Seems the contract reviewers are worse than when i jumped or I just don’t remember these issues.
1 Like
I’m not sure it’s the reviewers, I think the companies themselves set up these insane standards and policies for report writing. My manger told me in the past that DCSA doesn’t have the same standards but the companies do it from a legal perspective for protection.
1 Like
DCSA provides a baseline in the contract and the vendors create their own requirements based on the contract and then those requirements are approved by DCSA.
1 Like
You interview a Subject who listed he got fired from KFC because he forgot to turn off the burners one night and the restaurant burned down. You get the who, what, why, where, when to the point that the Subject says he doesn’t recall any more details. You write it up and send it in and you get an RZ and reviewer asks, “how many times did this happen?” 
. So you have to do a SUBC and confirm with the Subject that he only got fired once for burning down a KFC. There is no room for common sense— if the question is on the form, it must be asked and it must be reported, no matter what the context is.
5 Likes
I was the Subject being interviewed, and discussed the fact that I had failed to report to Security when I filed for divorce. I fully disclosed all the information, including the fact that I regretted not doing that. (long story as to why). When the investigator asked (as he was required, so I knew it was coming) what are the chances this will happen again, I stated “Zero. I’m never getting married again”
We both chuckled. 
3 Likes
I once reported that I visually verified all of Subject’s passports and the reviewer wanted to know if he volunteered them or if I confronted him with them. Yes, I brought Subject’s own passports to the interview for him and dropped them in front of him as a gotcha moment.
I think we might have scared off OP.
4 Likes
That’s funny. I always feel like an idiot asking a 40 year old what the chances of recurrence are for them being charged with minor in possession of alcohol. I guess they could potentially invent a time machine and go back and get charged again.
1 Like
This job will suck the life out of you. Be prepared
4 Likes
I don’t ask adults the likelihood of receiving another minor in possession charge, I ask the likelihood of another alcohol related incident. That way you don’t sound as retarded. lol So far this has cleared review, knock on wood!
5 Likes
If you dont push back on stupid reopens then it will keep happening. Ask where in the handbook it states to list these requests and you will find a quick drop in RZ’s.
5 Likes
Reviewers read from an issue resolution script to determine if the Investigator has covered all the issues. They want to be spoon fed. It’s easier that way. Doesn’t make it right though. Reviewers look for key words such as “maturity”; “motivation for conduct”; “likelihood of reoccurrence”; “rehabilitation”or “motivation”, etc.
Many times I have written my reports and the issues are discussed and all of the key words are addressed though not specifically spelled out for the reviewer. I’ve address the motivation for the conduct…”peer pressure”, however the reviewer wants to see the phrase peer pressure is the “motivation for conduct”. I’ve addressed that the Subject was a certain age at the time of the incident but they didn’t see the key word “maturity”.
Reviewers lack common senses with DCSA and are robotic. They are trained this way by the DCSA vendors to review cases in this manner. This is poor training. Puts all of the responsibility on the Investigator to spell out every little thing in his report even though he/she has addressed the issues through his/her style of writing and flow of their report.
It’s refreshing and awe inspiring to get an experienced reviewer because I don’t get refiles on my cases for issue resolution because they can actually read the report without having to see all of the “key” issue resolution words written out and they don’t need to be spoon fed. When I get refiled by a reviewer that asks me to spell out motivation for conduct and maturity when it’s clear in the report of the Subject’s motivation and maturity at the time of the incident you know it’s an inexperienced reviewer that is reading from an issue resolution script. Reviewers need to just read the report and use common sense to understand the information they are seeking is already listed in the report right in front of their very eyes. I refuse to spoon feed reviewers like a toddler baby in a high chair even if that means I constantly get reopened. So be it.
I could put forth so many other inconsistencies and problems with the review process and what is required to get a report to pass through for DCSA but it’s too exhaustive of a list and would take days.
2 Likes
My last RZ: It was ‘unclear’ that when the unemployed sub started a new job 07/2023 that unemployment ended 07/2023. I had to literally add a sentence stating that unemployment ended when employment with X company began, in addition to the expected write up of a new job. Are there circumstances in which one can start working and also remain unemployed?
1 Like
I hate to side with review but that RZ is legit. You have to address each employment entry separately and bring it up to date. So you would have to address the unemployment completely by reporting the “end” date, main activity, and method of support and then move to the new employment as a separate entry reporting start date to present.
3 Likes
SUBJECT listed work with TSA from and to dates. When the OPM record was obtained, it listed he had worked for the Department of Homeland Security, and the case manager acted as though it was an unlisted employment and wanted to know why I hadn’t quizzed the SUBJECT about it. When I reminded her that TSA was a part of DHS she acted like it was all my fault for not identifying it in that manner.
Whenever there is a discrepancy from what is listed and what the record shows it HAS to be addressed. So you should have had a sentence that said Subject clarified that listed employment with Transportation Security Administration is an agency under the Department of Homeland Security. That way the report acknowledges the difference and explains they are the same. You can’t leave things to where the reader has to assume information.
3 Likes
I’m sorry I wasn’t totally clear about this. She wrote back saying I needed to “confront” the SUBJECT about his lack of honesty in not listing DHS. I’m sure she knew DHS and TSA were the same because she had the OPM report and could have asked, “Are they the same?” if so, please clarify.
Sorry, reviewer is still correct here. You have to resolve all discrepancies.
1 Like
There has to be either a clarification, correction, or confrontation. Since there was no clarifications or corrections made, and I assume you reported that all listed information was verified, the reviewer told you that you needed a confrontation. The reviewer is correct. Now if you add a SUBC and the Subject clarifies the information then the confrontation is no longer needed. The reviewer is telling you what is needed based on the way the report presently reads. This happens with the BOP also. Subject will list the specific institution as the employer and the discrepancy on the employer record has to be addressed. At the BOP, sometimes they list the institution, sometimes they put the department of Justice, sometimes they put Bureau of Prisons or the Federal Bureau of Prisons, you always have to be sure that whatever was reported on the record matches the case papers and clarify, correct, or confront ANY discrepancy.
I disagree with having to explain, but this is a common reopen and best to clarify for review/case manager.
Don’t sweat these ridiculous situations. It’s best to just assume every reviewer is a 5 year old you will need to explain everything in simplistic child like manner and realize it’s okay to be redundant over and over again with your words. That is really what they are looking for and often what the customer adjuticators need to understand different agencies and organizations. Sometimes you will find yourself confronting a “dishonest” subject about listing thier job title as “carpenter” when the record says “woodworker” 
It’s just part of the dance and it’s okay to let the subject know you are frustrated with the situation as well. You CAN empathize with Subject’s and Sources! You are human
3 Likes