– Please explain if subject’s employment with the U.S. Marshals is non-government employment, federal government employment, other government employment or U.S. Public Health Service.
– Please confront subject with record stating subject’s title is deputy marshal. Subject reported on case papers that his title is deputy, U.S. Marshal’s Service. Conduct full issue resolution. Add issue code XX.
– Confront subject with information regarding 1993 train derailment. Source Newman stated subject demanded a hard target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Why did Subject omit the henhouse from his questionnaire?
– Subject reported losing his firearm at a dam in 1993. Confront. Locate and review security record as well as person with knowledge of the incident, Dr. Richard Kimble.
PseudoFed- I too have left the industry ( after spending 12 years as a background investigator). My only regret is not leaving the industry earlier. And yes, one of the many, many, many, things I enjoy about no longer being in that industry is NO Reviewers and NO RZ’s. Plus I leave work at work. No more bringing work home with me.
I don’t understand the confusion with this. It’s required to be listed. If it wasn’t, explain why. Pretty much every report I write disclaims that the person doesn’t have a home phone number.
I once has a female subject with a very common last name (think Smith, Jones, Williams, etc) who married someone with the exact same last name. I disclaimed that her maiden and married name are the same. Still got re-opened for not explaining which dates she used the name Jessica Smith and which dates she used the name Jessica Smith.
REFE says limited contact when the Subject on a active duty assignment in Korea (on case papers) RZ directs me to recontact with the source to determine if North Korea or South Korea. I recontacted source and she said “I don’t know the difference”
Lol! I would think you are lying if I didn’t have the same thing happen to me.
I’ve also had a Sub marry his ex stepsister so his mother in law had the same last name as him (his dad died 20 years ago and his now mother in law never changed her name but lives with her daughters father). I explained this in the ROI and was still reopened and was told to contact the Subject because the mother in laws name was a typo.
Supervisor on SF-86 is listed as Schmuckatelli Joe. Subject had an issue at the same employment and during issue resolution said supervisor Joe Schmuckatelli is aware of the issue. Reviewer RZ’s and asks if listed supervisor Schmuckatelli Joe is the same person as Joe Schmuckatelli that Subject discussed in the interview. If not, explain why Subject listed the wrong person as supervisor.
The point we are making is the areas we are required to disclaim and spend 2 hours on are NOT adjudicative in nature. You must be in management with a response like that. I see a lot of these types of responses from “management”. The companies send their managers to discredit (troll) the boards!
Now isn’t that ridiculous? Common sense is non-existent in the industry. But, in defense of the reviewers, I am sure Fed reviewers would have reopened the reviewer on that. As ridiculous as it sounds.
Lol not in management. I’m an investigator, actually.
I agree that there are things we have to cover that sometimes seem to be (and maybe are) essentially a waste of time. But we don’t only discuss things that are adjudicative in nature. Some things are for the benefit of other investigators working on other aspects of the case. I’m just saying it’s all part of a bigger picture sometimes.
Obviously there are times where I think something is so silly to have to clarify in a report. Absolutely. But my annoyance tends to be more with the fact that who are getting top secret clearances can’t read a form enough to enter the information correctly. That just drives me insane.
Don’t make a wide paint stroke when including feds, even reviewers. Having worked this industry as a contractor and a fed, the contracting companies create most of their own woes then try to blame the “feds”.
If a contractor reviewer gets a kickback/reopen from a case they reviewed, it counts against their stats. Like many inexperienced investigators, the reviewer might make their reopen a “lesson learned” and apply the reopen to every case — instead of understanding why they were reopened.
I was specifically told to stop inserting the snot load of needless information in my ROIs during my fed training - where most of the instructors are former contractors themselves. Going through the fed training was like stepping back to 2003 - only report coverage descrepancies and issues.
I could spend a lot of time typing about the overwork and overcoverage I had to do my last four years in USIS and all of my Keypoint time - but you already know. Just understand, most of this pain is self-inflicted by the companies - not the program.
They will pick apart a salt shaker and find that the holes aren’t big enough or the salt crystals aren’t uniform or that the lid doesn’t screw on tight enough. Contracting companies nit picked every little thing to death in lieu of common sense and in favor of the company’s dollar.
Switched to fed side after a few years of contractor nonsense and have never looked back.
