Update: Attorney at interview

SECURITY CLEARANCE Q&A
1

I had my attorney participate in my security clearance interview about a protection order given to me.

I’m sure everyone has heard of Florida man well down here we also have Florida Girl and no one wants to date Florida girl.

My girlfriend moved in, she changed into Florida Girl, I needed to end things, she left, the next day I get a protection order at work telling me I can’t return to the apartment but I have to keep paying the bills for the apartment, she has all my stuff, and as of today I still don’t know where some of my things are since she had time to sell my stuff and trash the apartment.

At the beginning the investigator gave a long speech and she mentioned that the interview and investigation could be given to other government and law enforcement agencies. This is another reason I wanted my attorney there.

She agreed that my attorney could tell me to not answer a question during the interview and that the decision to not answer was on me not my attorney.

This didn’t happen but I’m still happy my attorney was there to witness the interview and take notes.

Some things that were brought up on my last post here that helped me decide to bring my attorney

Someone posted The rules in the investigator handbook doesn’t allow the attorney at the interview. When my investigator told me this I asked her to give me a copy of the rules and the handbook. She refused to give me a copy. I asked my attorney about the handbook and he said the investigator handbook is a book of rules that the investigator has to follow. The rest of the real world follows laws. If dcsa isn’t going to give the public access to the handbook then it doesn’t apply to the real world.

Investigators could just say random things and claim its a rule in the handbook.

Several people on here assumed I have something to hide and one person even said that they go into interviews knowing that the person they are interviewing is guilty before the interview even starts.

If that is how investigators think when they go into interviews it is another reason for an attorney to be present. I  would hate to think how I would be treated if I was accused of a crime and the dcsa investigator shows up "knowing" I'm already guilty before I even have a trial. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

I’m still happy with my decision. I had someone there taking notes that will be able to back me up if the investigators report is not accurate since investigators “just know” when people are guilty and their report could be written with that bias.

2

Let us know when you get an eyes only package.

4 Likes
3

If you are happy with your decision and feel good about it, then you have accomplished what you need to. However, you have probably shot yourself in the foot and paid a lot of money to do so. The interview was not recorded verbatim and whatever was said will always be a “he said /he said” event. These “rules” your investigator referenced are as thick as a bible and comparable to the IRS tax codes. Every investigator, reviewer, adjuticator, etc. will intrepret a bit different because they are all different human beings with a wide spectrum of knowledge life and bias. Giving your investigator and the process “vinegar” probably won’t get you “honey”. Good luck nevertheless.

6 Likes
4

To the OP, I would encourage you to read SEAD 4 17.b if you have not already. Clearly you’re allowed to have an attorney at the interview, but be aware that an attorney’s advice does not preclude you from answering questions truthfully and if you did not answer questions in counsel’s advice, you may not receive a favorable adjudication.

2 Likes
5

I am still trying to wrap my head around why you even started your original thread and then followed up with this thread. Most come in here asking for advice from the investigators. Your first post said you already were going to have your attorney present and you recommend everyone do this. It seems you just wanted to get a reaction from the investigators who do contribute to this blog and not really ask for advice. I am also a bit confused because your original post, that is now lock, said your investigator was male.

“He said it got approved from his chain of command so it’s on him.”

But in this post your investigator is female

“She agreed that my attorney could tell me to not answer a question during the interview and that the decision to not answer was on me not my attorney.”

Was your investigator male or female?

Either way you seem to feel you “won” and “controlled” your interview by having your attorney there for it. As we tell all Subject’s before their security clearance interview and I believe was mention in your original post by another investigator, your security clearance interview is only one aspect of your investigation. Investigators will obtain information from the protection order from the courts, will try to interview your former girlfriend and will try to interview other sources who have knowledge of the situation between you and your former girlfriend. None of that you can control. The adjudicator who most likely is part of the USAF will then read all of the reports written and make the decision to grant you the clearance, which again is out of your control.

Regarding, the investigator handbook as you stated above according to your attorney “is a book of rules that the investigator has to follow. The rest of the real world follows laws. If dcsa isn’t going to give the public access to the handbook then it doesn’t apply to the real world.” I find this amusing because DCSA’s investigator’s handbook is an internal document that we as investigators have to follow that was written by and then approved by higher ups in the DCSA. We just don’t make things up and claim they are in the investigator handbook. I would think you being in the USAF, you would understand there are internal documents government agencies have that the public doesn’t have access to. Would you provide any sensitive or proprietary USAF documents to members of the public if they asked for them?

Regarding your statement above

“At the beginning the investigator gave a long speech and she mentioned that the interview and investigation could be given to other government and law enforcement agencies.” Again here you indicated your investigator was female, which contradicts your original post of your investigator being male.

The advisement you are referring to mentions nothing about law enforcement agencies. The advisement you are referring to part of the Privacy Act and it refers to the concept of reciprocity between government agencies when it comes to security clearances and nothing to do with law enforcement agencies getting investigations to be able to arrest Subject’s.

Again congratulations on “your win” but in reality you haven’t won until you actually have your security clearance.

7 Likes
6

Thoughts and prayers to your investigator.

6 Likes
7

The adjudicator reviewing the completed investigation will consider this excerpt from SEAD - 4: The adjudicative process is predicated upon individuals providing relevant information pertaining to their background and character for use in investigating and adjudicating their national security eligibility. Any incident of intentional material falsification or purposeful non-cooperation with security processing is of significant concern.

2 Likes
8

This Lindy Kyzer lady who works for this site is always lurking and reading the threads on this forum. Sometimes she posts a video reply. It looks like she replied to this topic:

9

She makes a valid point but I think it’s off-topic a tiny bit. We are (I am) not arguing that it’s against the rules to bring an attorney. My issue is it may not be a good look when the adjudicator sees that in the notes. They will scrutinize all that much closer and probably make natural assumptions that this person is not being 100% truthful or forthcoming. The adjudicator doesn’t give a fart if you’ve done bad stuff (there’s some pretty shady characters with clearances out there). They only care that you’re being honest and not hiding anything from them.

1 Like
10

A “long speech” You mean your rights? :roll_eyes:

As others have said, bringing your lawyer for an interview about an issue isn’t a great look. If you are being honest and forthcoming, what is the lawyer there for, exactly?

The adjudicator will have the court records and interviews with people that know you. Part of the long speech is to explain that the purpose of the interview is to (paraphrasing) get your side of the story. When your side of the story requires legal representation, well, good luck.

4 Likes
11

Indeed. I wanted to reply to OP, but I just keep thinking it is not that deep.

2 Likes