Re-investigations a thing of the past?

I would argue that lying during an interview is an active lie (especially when they would have now lied twice, once on the form and now verbally), while not reporting something is more of a passive lie. People are more likely to do things passively… So if they aren’t questioned they don’t feel like they are lying.

Also, regarding catching spies and clearances - There is a lot of damage that can be caused by those who are not actually spies. People with loose lips (especially after a few drinks etc) or lots of debt (especially delinquent debt) can be susceptible to blackmail… If a person is deep in debt and someone offers them 50K to leave a door unlocked - we may have a problem. The person who takes up the offer may not be actively spying but they sure are a problem for national security. So keep in mind an adjudicator is also trying to evaluate how susceptible a person may be, given the individual circumstances.


Some very good points there.

The tried and true method I’ve spoken about in length may not catch someone like Snowden that will divulge classified or leak classified information regardless of CE or the previous ways we’ve always done Background Checks but the methods of the past and present have a pretty good track record of uncovering issues and rescinding clearances of those that shouldn’t hold a clearance. It isn’t a perfect system. I never said it was but it is a system that is working. Why try to fix or replace something that isn’t broken?

1 Like

We’ve come to an impasse.

No worries, we can agree to disagree.


1 Like

I’m sure more reading would be done, if there were clearer guidance and communications out there, to read…

There is. Go read it instead of harping on here.

I have read it. It’s confusing and unclear. I suggest you focus your actions on improving it, instead of condescension and "blaming the customer ".

In 2020 I was up for reinvestigation. I had to do an addendum to the SF86 that basically made any updates I needed to make. Then months went by. One day I get an email that said mine was going into CE and it gave me a link to know my responsibilities. My understanding is that now instead of going around talking to people about me, they are “watching” me with whatever tools are available to them. I assume this also means social media.

Anyone who completes and certifies their SF-86 is eligible for CE and is usually automatically enrolled in the continuous evaluation program.

Gone is the myopic notion that “you’re good if you’re cleared; and you’re good for 5 years.” That thought process worked well for Ames, Snowden, Manning, Debbins, and many others.

CE hasn’t replaced reinvestigations, but CV is expected to in the future.

I don’t think so. At least not yet :slight_smile:

In my 12+ years of doing this, I have developed multiple major issues about subjects that would never be uncovered without in-person interviews. The two most serious were on military officers one a high ranking full colonel, that resulted in their clearance process being discontinued by the DOD. CE would not have found this on any database check as the information came from co-workers or former supervisors and confirmed by my interviews of sources developed from those interviews. CE or CV could never replace boots on the ground for a thorough investigation but now seems “good enough for government work”.


This is an accurate analysis from someone that actually does the job and is a “Field Investigator”.

I fully support CE/CV after someone receives a security clearance. These are good security protocols. Requiring people to self report should be a security practice. What I am not in support of is stopping the practice of conducting periodic Subject Interviews, reference interviews, and record reviews every 5-6 years as have been done in the past on reinvestigations. Without doing these interviews as part of the reinvestigation process, national security is potentially compromised as I have already stated on this thread.


We have to wait for someone on CE to do something stupid for the pendulum to swing back to what makes sense and not what makes money. But just think how much money will be saved (I mean redirected into someones hidden budget to disappear forever) before someone does something stupid.

I wonder how reciprocity will work if someone is in CE. Some new agency could say, well, just because those other people said there were no issues with your last investigation and they put you in CE doesnt mean we have to agree…

Time will tell. The paint is still wet on all this.

1 Like

Not rescinding the backlog mitigation guidance now that the backlog is done shows me just how much the powers that be at DCSA really care about national security.

1 Like

Finally something we both agree on this website.

there is no major difference between CE/CV and in-person interviews. All “investigators” really do is read off a questionnaire, in which a subject can lie, deny or minimize an issue. Most investigations can be completed without investigators interviewing subjects, or sources. everything now can be obtained online or with minimal effort. there is a reason CE/CV are being used, which is to save money.

1 Like

I hope you do my clearance next time.

1 Like

No major difference huh? The major difference is that CE isn’t routinely conducting Subject Interviews, source interviews, and record interviews in periodic reinvestigations. That’s a MAJOR difference whether you believe it or not.

Any Investigator that is serious about their job and asking all of the questions on the Security Questionnaire absolutely knows how much is developed in routine Subject, source, and employment record reviews and for you to state there is no major difference shows your lack of knowledge, expertise, and awareness in this industry. You are speaking to someone that has 15+ years doing this type of work and we are much much more than “glorified note takers” as your handle suggests. If you actually are serious about this profession and do this job thoroughly and accurately, you’ll uncover issues (and even some serious issues) on almost every case you work.


I think that you are wrong. I believe that this industry is and has always been all about the numbers. All the big contracting companies care about is producing numbers, completing investigations…do you think they care about the quality of the investigation as much as they should?? well, when an investigator is expected to complete one months’ work load in a week, that tells me that they understand the quality of the investigation is not important to them, rather than the number of investigations completed. Sure, they will RZ you and sometimes reports or information has to be added/amended, but as long as you follow the guide that they give you, you can get the job done.

I completed all my work with the utmost care and professionalism. I completed it all by following the guidelines , rules, and regulations that OPM wanted. All I am saying is that CE is definitely a better way to conduct background investigations from the financial perspective. And the investigation will not have a major difference than how it is being done now.

But if you believe that you are out there protecting national security by writing down on a notebook what a subject tells you then typing it up, then good work and keep it up.