# Here's a new one--no record of me at the firm putting me up for a clearance! **URL:** \ **Category:** SECURITY CLEARANCE Q&A\ **Created:** [October 15, 2018, 10:57pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053 "2018-10-15T22:57:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![apollo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@apollo](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/apollo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2018, 10:57pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053/1 "2018-10-15T22:57:54Z")
I’ve done ongoing 1099 consulting work, for the past couple of years, for the firm that is sponsoring my TS/SCI, which of course I listed on my SF-86. I’ve done this kind of work for a number of companies. The original background investigator called me up again today (after nearly a year) and told me that she’d been instructed to start a NEW investigation “because one of the places you worked says they’ve never heard of you”. Well, after a bit of discussion, it is, ironically… none other than the same firm sponsoring my clearance. The investigators (not the same one who did my interview–the firm is out of state) actually talked to both the company’s president and my supervisor/program manager in person, and they both vouched for me and confirmed I worked with them. However, someone else (“my” BI wasn’t sure who) also called a person I’ve never heard of at the same firm (maybe an HR person?) and I guess _they_ said “no, we’ve never heard of this guy”… which triggered a call for, she says “another investigation, although she’s going to try to handle it as a subject contact”. I imagine this will all amount to a huge delay? So silly. If they had two people–including the president!–who confirmed I worked for the firm… why not just call the FSO to straighten it out? ---
**Author:** ![investigator721](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@investigator721](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/investigator721)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2018, 12:52am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053/2 "2018-10-16T00:52:33Z")
It unfortunately happens all the time. Some people just keep really crappy records or misspell a name during a search. Then I have to come back and say “Hey, we’ve developed information indicating you didn’t actually work for XXX. Did you?”. You say yes, I report it, and that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![apollo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@apollo](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/apollo)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2018, 1:17am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053/3 "2018-10-16T01:17:01Z")
Well, that’s comforting I suppose. How much time does it usually add? The BI said I had been “complete” before being kicked back for this. ---
**Author:** ![EdFarmerIII](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/edfarmeriii/32/122_2.png) [@EdFarmerIII](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/EdFarmerIII)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2018, 1:48pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053/4 "2018-10-16T13:48:08Z")
My guess is that they contacted HR and they checked for past and present employees. You wouldn’t be on that list. Since the reset is all in scope, once this is cleared up, it shouldn’t cause much delay. I doubt that they are actually opening a new investigation. Instead they are likely kicking the existing one back for more information. ---
**Author:** ![Investigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/45deac/32.png) [@Investigator](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/Investigator)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2018, 9:30am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053/5 "2018-10-17T09:30:43Z")
Considering you were a 1099, you were never actually an employee of the company. If they are looking for an HR record, the Bi might not have ever found one because you are not an employee of the company. Just another spin to it. Surely there is a record of you as a contractor, but it might just have been the terms used by the BI when asking for your record. ---
**Author:** ![apollo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@apollo](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/apollo)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053/6 "2018-10-17T21:05:27Z")
That’s probably what happened, I suppose. Anyway, I met up with the BI today and turned over last year’s 1099 and copies of the last two checks I’d gotten from the firm. Hopefully this gets resolved pretty fast… the BI said I had been “showing as complete” (whatever that means!) until this. ---
**Author:** ![apollo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@apollo](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/apollo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2018, 3:50am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053/7 "2018-10-25T03:50:58Z")
BI said “it closed” (again). Does that mean the whole investigation? Just my local BI’s part of it? I assume at least there wasn’t anything else I needed to be “confronted” with or else that would have come up at this time too? ---
**Author:** ![apollo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@apollo](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/apollo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2018, 2:38am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/heres-a-new-one-no-record-of-me-at-the-firm-putting-me-up-for-a-clearance/5053/8 "2018-12-11T02:38:34Z")
Just to update, the TS came through, so I guess it really did close.