Never Getting an Answer?


#15

Helpclearance2018: The fact that your CAF requested a new SF86 (e-QIP) doesn’t necessarily mean that a periodic reinvestigation (PR) has been initiated early. Your FSO/CSSO can tell you if a PR or RSI has been initiated. Often when a person reports to their FSO or CSSO that they were arrested for DUI, it only results in a warning letter from the CAF, provided it’s a first offense, there is no underlying alcohol problem, and no aggravating factors. Hopefully, you promptly reported the arrest and subsequently submitted a follow up report regarding the disposition of your case at court.


#16

Thanks for the feedback Mr Henderson, appreciate it. I have your book and appreciate your expertise. I found the book very helpful. I reported the arrest, as well as the court disposition. The security personnel was initially going to complete a JPAS incident report but the fact that I was due for a reinvestigation they determine to go that route(10years since I previously submitted, and on old forms so resubmitting with sf86). That was my understanding, I went through the interview with a background investigator from NBIB and awaiting adjuncation. The FSO thinks i should be ok, just worried about the outcome. So based on your expertise I should get favorably adjunicated but relieve a warning letter?


#17

If this was your first DUI, there were no aggravating factors, no other alcohol-related incidents, and there is no evidence of an underlying alcohol problem, it is very likely your case will be favorably adjudicated. Although it’s possible the CAF could issue a warning letter; they’re usually only issued by a CAF following an Incident Report regarding a first-time DUI.


#18

Mr William,

Perhaps you can provide your input about a specific situation. On SF86, some of the questions ask if you are willing to disconnect your relationship with your immediate family members who are not US citizens. What are the consequences of indication your refusal to such request? Thank you!


#19

I’ve never seen a question like that on any version of the SF86 or DD398 going back to the 1960s.


#20

I just filled out my SF86 and it was there. Perhaps it’s new.


#21

Normally my client allows the law to work out. If they lose driving privileges in the state, they cannot drive on the compound, and the duty section cannot use a government vehicle to meet them at the gate.Once limited privileges are granted, they can drive on the compound. It isn’t unusual for falling off the wagon if they have a true a problem, but they likely repeat counseling or ASAP, and keep the interlock on the car, all costing a pretty penny. As long as the person is following the therapists guidance and law, in each of the perhaps 6 or 7 cases, they kept the clearance. In one case it did spur a re-investigation. This gentlemen had a problem. He could not abstain, and eventually refused a follow up interview, meaning I debriefed him and walked him off. I do not know if he ever gained control of his demons.


#22

My situation is it’s not a problem, favorable alcohol assessment, only arrest and finishing probationary period.

Are you saying the only time a re-investigation was triggered was with the individual that had a problem and lost clearance? Is that a coincidence? Maybe different policies based on contractors vs civilians?


#23

I heard there was a way to find out if your investigation with OPM was closed. Is that true for all investigations?


#24

There’s a hotline you can call to see where it’s at.


#25

If the Industrial Security office forwards notice of he arrest to your clearance office, it CAN trigger a re-investigation to see if there are other issues at play. That is a uniform standard. It doesn’t mean they WILL do a re-investigation. Actually almost any life event can trigger a re-investigation. Actually our guy would have kept his clearance had he simply attended the follow up interview with clearance division. I even offered to take him there for moral support. I think he did not want to answer questions as to whether or not he stopped drinking.


#26

@amberbunny really appreciate the feedback, it’s greatly appreciated. It helps, it’s been stressful dealing with all of this. Hope you enjoy your weekend.


#27

Should I not ask about my T5R re-investigation anymore? Investigation open 2+ years. I’m currently working in a cleared contractor position with no issues so…


#28

Where can I find the number and the most important question, is it operating with the partial shutdown?


#29

724-794-5612 there open during shutdown.


#30

Reinvestigations are the stickiest and gooiest part of this hot sticky mess called personnel security. Since you are already cleared and working, your case goes to the bottom of the stack. If you have seen my other posts you will no doubt have heard my rant about my periodic reinvestigation that took over three years before it was ‘final.’


#31

And…when your re-re-investigation date comes up again…if stuck in adjudication…the date on the close of the bI drives the next re-investigation. You can re-clear, and go right back into another one in 2.5 years.


#32

I’m concerned because I think the DoD will try to say I hid foreign nationals I knew (they REALLY need to re-work that question) when I was overseas for almost 3 years. When they asked about foreign nationals, I freely told them. Will passing CI two polygraphs help?


#33

I’m in touch with several foreign nationals from my overseas time in Japan and the Philippines. Amend the form at first opportunity. At the 2 year point I think you are either coming to conclusion quickly. If there is a reasonable enough explanation for not listing a foreign contact I think you can explain it. And make it all work. If you knowingly lied…likely not, or if you submitted to two CI poly’s but have no idea how you did…that may be what is getting reviewed. Did you get a follow up interview post poly? Did they tell you anything about how you did?


#34

The first poly (done when I saw still in Korea) they said I popped high on 2 areas but that I passed. They re-tested me. Nothing major (if there was I assume I would not have passed). The second one was one and done.

I don’t think the foreign contacts question really takes into account people have been overseas for a long time. Based on what I’m reading here, continuous contact is anything that occurred more than once. Sorry, but for someone in Korea 2.5 years, I know a lot of foreign nationals going back 7 years. I didn’t have the chance to amend the form but I did give him the names when asked. When I gave the same list of names to the SSO, they didn’t say anything. I gave the investigator the names back in July.

Here is a recent decision on foreign contacts: http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2018/17-03743.h1.pdf