks too much, etc. To take the OP’s post at face value, a person holding a clearance has failed to report his second DUI-related incident, has serious money issues, and is an alcoholic.

The OP’s higher duty is to the national security, not to his friend. He should report his concerns:


https://www.dcsa.mil/mc/pv/mbi/report_others/

DoD Contactors and other Industry members should report potential insider threats to your company’s Facility Security Officer or the Vetting Risk Operations Center (VROC) Knowledge Center:

VROC Knowledge Center
8 AM to 5 PM EST, Monday—Friday
(888) 282-7682

3 Likes

Someone who drinks too much (in someone’s opinion) is hardly a potential insider threat .

J23 states “I have a friend who is an OPM investigator”. The last I heard, OPM is U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Just go to OPM.gov if you have any doubts. An OPM Investigator is a Federal Employee.

You need to brush up on your CDSE training. Substance abuse and addictive behaviors are an indicator of potential insider threat.

Heavy drinkers aren’t generally clear decision makers, especially over long periods of time.

If he’s so bad how has he been riding the monkey wheel for so long? Everyone knows you can’t get away with anything on this job.

YOU may not be unionized, but the The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) is an American labor union which represents about 100,000 public employees in the federal government . NFFE has about 200 local unions, most of them agency-wide bargaining units AND The American Federation of Government Employees ( AFGE ) is the largest federal employee union proudly representing 700,000 federal and D.C. government workers nationwide and overseas would probably help a Federal Employee who was not being treated fairly.
Federal employees do not have to join a Union, but the Unions will help all Feds who are not given due process.

Okay. So go ahead and yank everyone’s clearance who got a DUI or has a “friend” who thinks they drink too much (in their opinion). That solves the problem. J23 said “I think he might be a high-functioning alcoholic, but i’m not qualified to make that diagnosis”. So Harpoon, according to your logic, everyone who has a friend who thinks they might drink too much (but is not sure) should lose their clearance because they might be an insider threat. Get real. You are taking this way to seriously.

I only said it’s an indicator of potential insider threat behavior and said nothing of revoking clearances.

Again, CDSE can help your understanding of the issue.
CDSE Insider Threat Potential Risk Indicators

I’ll submit to you that there is no such thing as a “high-functioning alcoholic”. Believe me on this one! He would function far higher if he left alcohol out of his system. It is a disease that millions of people are afflicted with yearly. Be a friend and offer some help. All you can really do is love them through it. He’ll do the rest at his pace and time, even if it means dying from the disease.

I have no doubt, I was an OPM agent and now I am a DCSA agent.

This is an odd thread.

2 Likes

yepper. - it surely has made a left turn somewhere.

Surprised so many are encouraging the original poster to butt out, assume it’s being handled, look the other way, everyone drinks too much, etc.

How do you know this OPM/DCSA investigator did not report his arrest or possibly alcohol treatment, counseling, etc.?? Very few people should be privy to that information and those individuals are bound to keep this information private.

You need to brush up on your CDSE training. Substance abuse and addictive behaviors are an indicator of potential insider threat.

Heavy drinkers aren’t generally clear decision makers, especially over long periods of time.

The people who would have first-hand knowledge of any questionable behavior relative to his duties and responsibilities will be within his professional circle of colleagues and supervisors. Concerns of insider threats should be of no concern to outsiders.

My comments are in no way meant to minimize the problem of insider threats, but just the potential problem of outsider Keystone Karens.

The program requires outside monitoring. DCSA (there are no OPM investigators any more) Agents and contractors rarely see each other and often only physically see their supervisor once a year in a controlled, announced, environment.

if you have concerns, report it. If there is nothing new, no harm. If this is unreported, we need to know about it.

How do you know this OPM/DCSA investigator did not report his arrest or possibly alcohol treatment, counseling, etc.?? Very few people should be privy to that information and those individuals are bound to keep this information private.

I have no idea what was or was not reported. The original poster appears to have grave concerns about his investigator friend, writing “I don’t think my friend should be making any character judgements or be in a position where he’s trusted.” He appears to have alcohol issues, criminal issues and financial issues. This is not trivial stuff.

Given these facts I believe the original poster is obliged to relay his concerns, and whatever facts he has (details of the pending alcohol charge, for example) to the relevant DCSA VROC Knowledge Center as noted above. Personnel at that level will take the next steps and the original poster has done his duty.

The people who would have first-hand knowledge of any questionable behavior relative to his duties and responsibilities will be within his professional circle of colleagues and supervisors. Concerns of insider threats should be of no concern to outsiders.

Respectfully, I could not disagree more. Much questionable behavior takes place outside professional circles. The investigator’s supervisor and colleagues - especially if he is a contract investigator, especially in the covid environment - would have no way of knowing about his issues unless he self-reported them. If I were cited for an alcohol offense a few months ago (I was not), it would take time for that information to make its way through the various databases and organizations and reach an actual DCSA employee (or algorithm) that could act on the information.

The claim that this course of misconduct is of “no concern to outsiders” is at variance with every security rule, practice and tenet.

1 Like

Keep in mind anyone with a security clearance has Reporting Requirements (SEAD 3 – page 5, point #3 - Reportable Actions by Others - alcohol abuse is a concern to be reported).

1 Like

Go ahead and look at all the case studies in the CDSE website and please reference ONE who was an insider threat due to alcohol use. I am not saying there are not any, but if you can find one, please let us all know. Thanks