Problem with References

#6

Well, the basic worry was that there are no people other than colleagues “to develop” and the investigation could not go forward. But I see alot of good information here

Thanks everyone for the information!

0 Likes

#7

The investigation expands to gather additional information from other sources when derogatory information is developed that will impact your adjudication.

1 Like

#8

Sadly saw this happen to a person transitioning from law enforcement to OSI Office of Special Investigations in the Air Force. He did not receive his credentials…was returned to his career field in the “we don’t have enough to verify you did bad things…but we are sure enough we don’t want you.” He spent the next 10 years using FOIA requests trying to better understand what happened. And he was quite bitter understandably so. Turns out a subordinate he gave a bad eval to spun quite a tale. It could not be verified but it was enough to tip the scales against him. Nothing he could do.

3 Likes

#9

Wow… that’s ALL it takes?

2 Likes

#10

It can be all it takes if it calls into question your judgement. If nothing can be substantiated…it can also be deemed not credible. But if it creates enough doubt…the investigator has to report it forward for adjudication.

3 Likes

#11

That’s a scary thought.

1 Like

#12

This situation virtually parallels my own. In my case, I was able to obtain the relevant information through a Privacy Act request, which provided sufficient explanation of the reasons for my application(s) repeatedly becoming derailed.

You are correct that there is nothing that can be done in his, my, and doubtlessly countless others’ experiences. In my case, I actually attempted to explore the possibility of prosecution of the individuals involved, but this could not be achieved through either the agency itself, the US Attorney’s Office, nor the FBI.

Applicants should be afforded an opportunity to respond to any derogatory information provided by “developed” informants. This is, of course, not generally the practice.

2 Likes

#13

From personal experience, I can confirm the fact that this is indeed ALL that it takes!

4 Likes

#14

It is indeed very scary.

It reduces the whole security clearance adjudicatory process to little more than a popularity contest.

1 Like

#15

Xe,
did you eventually clear or are you still in limbo waiting? I would imagine a rejection, SOR and an appeal is the only route one can take to refute info. I think generally speaking everyone is savvy enough to understand ex spouses can give emotionally charged comments or a past subordinate you gave a low eval on may have reasons to hype a complaint. That said working in a military prison years ago I knew of a prisoner who refused to accept responsibility for awful allegations concerning sexual abuse of a minor child. This resulted in multiple denials of parole. After 5 years…his entire case gets overturned…found innocent…after the initial guilty finding base don a scorned ex spouse. Poor guy “lost” his son over this who grew up believing dad did horrible things. Medical records showed the opposite of what was initially stated in court…thereby indicating the child was not violated in the manner charged…all based on the emotionally charged claims of his spouse as they went through an acrimonious divorce. That prisoner walked out the front door, regained his rank and then retired with a big settlement…but nothing can repay a person for living that nightmare.

3 Likes

#16

No . . . It’s NOT a popularity contest. It may not be perfect and some may get screwed by the process but you don’t have a right to a clearance. In some cases, information may be deemed questionable but serious enough that the applicant will be rejected.

Remember, it must be shown that “it is clearly in the interest of national security to grant the applicant access to classified material.” That is the standard we are held to. All of us.

1 Like

#17

Mr. ED considering the way you were treated and what you went through to retain your clearance, I am surprised at your responses about these things. I would expect the opposite from you. It’s almost like your on the side of this messed up clearance fiasco.

Merlin

3 Likes

#18

No . . . I understand the need, recognize the risks and admit to the difficulties. That’s not a defense and I certainly think that there is a need for improvement in the process. Many who are going through this process do not yet understand what it is they are asking for. An SF86 isn’t a job application. It’s a request to be allow to access information that, if not properly handled, could result in severe damage to our national security.

I take it very seriously. In my opinion, those who do not understand this or who fail to understand the importance, should not be receiving a clearance.

I’m also an adult. I don’t think that something is wrong just because it cause ME some trouble.

2 Likes

#19

I got Derogatory feedback from my ex wife. is there any way to appeal this? I had a clearance for years as an officer in the army then tried with my civilian side and got denied/interim suspended because of the Derogatory information. Is there a lawyer or someone cause that would be able to get this straightened out, or sue for liable? I had a restraining order and am still owed money but this hurts the most, costing me my job future I could have.

0 Likes

#20

An interim denial isn’t the same as a denial and there is little that you can do. The reason for the interim denial isn’t that they believe your wife but that the information has to be looked at and then a determination made. With the little information that you provided I suspect that you will be approved eventually. You just need to wait and see what they do.

1 Like

#21

Ed is correct. Even if spurious…it must be looked at, weighed and adjudicated. Don’t contact the ex. Just keep moving in life.

1 Like

#22

No, I never was cleared for any IC employment, and I finally gave up, once realizing that qualifications and education counted for nothing in the hiring processes.
No, my problem didn’t involve ex-spouses. I was single at the time, and had perfect police and credit records.
The problem involved several co-workers at a part-time casual job I had held while I was a student. Of course since the information was derogatory and was “developed” in nature, it counted about twelve times more heavily than any of the positive details elicited during the BI.

0 Likes

#23

You still don’t seem to understand the process at all . . . Derogatory information isn’t offset by positive information and the fact that it was “developed” only matters if it looks like you were trying to hide it or otherwise should have reported and did not. At this point, I’m not talking specifically about you case.

In your case, the adjudicator determined that the “developed”, “derogatory” information was in fact, credible and disqualifying.

Remember, the standard for granting access to classified material and information.

I’m not trying to be harsh but to show others who are still going through or are just starting the process that they shouldn’t have the cynical view of someone who was denied.

0 Likes

#24

Never give up. “Fight them on the beaches…etc” Simply let the BI complete and wait for an SOR. From there you know what needs be challenged. They will take with a grain of salt anything an ex spouse tells them because they could clearly have ill intent and an axe to grind. If others validated the info and not just her claim…then it gets more difficult to dispute.

0 Likes

#25

“Cynical” puts it very mildly! lol

0 Likes