About the only thing I agree with the CE implementation is that we should be conducting field work and interviews as things happen in real time. As things are discovered during the clearance process things should be reported by the clearance holder and followed up on. That part of CE is a good thing. These are good methods of security practices and protocols.
What I disagree with is removing the periodic reinvestigation as part of a Subject Interview, source interviews, and record reviews, etc. when conducting field work on periodic reinvestigations as a whole unless something triggers or is self reported because as I already stated many things will not be uncovered or reported if we rely upon an honor code system or a few database checks that are conducted. In person and thorough interviews with applicants and clearance holders asking all of the pertinent adjudicative questions and following up with additional questions to include full resolution of issues/concerns are the tried and true methods to conduct these federal background investigations.
One of your articles that you provided discuss the problems we should do to avoid another Aaron Alexis situation when a clearance holder accessed government facilities and opened fire causing many deaths and mayhem. Well, here we are. We should consider retaining our investigative processes and not try to reinvent the wheel here. I know the old process wasn’t 100% fool proof. I am not advocating that it ever was. In fact, the results of the Alexis investigation showed flaws in how the field work was conducted and the Seattle Police Department wouldn’t release records about Alexis’ criminal past and issues and mental health wasn’t followed up on either it appears as it should have been. However, imagine if the Investigator could have interviewed Alexis when these issues were being discovered or follow up with the reports from co-workers on the issues they raised about his paranoia and mental health issues. We potentially could have avoided the things he did that day by removing his clearance access. In addition, the adjudication failed in granting and renewing him for his secret clearance.
What should have happened is Alexis should have been interviewed regularly as issues were being discovered and developed on him which is the good part of what CE can do if it finds criminal hits on individuals. The part I don’t like or where CE has flaws or fails in it’s designed purpose is that they are no longer going to be doing regular Subject Interview, source interviews, or record interviews unless something triggers in a criminal history database or unless it is self reported. Well if someone isn’t self reporting information because of the issues they don’t want others to know about so that they can avoid losing a clearance or a job, wouldn’t it be a good idea at a minimum to be doing a Subject Interview on clearance holders on a periodic level and putting them under an Unsworn Declaration and advised of Title 18 1001 so that information can be discussed, developed, and followed up on?? Why only take something away like regular interviews and routine record searches only to replace that with self reporting only and database searches which is a huge part of what CE purports to be? Why not use both in conjunction one with another? Seems counterintuitive to not use all processes we have at our disposal.
Is CE also designed to cut costs and save money? If that is a big part of the process, then please let me know. I’ve always said that you get what you pay for in life. If you want quality things, you have to pay for quality things…this includes even federal background investigations if you want them on very thorough and high quality level you have to pay for them.