Senior Advisor To White House CTO Refused Security Clearance

Experimented !

I told him "...experimented with pot".

You just can't help some people :D
 
Experimenting or using pot will not exclude you from getting a security clearance. Lying about it and them finding out about it will.

I had an employee repeatedly denied security clearance for a project we were contracting on. We couldn't get an answer why he was being denied, so I made a few calls and found out that their IT staff didn't want our project implemented and were using backhanded means to get the clearance denied. I ended up having to go up the chain to find someone high enough ranked to threaten the grunts. Security clearance review is really odd, you can basically say you did anything in your past and they will let it slide. However, if they think you are lying "You went to Pot University and never smoked?" They will fail you. Also, people who have mental illness or regularly see a shrink are routinely denied. My guess, he was denied due to politics.
 
You can get denied for clearance if your financials are not in order, too. If you've got 250K in student loan debt, a $1000/mo car note, a $1M mortgage, and you're only making 40K a year, there's a good chance that you're not going to get TS/SCI clearance. I'm not saying that's what happened here. There's just a lot of reasons to deny someone a clearance.

Oh, and ALWAYS be honest with the guys responsible for researching your clearance. Even if it paints you in a bad light. Hell, ESPECIALLY if it paints you in a bad light.
 
I have top secret level clearance with my government, generally all you need to do is come clean during your interview and psychological evaluation.

Dude must have tried to hide something he though might get him excluded.
 
(ties meaning how he helped The Washington Post dig through the documents Snowden leaked)
 
Musta been worse than the Snowden thing, at least considering some of the slime-wads that HAVE received the White House security clearance
 
That's too bad.

Now he'll have to settle for a job in the private sector that pays 3 times as much with 1/10 the headaches.

Been there, done that, never again.
 
EchtoGammut said:
I had an employee repeatedly denied security clearance for a project we were contracting on. We couldn't get an answer why he was being denied, so I made a few calls and found out that their IT staff didn't want our project implemented and were using backhanded means to get the clearance denied. I ended up having to go up the chain to find someone high enough ranked to threaten the grunts.
Click to expand...

They're not ever supposed to share with the employer the reason why the clearance was denied as it's a violation of the employee's privacy. It's always supposed to be a yes or no.
 
A sec clearance is all about if they think you are at risk to sell state secrets. You can have all the bad flags and still get one if they decide that you had the opportunity before and it never even occurred to you but you will still be audited. Most people who get down checked are either in some one's way like the internal verse external which happens more than most people would think. It is not cut throat it is just some of the people who got their jobs during reduction in force do not want anyone looking at their background. Most of the people who were hired when the mandate to cut down on personal did so through connections. The thing is most jbos are gained through connections. They need someone to ask about your past work ethic so they can compare the answers you give verse the answers they look into. The problems is that all that paperwork they used to do it was not redundant but paperwork they could back track that was store on paper in a warehouse somewhere be it fort knox or where ever. When you can access the data over a network it is a temptation for tampering. Some of the failed audits when reviewed are missing most of the documentation, allowing them to be challenged. So like the guy above could have simply talked to a lawyer who told him to lawyer up which results in leverage that can be used against him and by extension the US government. The truth is what is provable but the issue is that if the guy or gal doing the interview has a list of people you have had kids by, drug prescription for self medicating... those will automatically fail you if you lie about them. Who knows what his issue was but complaining about not getting a clearance when he was doing the job apparently at risk is really interesting since most clearances require you to pass at least an interim clearance first. The sad thing is the guy probably knows exactly what he did to get down checked. Not saying what he thinks it was is likely why he got downchecked.
 
drakken said:
A sec clearance is all about if they think you are at risk to sell state secrets. You can have all the bad flags and still get one if they decide that you had the opportunity before and it never even occurred to you but you will still be audited. Most people who get down checked are either in some one's way like the internal verse external which happens more than most people would think. It is not cut throat it is just some of the people who got their jobs during reduction in force do not want anyone looking at their background. Most of the people who were hired when the mandate to cut down on personal did so through connections. The thing is most jbos are gained through connections. They need someone to ask about your past work ethic so they can compare the answers you give verse the answers they look into. The problems is that all that paperwork they used to do it was not redundant but paperwork they could back track that was store on paper in a warehouse somewhere be it fort knox or where ever. When you can access the data over a network it is a temptation for tampering. Some of the failed audits when reviewed are missing most of the documentation, allowing them to be challenged. So like the guy above could have simply talked to a lawyer who told him to lawyer up which results in leverage that can be used against him and by extension the US government. The truth is what is provable but the issue is that if the guy or gal doing the interview has a list of people you have had kids by, drug prescription for self medicating... those will automatically fail you if you lie about them. Who knows what his issue was but complaining about not getting a clearance when he was doing the job apparently at risk is really interesting since most clearances require you to pass at least an interim clearance first. The sad thing is the guy probably knows exactly what he did to get down checked. Not saying what he thinks it was is likely why he got downchecked.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't know the clearance process at all, nor the fact that there are multiple systems for clearances.

