If I start a new job, will the BI talk to my new manager right after I start?

I’m currently processing for a DoD IC agency.
I submitted my SF-86 on the first week of December, aside from a followup two weeks later, I haven’t heard anything since.

At this point, while I’d love to keep processing for the agency, I’m not going to put all of my eggs in one basket and there’s lots of writing on the wall that layoffs are coming in the next six months to a year. As such, I’m looking for a new job in the private sector.

I know in this EO from 1997 that they mention "Employment coverage has been reduced from 10 to 7 years. All employments during the coverage period will be verified with personal coverage obtained for employments of 6 months or more.”

Is this still true? Or if I start a new job, will the investigator come knocking on my door two weeks later demanding to speak to my brand new manager?

The personal coverage is only required if you have been at the employer for 6 months or more. If you have been there for less than 6 months, a record to verify your dates of employment will still need to be obtained so the investigator will try to contact the HR person or whoever is responsible for providing employment verification

1 Like

This is what happens when people misinterpret information out there. The EO you cited was in the OPM’s Federal Investigative Notices (FIN) section from 1997. Things have changed dramatically since then and hundreds of FINs have been published since then. A good researcher finds relevant information and then corroborates it with other information. For example, FIN No 16-07 did away with the SSBI and established the five tier system. What was not published is how each Tier is investigated, that is for the people actually doing the investigation. Unless you have something to hide, clearance applicants should not worry about how the nuts and bolts of an investigation are put together since the only part of it is to provide honest and accurate information on the application and in the interview,

  1. What interpretation? I was asking if it’s still true because it’s so old and I have no expertise in sitting through these sorts of documents. I’m well aware that this is over 20 years old. Unfortunately, I am no researcher, which is why I’m posting on this forum.

  2. I have nothing to hide (and I’m not sure why that’s even being brought up in this context? I didn’t say “should I not tell the investigator or agency about this?”). However, I’m definitely not looking to start a new job and then have my new employer find out that I’m not planning to stick around very long from someone else.

1 Like

If your new employer is contacted, you can tell them that you had applied for that job before you were offered employment with them but that you didn’t bother to stop the investigation because the clearance will be good for several years and you want to have it in your back pocket in case you need it in the future. They don’t have to know that you will/may leave if you get the clearance. It all started before you even heard about your current job.

I thought it was a legitimate question, especially for those who are under probationary period or in an at-will state. Certainly, employers could potentially dismiss an employee because the employee is not part of its long-term plan and it will be difficult to recoup potential loss due to the dismissal.

Who suggested that it wasn’t a legitimate question?

Thanks. I guess if push comes to shove, I’ll end up pulling my federal application. About to hit 4 months since I sent in my SF 86 and haven’t heard a peep.

Crossing my fingers, but I can’t pay bills without a job.

Thank you Marko…

Yup. Been on all sides of the investigation: applicant, investigator, and adjudicator.