Let’s say for argument sake that some Special work for People I’ve been doing over the last 6 months has gone exceptionally well, and I’ve been asked by the “Client” to obtain Secret level classification. I’ve read the forms and so forth and they don’t seem to ask a whole lot more than the INS does. What I’m curious about is what sort of things preclude a person from that which aren’t obvious? I mean, I know that things like drug use, planning to overthrow the government, felonies and misdemeanors, etc. are likely to. But are there some little or unexpected things that might disqualify someone?*
For example, I notice they only leave enough space on the form under “foreign trips” for two trips. I have dozens of them. Also, they mention wanting to know about “foreign assets” and of course I have bank accounts and other things (legally) in another countries. I also wonder if other things that are intangibles, such as my sexuality come into play, or using a pseudonym both for my published works and online on places like…well, here.
TIA
(I think this straddles the line between GQ and IMHO - I mean, the written documentation is missing on what nitpicky things can disqualify a person, but there is by definition going to be a requirement for anecdotal accounts to get the answer to the question.)
If you are currently bankrupt, or way in crazy debt teetering that way, or ahve a history of crazy financial teeterings and crashes, depending on how you got there, it could have implications for teh clearance.
Those financial situations would probably bring additional questions, (depending on the level of clearance this might be done in person by government security personnel). You can still get the clearance if it is explainable: conditions that created the situation were beyond your control, you can show a good faith effort was been made to fix it, or that it was based on an isolated incident - preferably long ago.
From what I understand you can be turned down (or approved) for any reason - it is a privilege and not a right. I have known some people who claimed to have clearance that really surprised me (I also knew some people that were turned down that surprised me). The best advice - be honest.
Some of those things don’t necessarily preclude your obtaining a clearance. For example, I smoked a little weed and did a little coke when I was young. Even tried a mushroom. Hey, it’s a party situation, you’re young and curious… I admitted as much in my interview for a Top Secret clearance, and the clearance was granted. Hey, even the President used to powder his nose!
I think that what they are looking for might be habitual use. They seem to understand that people, especially young people, will “experiment with drugs”. (Whenever I hear that phrase, I see some kid in a laboratory. Bunsen burners, beakers, condensing tubes, etc…) In my case, the “experimentation” happened years before. Interviews with my friends and neighbours confirmes that I was not a current user, and that prior drug use was not an issue.
Not entirely germane, but this is my view of drug use: I tried it. I know people who currently smoke cannabis. IMO a person can make his own choices. I tried it, and found that weed and coke were not particularly entertaining to me; so that was that. I’ve also seen how drugs affect people. Many people I know who smoke marijuana are “losers”, or at least appear to be wasting part of their lives. I was hot for a neighbour when I was in high school. She’s a lot older than I am, but she was smokin’ hot. I ran into her a few years ago, after she had been using methamphetamine most of her adult life. She had a vacant stare and had lost all of her teeth. She was probably 45 years old, but she looked 65. Drugs are not for me. Or to put it another way: Don’t say no to drugs. Say, “No, thank you.” Anyway, to link this to the OP, I think that an investigator is trying to find out if the applicant who has used drugs is like me (tried it, but not a user), or someone like the others I’ve described (who abuse the drugs, and are therefore a potential security risk).
As jimmmy said, they look at your financial history. It seems to me that American spies are usually in it for the money, rather than for ideological reasons. (Usually.) Someone who is in a dicey financial situation may pose a greater security risk, as they might be bribed.
Not being gay, it wasn’t an issue; but back in the '80s it might have been one. I think it might have been a blackmail thing. If a foreign agent (for example) found out you were gay, he may use it as leverage to force you to give him secrets lest he “out” you. I would hope this would no longer be something to worry about. (But then, I’m a Left-Coast Big City Boy. Might be different in the Bible Belt.)
