I know you’ve claimed to have adjudicator experience so that’s why I made the point that you more than likely have seen the amount of discrepancies and issues developed even during routine re-investigations of someone with a clearance.
My prior post being straightforward to you was just describing what the “boots on the ground” see on most occasions when conducting federal background investigations. I also speak to adjudicators on occasion that work in PERSEC offices and they comment on the amount of issues and discrepancies that Subject Interviews, Source Interviews, and record interviews uncover when Investigators do a thorough job of conducting federal background investigations. Not every Investigator does a thorough job or is asking all of the questions. This is not an easy job and one must take it with a lot of seriousness when conducting federal background investigations for security clearances or that Investigator fails to provide a thorough and quality product.
Based upon the research and what I’ve read about CE, it simply doesn’t pass the eye test or sniff test in uncovering issues, discrepancies, and vetting someone for a clearance on a periodic basis.
My research tells me that CE does routine credit checks and criminal history checks. The remainder of the vetting process relies upon the person to self report. If they don’t self report, they say the consequence is that the clearance can be revoked or terminated.
However, this relies upon people self-reporting. This doesn’t happen on a regular basis. Poor FSO programs that don’t train or teach people what to report isn’t helping either, but the fact remains that the clearance process now relies upon an honor system.
Newsflash, there are probably 25% or more of people (unsure how to quantify this but I see this regularly) that aren’t being honest in completing the Security Questionnaire or at a minimum or being lazy and haphazard in being thorough. So how is CE going to catch the employment issues, reprimands, etc. that aren’t being investigated through CE? My understanding is that CE isn’t doing routine employment record checks unless there is a known reported issue on the SF-86. Does this process really believe everyone will report employment misconduct, reprimands, etc.? It won’t happen.
Anyways this is just my two cents but I doubt that Investigators were asked for input into this CE process. Investigator are seen as simply a “cog in the wheel” of the machine even though the Investigator and the actual investigation is the most important part of the entire process that allows the rest of the process to run smoothly and for the adjudicator to have all of the necessary information to make an informed decision on what to do on a clearance decision. The decisions of CE in my opinion are made in a vacuum and far from the input of those that are the “boots on the ground” uncovering issues, discrepancies, dishonesty, and laziness from applicants during the clearance process.