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.
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?
I heard there was a way to find out if your investigation with OPM was closed. Is that true for all investigations?
There’s a hotline you can call to see where it’s at.
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.
@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.
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…
Where can I find the number and the most important question, is it operating with the partial shutdown?
724-794-5612 there open during shutdown.
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.’
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.
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?
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?
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
Sounds as if the AJ in that case essentially agreed with the applicant that all of the internet-only contacts through gaming sites, etc. really shouldn’t be considered.
Definitely that question needs clarification.
Well, they were through the internet but he did end up actually meeting up with them in a foreign country. I think the whole problem with this question centers around the term “bound.” The applicant wasn’t bound to anyone. Most of the people in my office think “bound” means marriage, business, a child, etc, some sort of tie that is not easily broken OR can be a means of influence.
I have had a conduct letter requiring signature recently where an employee simply worked a few odd jobs with known foreign nationals. He did not put them on his SF86, but revealed the in his Poly. So even a somewhat casual, rare gathering under work conditions…can be of concern if they think you are hiding it. Emphasis on hiding vice simply forgetting.
No…not trying to hide any foreign nationals…no reason to! The most recent poly went VERY quickly. The Korean nationals in question were a bar owner and her friend and girl who was married to an American. The bar was on the main drag/strip in Korea and heck–it was our unit bar! We had almost all of our going-aways and functions there and our unit patches were in on the walls!
Since the government can use the poly against me, I’m just hoping I can use it (both of them) in my favor.
That’s weird . . . I worked with well over 100 foreign nationals for three years and my investigator didn’t even want to hear about it since I didn’t socialize with any of them even for lunch. They were strictly coworkers and nothing else.
Mine is both co-workers and social friends while I was overseas. I don’t remember for certain but I think the investigator wasn’t too concerned about people I casually spoke to while I was there. I don’t know. He definitely said the question had not caught up to social media. i’d rather not list 25-30 people I interacted with more than once but if that’s what they want to know…