But speaking of blackmail, this was a question the interviewer brought up. He wanted to know if I could be blackmailed. I told him no. If anyone tries to blackmail me for some nefareous deed I might have done (and I’m aware of none), I told him that I’d just admit to it. Can’t blackmail me if I’m prepared to admit to whatever it is the blackmailer is holding over me!
adirondack_mike indicates that the clearance process may be arbitrary. Maybe it is; but I believe that the investgators really need a valid reason to turn down a clearance. As he says, the best course is to be honest. I obtained my dossier through the Freedom of Information Act. One of the people interviewed said he had seen me use marijuana years before. Had I not admitted as much during my interview, this could have been disqualifying; not because I smoked a J, but because I lied about it.
As for your foreign accounts, etc., I think that as long as they are explainable you shouldn’t have a problem. They ask about foreign accounts to see if you are hiding money. Foreign travel to hostile countries may indicate that you have connections there that may test your loyalties; but legitimate trips would not be disqualifying as long as they find that the connections you make there would not have an influence on you as it pertains to your job. As I mentioned, suxual orientation should not be an issue unless (again) there is danger of blackmail or if it results in someone (e.g., a foreign operative) having undue influence over you. ISTR you have mentioned before the reasons why you use pseudonyms. If you explain these reasons to the investigator and tell him all of the names you’ve used, this should not be disqualifying.
I am not an expert. I have obtained clearances, and can surmise some of the thinking of the investigating department. This post is made from my personal experience and by a lot of guessing. YMMV.
Anecdote: When I was being investigated for my TS clearance, a couple of “suits” interviewed my apartment manager. It kind of scared her, as she thought I might have been in some sort of trouble. (Of course they explained the purpose of their interview; but she said they gave her a little fright about me for a moment. )
A ‘secret’ clearance isn’t all that big a deal. It’s about as low as you can get on the totem-pole.
When I had to go through security training (I worked for the State Department/AID as a contractor right out of school) the instructor acknowledged that many things can get one turned down and that some of them were arbitrary. If the investigators couldn’t confirm some of the information you provided, for example, even if it looked meaningless, you could get a down check. Or if they spotted a pattern of behavior (frequent visits to so-called ‘insecure’ areas like Libya or something) or event friends of the wrong nationality. He also told us that it’s infrequent that such things DO downcheck someone…but they’re possibilities.
Me? I’ve done time (juvenile) and came clean on it and they went through all those old records (not so old at the time) and still gave me Top Secret clearance.
Here’s a related query - say I am asked to get and get approved for “Confidential” clearance instead of “Secret”. Then say later on they decide I need additional clearance. Is there an “upgrade” process to move to “Secret”, or do you start the whole process over again at essentially ground zero?
For a Secret clearance, I wouldn’t worry that much.
Foreign trips/contacts: Just list them all. I attached something like five extra pages to my SF-86. And I had traveled to a fair number of backwater communist/authoritarian countries (yeah, it took longer to process my clearance). While you should speak to the security manager who is managing your application about this, but I believe foreign contacts would only be a problem if there is a close, continuing relationship, and the other person has links to a foreign government (which would be determined by the men in dark suits).
I would not expect for a secret clearance to be asked about your sexuality. I would imagine that the only way that this would come into play would be if one of your neighbors who would be interviewed during the background investigation would say something like, “I borrowed a cup of sugar from Una one time, and I happened to see his Wheel of Torture in his sex dungeon.” Well, maybe I’m making a joke of it, but if your references were to have some comment about loose sexual morals, that would probably raise someone’s eyebrows.
I would think that for things you did that you may be a little embarassed about, (ie, smoked pot for a while, once got busted for a college prank gone awry), such things aren’t worth worrying about in applying for a clearance. It’s more like things that you feel you should hide, or a pattern of poor behavior in some respect, that’s what could be a problem for your application.
As said before, the most important thing is to be complete and honest in answering questions.
I started out with a Secret clearance. When I needed a TS, I had to fill out the paperwork all over again. No doubt the DIS (as it was known at the time) used my previous clearance as additional information; but it took long enough to get the TS that I assume they “started from ground zero”, as it were.
Clearances expire, as well. I would have to undergo the entire process again if I was nominated for a clearance, since it’s been so long since I’ve had one.
In case anyone is wondering, a clearance does not necessarily grant you access. You still have to have a “need to know”. I could walk into a place with TS-SAP/SAR and not be allowed to see Secret-level information if I didn’t have a “need to know”.