Who knows what his issue was but complaining about not getting a clearance when he was doing the job apparently at risk is really interesting since most clearances require you to pass at least an interim clearance first.
Click to expand...

An interim clearance requires no background check. Just the local person in charge fills out some forms and grants them access for a short duration of time (or until clearance is approved/denied) to perform their job functions. That's if it's allowed, some places don't give out interim clearances.
 
People typically don't get denied for no reason. There are a multitude of reasons why he could have gotten denied though. Having foreign contacts, having foreign bank accounts/investments, unreported foreign travel, being in too much debt, or having something go to collections... someone that was interviewed at past employment or past neighbor could have said some bad stuff about him... the list goes on. It could be different in DC, but from my experience in DoD, you don't get denied for no reason.
 
EchtoGammut said:
Experimenting or using pot will not exclude you from getting a security clearance. Lying about it and them finding out about it will.
Click to expand...

Some people are too literal for their own good :rolleyes:

And why would you guess? And you are not completely correct, if you were a habitual user for a long time, like you tell them you routinely get stones a couple times every week and have for the last seven years, forget it. That's what I meant by saying "you experimented".

Besides, it's an old joke for those who have had a clearance for a long time, I mean it goes back to before I got mine in 1981.

Anyone who has a clearance recognizes the joke is what I am saying.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
You can get denied for clearance if your financials are not in order, too. If you've got 250K in student loan debt, a $1000/mo car note, a $1M mortgage, and you're only making 40K a year, there's a good chance that you're not going to get TS/SCI clearance. I'm not saying that's what happened here. There's just a lot of reasons to deny someone a clearance.

Oh, and ALWAYS be honest with the guys responsible for researching your clearance. Even if it paints you in a bad light. Hell, ESPECIALLY if it paints you in a bad light.
Click to expand...

You are correct, it's about several things.

One's, judgement, loyalty, and susceptibility to bribery and coercion are all big parts of it. They want to know they can trust you, that you have sound judgement and that you don't do things that could put you in a bad situation where someone could use your actions and activities against you.
 
drakken said:
A sec clearance is all about if they think you are at risk to sell state secrets. You can have all the bad flags and still get one if they decide that you had the opportunity before and it never even occurred to you but you will still be audited. Most people who get down checked are either in some one's way like the internal verse external which happens more than most people would think. It is not cut throat it is just some of the people who got their jobs during reduction in force do not want anyone looking at their background. Most of the people who were hired when the mandate to cut down on personal did so through connections. The thing is most jbos are gained through connections. They need someone to ask about your past work ethic so they can compare the answers you give verse the answers they look into. The problems is that all that paperwork they used to do it was not redundant but paperwork they could back track that was store on paper in a warehouse somewhere be it fort knox or where ever. When you can access the data over a network it is a temptation for tampering. Some of the failed audits when reviewed are missing most of the documentation, allowing them to be challenged. So like the guy above could have simply talked to a lawyer who told him to lawyer up which results in leverage that can be used against him and by extension the US government. The truth is what is provable but the issue is that if the guy or gal doing the interview has a list of people you have had kids by, drug prescription for self medicating... those will automatically fail you if you lie about them. Who knows what his issue was but complaining about not getting a clearance when he was doing the job apparently at risk is really interesting since most clearances require you to pass at least an interim clearance first. The sad thing is the guy probably knows exactly what he did to get down checked. Not saying what he thinks it was is likely why he got downchecked.
Click to expand...

Ummm, yea I have real problems with most of what you are saying here, at least from the aspect of a DoD clearance and I do realize this guy wasn't getting a DoD clearance but still. The reason many audits weren't turning up supporting documentation had nothing at all to do with what you are suggesting. It's because USIS, a contracted investigation company was falsifying investigations claiming they did them while not actually performing the work. They were caught and hammered pretty good, lost their contract, etc.


Justice Department says USIS submitted 665,000 incomplete background checks
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-joins-lawsuit-against-usis-over-background-checks/2014/01/23/db16e244-8432-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html


Since 2008, the Office of Personnel Management has been on a crusade to root out falsification in background investigations using the courts. Nearly two dozen background investigators for either OPM or one of its contractors have been criminally prosecuted for misconduct ranging from outright falsifying reports, known as “ghostwriting,” to performing sloppy checks that failed to adhere to OPM’s standards. Many of them have done jail time.
Click to expand...

http://federalnewsradio.com/management/2014/05/opms-crackdown-on-background-check-fraud-leads-to-jail-time-for-some/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top