It’s really irrelevant because investigators don’t work that way anyway. We would not ask for it or accept it. We only ask for specific things, like financial documentation and passports for review. I couldn’t care less about your friends signed statement or prescription. “Maybe” a judge would consider that information in an appeal, I don’t know, I am not part of that process… but it would not be accepted at the Subject interview. If our coverage chart tells us to get coverage for that particular issue for the level of clearance required, then we will personally interview the source and report any details, IF they actually admit to it. Many sources who supposedly have knowledge of an issue will deny knowledge when asked in the interview. If the chart doesn’t tell us to get coverage then we are not even going to talk to the source.
It’s not fair to see that ALL investigators operate the same way as you do. There is a certain amount of human empathy that needs to be put into the process. If Subject’s provide me with documentation I didn’t need or ask for (or wasn’t on the chart) but seemed somewhat relevant and adjudicatively significant, I would often describe the document in my report. I feel that if a Subject is willing to put in the effort to obtain some of these documents, it is often an indicator as to their character conduct ethics and integrity.
The clearance process has not claimed to be “fair”. Of course it’s not fair. Life isn’t fair. We are required to ALL operate the same. We are not allowed to go off and do our own thing. We follow charts and graphs and do exactly as instructed by guidance issued by the government. We are not permitted to accept documentation not requested. Only certain types of documentation are accepted. We don’t get to decide what steps to take, we are TOLD what steps to take in EVERY situation and what coverage the government wants. It is black and white and very specific. I can report that Subject is in possession of a signed statement from said friend and can produce upon request, but I am not going to take it. Even if I did take it against policy, there is no protocol for attaching it to the report to send in because it is not an approved document or attachment. If the government wants coverage of the incident they will go directly to that source and interview them. If the source reports in their interview that they have a prescription for the same med and sub was just helping them out, then I will put that in the report as part of the issue resolution under the category of “motivation” for the conduct. As you can see, the information CAN be reported (by the source) but it has to be done in the correct fashion, through a direct interview with that source, and that source is only going to be interviewed if coverage is required. We do NOT just go out and start interviewing sources when coverage is not required. That is over work and we can get in trouble for over work. I have had my own clearance situations that have been “unfair” and I have had to mitigate incidents that are not even required to be listed. Welcome to government, where life is never fair. If you don’t like it, choose a different profession.
Possibly the best post I’ve ever seen on this board.
Okay, I’ll only speak to my 9.4 years supporting the IC at the full scope poly level. And yes investigators and adjudication people can and do operate that way for TS SCI Full scope poly IC investigations. Been there. Done that. Repeatedly. I’ll throw you a bone and agree in my 30 additional years outside the IC…that did not happen.
You clearly didn’t understand the way I used the word “fair” I used it in the sense of meaning that every investigator does not operate the way you do and you cannot assume that they do. Investigators are humans not robots. Your comments that they are “not allowed” or “can’t decide” clearly demonstrate rigidity. After 2 decades of field work, I’ve realized that some of the coverage guidelines are quite ambiguous for good reason. Life and humans aren’t black and white, they are a million shades of gray, just like investigators.