Security clearance investigations may not be as thorough as they should be. What does this say about our national security?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:56:42 -0400

For years, investigators charged with vetting the backgrounds of those who handle the nation’s secrets have said they were pressured to churn through cases as quickly as possible. The faster they turned them in, the faster their company got paid — even if the investigations were rushed and incomplete.

The company, USIS, lost the contract to conduct background checks used in granting security clearances after an employee blew the whistle in a lawsuit, eventually joined by the Justice Department. In the wake of a scandal so fierce that members of Congress accused USIS of defrauding the government and prioritizing profit over the nation’s security, federal officials vowed to prevent such abuses from ever happening again.

But a similar quota system used by USIS to drive its investigators continues at the companies that now perform the bulk of the investigations — and in some cases is even more demanding, according to internal company documents and interviews with current and former investigators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/security-clearance-contractors-still-stress-speed-over-thoroughness-workers-say/2015/06/14/00d1bd80-09fa-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html?hpid=z6

Even after Snowden, quota system on background checks may be imperiling U.S. secrets

Despite scandal and congressional outcry, the federal system rewards companies that investigate quickly.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 11:11 AM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:11:17 -0400

Doesn't surprise me!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 11:21 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:21:59 -0400

Pretty much what is says about everything else: let's get our act together!

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jun 15 at 2015 12:05 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:05:12 -0400

I don't like the quota system. But if you were the government contracting officer, what metric would you write in the contract (measurable, legally enforceable) to get serious vetting done, while trying to keep national security positions from staying empty for a year or more? It's a tough call...empty seats can harms us, and sloppy investigations can harm us.
One thing I would try would be a dual path to clearances. One path for US-born citizens with no criminal record, no ties to fringe organizations, high credit rating, and strong ties to the community. A quicker, and by definition less thorough investigation for them. All others get a more stringent investigation. This might not have rejected Snowden, so it's not a perfect solution. If you have a better idea, let's hear it!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2015 2:05 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:05:52 -0400

You get what you pay for.

Response by MSgt Dave Burke made Jul 22 at 2015 9:36 AM

MSgt Dave Burke — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:36:10 -0400

I am having a hard time understanding why clearances continue to be granted to Muslims. If one was a member of any organization that advocated the violent overthrow of the US Government that person could not be cleared. The Quran clearly states that anyone who is not Islamic must be either converted, enslaved, or killed. I know that not all Muslims are out to destroy the US and I have many Muslim friends as well who are the nicest folks you would ever want to see BUT their basic creed still states what it states and these folks are POTENTIALLY threats just as any member of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) is/was a possible threat and not clearable.

Someone explain this, please.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 5:18 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:18:54 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, this isn't that difficult to figure out. It come down to self-interest. (And that includes the government, even if it's not a self.) Government contracts have been money wasters for years, with lack of accountability, featherbedding, and the inability to connect costs with work done. So naturally things tightened down, and now you have companies that say, "You have two hours to complete the interview, and write your report, and then it's on to the next job."

But what happens if it takes the investigator three hours to do a good job? Odds are his company will be unhappy, he may be asked to charge only two hours, and he may well be the next one laid off. Who among us is so dedicated to doing the right thing that we'll risk our job over it?

So what I expect happens is the HONORABLE investigator says, "I am ordered to only spend two hours. Both the government and my company are convinced that is the right amount, so I'll do the best job I can in the two hours, and the results are on them." And that's really not that bad an attitude. Both the government and the company have more money than he does, and anyone else will do the same thing, so why not cooperate and graduate?

Of course, part of the problem is our society. Jobs and people have become pegs and holes that the company and government play mix and match with, without any thought for the person who has to pay his mortgage and feed his family. And that same lack of loyalty is reciprocated by the employee, who picks up on the fact that the company could care less about him, and so he does what his personal sense of honor and duty allow.

You see, there was a time that a person joined a company, stayed there for 30 years, got the gold watch and the pension, and lived happily ever after (more or less.) But pensions are expensive, and they went the way of the dinosaur. What went with pensions? Loyalty. If you aren't going to take care of me, don't expect me to take care of you. If all you want from me is X, and that's all you are paying me for, don't expect X + Y. And I'm not saying it was a bad thing that that went away, because it is part of the union system we have today, where no one is expected to be any better at his job to justify a union negotiated pay increase. Besides, there never was a price that could be put on loyalty and honor.

OK, I've complained, so do I have a solution? I have an idea, but any kind of implementation is going to mean someone has a job and needs to be paid for it. The solution is rate the quality of the reports and keep records on the investigators and their companies. (Time spent per report, quality of report, number of people who violate their clearance in ways that might have been detected by a quality investigator, and so on.) Those who turn in quality work get bonuses and contract renewals. Those who don't find another job.

Response by MSgt Aaron Brite made Jul 22 at 2015 6:21 PM

MSgt Aaron Brite — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:21:14 -0400

Let's see, two companies performing the same job encountering the same issues. Issues that seem very similar to issues faced by the VA, an entirely different function with no ties to vetting personnel. Two places with one problem implies a commonality is the root of the problem. The commonality in this case is the US Government and its methods of doing pretty much anything. I would look at how the US government directs the accomplishment of this work