I once had to fill out the forms for a Secret clearance for a job (computer coding for smart torpedos).
I remember that the form asked that I list (using additional pages if needed) all organizations or groups that I had belonged to since age 16, for each one, description of the group and it’s activities, names of the people in leadership roles in the group, location of group activities, how active I was in the group, what activities I took part in, dates that I was a member of the group, etc.
But then it said that ‘political groups are exempt from this reporting requirement’.
So I asked if this meant that if I was a member of the Communist Party, I would not have to list that, but I did have to list my local 4-H club. The personnel lady told me that, yes, that was true. (But then she added “really, if you were a member of the Communist Party, I think the people checking this would already know that.” And she was probably right, there!)
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet is that you can’t get a clearance by asking for it yourself. A “cleared facility”, i.e. a company or other organization that has gone through a vetting process, must request the clearance on your behalf. I assume the people who asked you to get cleared are able and willing to make the request for you, since you already have the forms
As far as things that might trip you up, there seems to be quite a bit of tolerance for past drug use as long as you’re honest about it and no longer use. If you have had any mental health counseling, they’ll want to know all the details, which you may or may not feel comfortable discussing. Potentially of more interest to you, based on the information you gave, is that we have had a number of people at our facility recently lose their clearances because the DSS found a “foreign preference”. That means the person holds a foreign passport or dual citizenship, or has close relatives with foreign citizenship, or owns property in a foreign country, etc. One guy had to give up his Israeli passport to get cleared. “Foreign preference” seems to be the hot topic these days because of recent espionage and terrorism cases.
My advice would be that unless you expect some significant, concrete benefit from getting cleared (like access to lucrative contracts), I would avoid it like the plague. I was recently offered a promotion that required a TS clearance and I turned it down flat with no regrets. I like to have a private life, thank you very much.
Yes, someone did request it of me, I did not initiate it.
Thanks guys. Sounds like I should have little problems. No financial problems, no drug use, no odd organizations, no criminal record, no trips to or relations with any dangerous countries, etc.
If they’re serious I’ll go for it. The unclassified work that they’ve had me do was new and different than anything I ever did before, and I actually had serious fun doing it. A great opportunity to apply problem-solving skills and analysis of patterns to help people.
The best thing you can do is be honest. That’s what they’re looking for- trustworthiness. If you give them any reason to think they can’t trust you, you will be denied the clearance. You can have done some pretty stupid things in your youth and provided they hear about it first from you and you haven’t done anything like that since, it probably won’t have any affect, and might even make you look better for being so forthcoming.
Holding a lower level clearance without any security infractions can also help, as it demonstrates that you can handle classified information appropriately. How important your skills are will also have an effect. If you are in no unique position they might hold the bar a little higher. If you’re the leader in an obscure and arcane field, you can probably get away with having more in your history.
The two most common things to hold up peoples’ clearances in my observation are financial issues (Primarily large amounts of current debt. I don’t recall anyone getting denied for having a history of financial instability, but I don’t recall anyone with that particular issue. Anything involving fraud would be a big no-no.) and citizenship. Mostly kids with a parent from a different country, or where they moved here at age 5 or something, their parents naturalized, but it was kind of murky as to whether they (the child) still claimed citizenship from whatever country. For the most part, they filled out a form renouncing citizenship, got it approved by the nation being renounced, and went on their merry way. There was some hand wringing about my wife being born in Tehran, but she’s a US citizen by birth, moved out when she was two, etc. and it turned into a non-issue.
Fierra is my English ladyfriend who I paid an outrageous sum of money to import to the US. All legally (according to the lawyers), so they can’t get upset at me for that.
Unfortunately, they can and may. Even if you did everything legally and aboveboard, what the security folks will be looking at is whether you or a close friend/relation may be inclined to act in a manner that favors the interests of a foreign government over the U.S. government. You might be OK since the country involved is a U.S. ally. I know of at least three people in our office who have had their clearances pulled because they had family in foreign countries, ranging from “death-to-America” to “strategic partner”. Best of luck to you.
)