Investigators vs. Coronavirus

Pretty ridiculous, to be honest. Even a ‘Hang tight while we navigate through this and determine what plan of action to take’ would be better than the silence.

4 Likes

That’s because our media is causing this panic. Intentional.

2 Likes

Exactly!

Beans, Bullets, and Band-Aides are needed now. The media has screwed us up.

2 Likes

Nope. Social media users cause panic - they can post with impunity and without verification or source citation. That is where ignorance breeds and runs rampant. And you know the Russians are exploiting the disinformation in this space.

1 Like

Russia Russia Russia??? LOL. Here we go with Russia again. Maybe it’s China, since they seem to be connected to most of these “outspoken” politicans.

1 Like

You cant tell when a Subject has lied on the SF86?

Seems kind of basic to me but hey, you do you I guess.

1 Like

It doesn’t matter if I can tell if Subject lied or not. We conduct Interviews, NOT INTERROGATIONS. The Adjudicator can make that determination based on what Subject says during the Interview. I am NOT about to accuse a Subject of lying.

3 Likes

Never did I say you should accuse Subject of lying, you might want to sharpen those reading comprehension skills. I know there is a difference in looking for a terrorist behind every corner but If you are merely a box checker then you are doing our industry as well as our country a great disservice.

1 Like

Well said fed-investigator. It is our jobs to put together the pieces the subject provides and make sure they fit. If they don’t, it’s our job to find out why. No Fault, it’s called respectfully challenging the subject on inconsistencies in his/her statement. The adjudicators are in the room with the subject witnessing body language and tone of voice so it’s up to you to paint the whole picture for them.

I hate to burst your bubbles, but as many have said on this forum, we simply do check the box. Inconsistencies are challenged, but at the end of the day, Subject’s statements are in the report and the Adjudicator can determine if Subject is lying.

The whole point of this discussion was in-person interviews and spreading the Corona Virus when these interviews can be done by phone. I feel it is irresponsible to do something in person and catch and transmit an illness when that task can be done by phone. You are being irresponsible and putting everyone at risk of catching a possibly deadly disease simply because it has always been done that way. You are lying to yourself if you believe doing an in person interview has no risk of catching and/or transmitting the Corona virus. I feel sorry for your family and friends who are at risk due to your ignorance.

Signed: Checking the box…

2 Likes

Way to abdicate. How sad.

1 Like

“Make sure they fit”? like asking non-U.S. citizen that has only been in the country for 5 months where his allegiance lies, with the U.S. or with his nature of origin? I understand what NoFaultRefile is saying. We report the Subject’s responses, we do not perform interrogations. However, if the Subject’s honesty is in question, we do and should ask the Subject additional questions where their responses would allow an adjudicator to determine truth/honesty.

I wonder what fed-investigator’s response would be if only 1 Investigator became infected. That investigator may meet with 5 other people that day; spreading it. Unfortunately, I am not too keen on conducting Subject interviews (TESIs) by telephone under normal circumstances, but when their is a pandemic, I would agree that SOME of these interviews can be conducted by telephone. The spread of this virus becomes a threat to National Security. Again, unfortunately we need to change our behaviors and sometimes we may we do things to accommodate this issue, although it would be temporary.

3 Likes

I agree that as of now that most interviews should be done over the phone, if anyone is at risk then it’s definitely investigators, given the amount of places we have to go and people we have to come in contact with, just yesterday I traveled about 120 miles all around my county.

When it comes to people lying on the questionnaire, if they’re going to intentionally do it then it wouldn’t make much difference to them whether they’re lying over the phone or in person. Although as investigator, because of the badge and the title, some people tend to perceive their interview as an interrogation which may prompt people to fess up to their dishonesty during an in person interview.

However the reality is if a subject were to take a huge bong rip an hour before the interview and still answered no to having used any drugs in the last 7 years, there is no way I could truly know if he was lying, short of mouth swabbing them on the spot. Not much you can do other than ask all the questions you need to ask.

If I were to report “subjects eyes were beet red and he smelled of axe body spray masking the odor of cannabis” then that would be RZ’ed back to me in about 5 minutes

4 Likes

What a disgrace and joke as they’ve only allowed for T4R and T5R’s (aside from the normal TESI’d and records/ sources which the majority of individuals opted for, anyway) to be done by phone. I’ll let those requiring in person interviews sit on my units assigned until this blows over. Not risking my health for profit.

5 Likes

I find it completely negligent that we “Contractors”, who are perceived as the “Red-Headed Stepchildren” are required to meet Subject’s in person for T4/T5 cases while there is a pandemic herein the U.S. that is only getting worse (or more testing positive as more tests are conducted). it appears the Contracting companies that employee us are not too concerned about Investigators’ well-being and are more concerned with the bottom line $$$$$. I guess our lives are not as valuable as a “SA”. We Contractors work extremely hard and care about our jobs and what we do, but yet, treated like compost. It’s sad!

2 Likes

Go read my original reply. I am all in favor of conducting minor issue cases by phone. If there are major issues then the case should be shelved at no penalty to the Investigator until we are able to meet in person. Investigator safety is always priority number one.

I agree with you. However, your original post did not mention you were in favor of “major issues being shelved”. I agree with you there. But our companies are not “shelving” anything. We Contractors are still “required” to meet in person for T4/T5 and C/D level issues, no such cases are being shelved or placed into pending.

3 Likes

Priority number 1 is National Security and shelving investigative work impacts the Military. Some people have to work no matter what.

1 Like

Correct. But there is very little reason the majority of cases cannot be conducted by telephone and those with serious issues temporarily pulled until this blows over. To throw FI’s to the wolves while most cities are shutting down and to fend for themselves while the numbers (confirmed cases) consider to rise is pretty negligent.

6 Likes