Common situation: A guy applies for a cleared job, submits the SF86, goes through the entire background check and maybe even a polygraph, only to be rejected at the end. This rejection could be for security and/or suitability. Then the guy reapplies for other clearance jobs and has to go through the whole process again.
Doesn’t this seem like a waste? One Top Secret clearance process cost the government thousands of dollars. If there is already an SF86 and completed background investigation (BI) file on an applicant, why can’t the new agency just use that? If the BI was not completed and just discontinued, why can’t a new agency just pick up where the previous BI left off?
I understand security denial letters tell an applicant to wait a year before reapplying. Suitability denials may also have this requirement at the same agency, but an applicant could theoretically apply for another job at another agency the next day.
If the applicant was rejected for some vague suitability reason, which agencies like the CIA are known for doing, then another agency could very well just use that same SF86 and clear the applicant, thus saving time and government dollars.
Do agencies just not trust each other’s own BIs? Should they be forced to in order to save government money and expedite this process?
Or how about the T5 cleared Guard-Reserves that get a civilian job that needs a T3, and they order a complete new investigation! I’ve had several of these.
One thought (off the top of my head) is that the SF86 needs to be current. If one was completed a year prior, it is no longer current.
I agree that there should be more inter agency communications when it comes to clearances, but doubt that is going to happen, especially with the intel community.
This. Things change so rapidly. I was recently sent to a police station to grab a record of Subject’s two prior DUIs and by the time I got there, there was a third.
Why? They should accept the current adjudication in most scenarios. Reciprocity has been the directive since 1995.
I think the security folks at the different locations (sometimes same bldg just different offices) want their own investigation. CE/CV is supposed to close the gap.
Sometimes an agency will ask for an SF86C which is used to update information from the most recent SF86.
Also, in some cases an agency will ask for an updated SF86 but not necessarily initiate an investigation if their own internal review shows no major changes.
Most agencies use the centralized eQIP (or whatever it is called now) which saves your previous inputs so it is not nearly the pain it once was to update your questionnaire.
If you had a previous investigation, all of that information is NOT just gone and everything starts over. Just because you filled out an entire SF86 from scratch does not mean the government does not still have the information previously obtained. There are many factors that go into whether the previous information is used in the present investigation. If full coverage was already obtained on a particular event and there is no reason to think any information has changed, then the item can be referred meaning we are not going to re-work that item. If you had a job 5 years ago and coverage was already fully obtained from a previous investigation then we don’t have to do it all again. However, the investigation level has to be the same without any extra coverage requirements. So information gathered from a T3 will not fully cover a T5 investigation since a T5 is more in depth. A T4 for the treasury department is not going to fully cover a T4 for the BOP since interviews for the BOP require additional LEO questions that would not have been previously asked. If any of the employment extended past the time of the previous investigation then new information needs to be obtained because you may have had an incident after the close of the previous investigation. There are many nuances that have to be looked at to determine coverage requirements. So to answer your question, previous investigations are taken into account BUT all coverage requirements for the present investigation must be met which includes filling in holes from the previous investigation to make it current and to meet the clearance level required.
The U.S. government should pass a law making it mandatory to adjudicate everyone’s clearance once the background check started. The money has already been spent. If a person is favorably adjudicated, then they should be EASILY allowed to find a cleared job within two years. This rule is already in place, sort of, but we all know there are stories of people going into Loss of Jurisdiction, having crossover issues, databases like DISS, JPAS, and Scattered Castles not syncing, and other nonsense. The two-year rule should be rigorously enforced without any red tape.
If a person is unfavorably adjudicated, then the rule about reapplying in one-year should be enforced as well. This way, any new investigation only covers the one year since the last adjudication, in addition to reinvestigating the issue(s) that led to the original denial. That is it. No need to start the entire freaking process over. If the person mitigated the issues from the previous denial, clear them!
This is absurd. Talk about government waste. All of these cleared or almost cleared people that can’t use their clearance is ridiculous.
This is how it was in my case, although it had only been two months since the original investigation’s conclusion. Still waiting on the adjudication though.
