This may have been posted previously, but I just heard that re-investigations will no longer be contracted out to many of the agencies. The Feds will just periodically check employees credit report and criminal history or will have alerts issued when either the credit reports/criminal history trigger the alerts. Just asking if anyone has heard more on this topic.
As more and more people get enrolled into “Continuous Evaluation” the number of periodic reinvestigations will decrease. But some people will have issues requiring an investigation and the “CE” process should generate some field work on an “aperiodic” basis. Some customers/agencies may require reinvestigations for certain accesses.
But I think it is still very much a work in progress. And just wait til the first high-profile case of someone committing a crime and then hearing in the press that they have not been investigated in so many years…
I’ve also seen conflicting information regarding if people will have to complete the SF forms every 5 years… I guess time will tell.
CE alone without periodic reinvestigations in person will never provide the quality investigation that the government has come to expect.
I agree with @sbusquirrel. It’s just a matter of time when someone divulges classified material or does something crazy because they thought CE and self reporting was going to work.
Relying upon an honor system of self reporting is wishful thinking and a pie in the sky mentality.
CE is not designed to prevent human error or bad decisions - THAT is wishful thinking. CE is a supplement to the vetting process. And not all periodic investigations are going away.
Clearly, more reading needs to be done by a lot of people based on the comments here.
DCSA Gatekeeper (formerly Access) has a lot of info on CE and continuous vetting (these are not the same, by the way, so it is erroneous to use CE and CV interchangeably.)
CE is mandated by and explained by Executive Order 13467.
The research I have done show that CE is not going to be doing routine Subject Interviews on a periodic basis or routine employment record checks and personal reference interviews.
How are developed issues, developed employments, unlisted issues going to be discovered when the Subject won’t be interviewed by an Investigator and administered Title 18 Sec. 1001?
Is the honor system of CE or CV going to catch what Investigators are discovering in Subject Interviews, reference interviews, and employment record reviews?
No it will not!
I’ve never heard of continuous vetting outside of this forum… but one thing in CE’s favor is that most issues that people get in trouble with when it comes to clearances are related to financial matters, and all that stuff is massively online now.
Some other areas may not be so easily monitored… I wonder if some people might not get moved to CE and continue to have the regular background investigations, like maybe folks with extensive foreign contacts just to name one possible category.
DCSA Access (9.1) provides a great overview of what CE and CV are, and the expectations of the process. Page 30-31.
thank you for sharing this!
My point still remains accurate and on point.
If an SF-86 when submitted by a current existing clearance holder appears to have no issues reported and appears to look favorable, the person is enrolled in CE and no re-investigation actually takes place with a sit down interview or even a telephonic or video conference interview in regards to doing a thorough review of the SF-86 Questionnaire. All of us clearance holders are essentially going to be enrolled in CE and will then be required to self report all financial issues, arrests, alcohol abuse, drug use, divorces, change of residence, foreign contacts, foreign travel, etc. The record checks will be periodically pulled for credit and criminal checks during CE which will capture some issues. I think that’s the good part of CE and I have no problem with that. That’s a good security protocol and a good security practice to pull those checks periodically.
So looking at CE from a macro level and cost cutting measure looks and even feels great. It even sounds great…right??
We all hope everyone is honest and self reports every possible issue. However, we are dealing with human beings and human behavior. People lie. People are dishonest. People are deceitful. Not everyone will self report things and not every CE database check will uncover everything. There will be many loopholes uncovered through CE which we all hope will be quickly fixed and repaired. But this is the federal government we are talking about and change moves at a snails pace.
Any experienced Investigator that has been doing this job for 3+ years has already uncovered a lot of unlisted and unadmitted issues during the Subject Interview that was not listed on the SF-86. Any experience Investigator knows that Subject’s routinely lie, omit, deflect, deceive, and try to steer investigations. Only and ONLY by doing in person interviews can issues be thoroughly resolved and discussed with a high level of quality. Many issues that were unlisted on the SF-86 are oftentimes discussed and developed through a quality and through Investigator going through every question verbatim, looking someone in the eyes, providing title 18, Sec. 1001, and advising them of the penalties for providing false statements in a security clearance interview.
I also don’t like the fact that routine employment personnel record checks are not included in CE. I’ve yet to find any documentation that CE/CV will be doing routine employment personnel record check reviews and supervisor/co-worker interview for periodic reinvestigation? How many times have I developed issues in an employment record review that were disciplinary and derogatory in nature? Hundreds of times in my long career. How many times have I developed serious issues from interviewing a supervisor? Too many times to count.
My opinion based upon the research I have done on CE/CV (and I’ve done my fair share of research) is that CE/CV will not include routine interviews with Subjects, sources, or employment record providers as now being conducted on reinvestigations as part of routine procedure. The checks will be primarily data base driven and primarily criminal/civil record checks, credit report checks, FINCEN checks, foreign travel checks through major airports.
If someone can prove me wrong or show me guidance on what is entailed with CE/CT and that it will provide routine employment record reviews, employment reference interviews, neighbor checks, subject interviews, etc, please advise me where I can find this information.
I also would like to point out that probably not 1…not even 1 Investigator was queried as to this new CE process and what we come across in the field. We are the boots on the ground yet these decisions were made without the input of the Investigator that actually uncovers the issues. Not a sound way to create policy in my opinion when you aren’t querying your most important part of the process…the one actually resolving issues, sitting down with the Subjects and Sources and doing the hard labor and work in the field.
Maybe bang your shoe on the table while you’re at it?
Maybe you should come up with some valid arguments to rebuttal my premise and arguments I am making.
Glad I got out when I did.
That’s what I heard in regards to CE that it’s eventually supposed to take the place of re-investigations and catch red flags in real time. I was also told that self reporting incidents is more important then ever. I’m not sure about a time frame but know my FSO enrolled me in March 2020 but told me due to Covid a lot of them were delayed until recently.
There are a portion of ppl who won’t self-report. There are also a portion of ppl who won’t tell the truth during interviews. It’s the same difference imo.
That’s an interesting comparison. The person who does not tell the truth during an interview (or not disclose all the details) has to do so while talking to an actual person. The person who does not self-report doesn’t have to deal with anyone. Both run the risk of making matters worse by not being up-front in the first place.
Its ususally the opposite during in person interviews. For the most part people tell the truth more than they need to by volunteering everything under the sun that’s not required which all has to be reported. Headache
So the question is which method will garner more admission of issues? Self reporting (highly unlikely) or the tried and true methods of 60 years of investigative methodology that has been used in the past such as Subject Interviews, record reviews, and reference interviews?
I think we all know the most thorough way the process needs to occur and new methods and database driven re-investigations will prove to not enhance the process if you remove the most tried and true methods and the foundation of federal background investigation to include the Subject Interview, Source interviews, and many of the record reviews in the reinvestigation process.
What percentage of the people convicted of spying during the last 60 years made it through an initial and multiple reinvestigations? What percentage of the 18 year olds who lie about smoking pot or getting fired from McDonalds would actually go so far as to sell out their country?
What’s so tried and true about it? As Cal just pointed out, many of those who were convicted of spying or doing other national interest harm passed interviews.
I know guys who lied in their interviews. Unless you are going through a Poly, almost anyone can lie just as easily as they can not report incidents.