I have a TS which is likely to be rescinded due to derogatory information that came up during a polygraph. I expect to need a few more years to mitigate the findings. I know that Loss of Jurisdiction is a nightmare status, but is it better than having a rescinded clearance? Seems like it would be easier to handle an investigation in the future once the mitigations are solidly in place and are likely to be more convincing than now. How could I “ensure” a Loss of Jurisdiction? Just quit now before the SOR arrives / while the investigation is going on?
No SOR has been received yet. I assume I would need to lose jurisdiction prior to that, if that’s the route I take.
For context: I have an alternate employment in the works that is a contractor position that does not require a clearance, and the last thing I want is to accept that position and then lose that position too after an unsuccessful clearance investigation. I am still trying to get a non-government-affiliated job while I wait for that background check to complete, but I am trying to be realistic that I may not be able to.
Did you lie on the poly or have something that came up that wasn’t on SF 86? we need more info
I can’t really provide more info than some “highly unflattering” information about my past came up that had not been previously disclosed. I believe I can implement more mitigations over time than just “Well, it’s been a long time since I had anything to do with anything like that.”, but it’s not something I can do instantly.
Putting the investigation on pause sounds great for me… but I know most people consider it a nightmare. Just trying to weigh the pros and cons, and make sure I know how to execute that maneuver.
Well if its something you got caught on a poly with, is it safe to say you left it off of your FS 86 and security interview?
Not really sure what that has to do with anything… But there was no spot for any of the derogatory information that came up for me on the SF86. They said there were indicators of deception, but I don’t know what they are talking about. Basically, I don’t feel like dealing with any of it right now as far as adjudication goes unless I am certain it will go ok (and I can’t be certain). I guess I need to put in a FOIA/PA request to find out exactly what I am up against.
You aid there was “highly unflattering” information that came up in poly. You must have known it was unflattering and if so left it off the SF86 right? The place to add derogatory info is on the blank page for further info that the investigator and adjudicator “should” know about.
If it something you didn’t think was pertinent that is not an issue usually. If it’s something you got caught on like a lie, that is a whole different issue and if it’s with CIA, NSA and even DIA, that would screw you. Given that unflattering info wouldn’t come up with in poly with anyone but CIA and NSA unless you are going Law enforcement will be a huge red flag.
A foia wont tell you anything about these issues. Only if or if you didn’t get a clearance.
I am curious why you say “A foia wont tell you anything about these issues. Only if or if you didn’t get a clearance.”
When I put in a request for all my records it showed what all interviewed sources said about me, even unpleasant information. Also, when we interview sources we always tell them the privacy act which provides that the information provided can be released to the Subject. Even if the Source requests anonymity, the information would still be there, only the source would be redacted.
That is for the investigation, not adjudication. They are separate entities and different parts of the process.
Most of the time, the investigators have no connection to the agency who requests the investigation. The answers for your Poly are not in the investigation file. The only thing you see if at the adjudication level if you passed or failed.
It’s a really crappy system.