Top Secret Security Clearance for Specific Community

[fnj9315]

I am planning to apply to become a commissioned officer in Intel soon. Are Intel officer candidates required to obtain a TS security clearance or just a regular security clearance in order to get accepted? If TS is required, what is the process like? (Ie: how long does it take, how to prepare for, what should i expect, polygraph, etc.)
Thanks.

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

I am planning to apply to become a commissioned officer in Intel soon. Are Intel officer candidates required to obtain a TS security clearance or just a regular security clearance in order to get accepted? If TS is required, what is the process like? (Ie: how long does it take, how to prepare for, what should i expect, polygraph, etc.)
Thanks.

The first half of your question your OR can field. The second part it can be googled.

 

[fnj9315]

The first half of your question your OR can field. The second part it can be googled.

Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean that "your OR can field"?

 

[HAL Pilot]

Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean that "your OR can field"?

If you don’t know what who or what an OR is, how do you plan on becoming an officer?

Officers, especially intel officers, normally have the initiative to research things.

 

[fnj9315]

If you don’t know what who or what an OR is, how do you plan on becoming an officer?

Officers, especially intel officers, normally have the initiative to research things.

I'm gonna assume now from your response that OR was in reference to Officer Recruiter, but I was not sure what the last person meant by "your OR can field". As I said, excuse my ignorance. However, I don't see the need to be so flippant in your response.

 

[HAL Pilot]

However, I don't see the need to be so flippant in your response.

Ask me if I give a shit.

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean that "your OR can field"?

Field, as in fielding a question. You should field that question to your OR.

You'll notice on this forum and throughout your naval career people tend to help more when the "homework" is done (like searching) and initiative is taken behind a question or issue.

 

[bubblehead]

I am planning to apply to become a commissioned officer in Intel soon. Are Intel officer candidates required to obtain a TS security clearance or just a regular security clearance in order to get accepted? If TS is required, what is the process like? (Ie: how long does it take, how to prepare for, what should i expect, polygraph, etc.)
Thanks.

Intel officers are required to obtain a TS clearance with eligibility for SCI-level access that you are required to maintain throughout your career. You will sign NAVPERS 1070/613 (aka, Page 13) Statement of Understanding for Security Investigation that essentially states that you could be discharged if you do not get your clearance.

Depending on where you are assigned, you may also be required to take a Counterintelligence (CI) Scope Polygraph. Polygraphs are all b.s., but the government loves to use them. Just roll with it.

The process for obtaining a TS with eligibility for SCI-level access is by way of a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) which will go back ten years. However, there are a several "ever" questions involved. That is, "have you ever, XXXXX." You will fill out an SF-86 via e-QIP to collect this information.

You will have this clearance periodically reviewed every five years via an SSBI-PR. You will again fill out an SF-86 via e-QIP during this process. The SSBI-PR also overlaps your previous SSBI from a dates perspective because the SSBI-PR also asks you to go back ten years, as well as asks the same "ever" questions.

A word of caution: even though the form states to answer the questions going back ten years, the investigators go back much further. In 2016 during my last SSBI-PR interview, the OPM investigator asked me about a financial transaction of over $10k that took place in ~2003. Mind you, I've never previously been asked about that transaction despite previously going through the investigation process in 2009 or thereabouts.

 

[fnj9315]

Intel officers are required to obtain a TS clearance with eligibility for SCI-level access that you are required to maintain throughout your career. You will sign NAVPERS 1070/613 (aka, Page 13) Statement of Understanding for Security Investigation that essentially states that you will be discharged if you do not get your clearance.

Depending on where you are assigned, you may also be required to take a Counterintelligence (CI) Scope Polygraph.

The process for obtaining a TS with eligibility for SCI-level access is by way of a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) which will go back 10 years. However, there are a several "ever" questions involved. That is, "have you ever, XXXXX." You will fill out an SF-86 via e-QIP to collect this information.

You will have this clearance periodically reviewed every five years via an SSBI-PR. You will again fill out an SF-86 via e-QIP during this process. The SSBI-PR also overlaps your previous SSBI from a dates perspective because the SSBI-PR also asks you to go back seven years, as well as asks the same "ever" questions.

This was very helpful. Thank you!

 

[robav8r]

A word of caution: even though the form states to answer the questions going back ten years, the investigators go back much further. In 2016 during my last SSBI-PR interview, the OPM investigator asked me about a financial transaction of over $10k that took place in ~2003. Mind you, I've never previously been asked about that transaction despite previously going through the investigation process in 2009 or thereabouts.

I just completed my SSBI-PR as well. the investigator told me there is a marked increase in denials for initial and renewal TS. The reason? All things financial.

 

[bubblehead]

I just completed my SSBI-PR as well. the investigator told me there is a marked increase in denials for initial and renewal TS. The reason? All things financial.

Yup. What's funny is that when I was asked about that particular transaction, I knew exactly the what/where/when/why, despite it occurring some 13 years prior. The investigator obviously had the details already printed out but was wanting to see if I would confirm/deny, etc. When I FOIA'd my investigation report after my clearance was adjudicated I confirmed as such:

Subject explained this was a withdrawal from his XXXX account in order to XXXX. He confirmed it was done in XXXX at the XXXX.

All other information discussed during the interview is consistent and accurate with the case papers. All further questioning resulted in no additional information. Subject is not susceptible to blackmail or coercion over any matter.

BT

PSA: Yes, you can have a short sale on your financial record and keep your clearance.

 

[Hair Warrior]

periodically reviewed every five years via an SSBI-PR.

They are moving to a "continuous evaluation" process, away from a PR process. I don't know that it will actually change anything.

eligibility for SCI-level access that you are required to maintain throughout your career.

Anyone have policy gouge or sea stories on what happens if you're SELRES or AD and your clearance experiences a hiccup/denial? I met an O-3 FTS 18XX who casually mentioned without prompting that he'd lost his clearance, but I didn't ask him about it further.

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

They are moving to a "continuous evaluation" process, away from a PR process. I don't know that it will actually change anything.

Anyone have policy gouge or sea stories on what happens if you're SELRES or AD and your clearance experiences a hiccup/denial? I met an O-3 FTS 18XX who casually mentioned without prompting that he'd lost his clearance, but I didn't ask him about it further.

I didn't know IWC had a FTS component. I thought you guys were either SELRES or AD.

 

[bubblehead]

Anyone have policy gouge or sea stories on what happens if you're SELRES or AD and your clearance experiences a hiccup/denial? I met an O-3 FTS 18XX who casually mentioned without prompting that he'd lost his clearance, but I didn't ask him about it further.

References are MILPERSMAN 1301-227 and MILPERSMAN 1300-080. As an officer, if you cannot maintain your clearance, you will be administratively separated (ADSEP'd).

I've known two people: an O6 and an O3.

The O6 was a former CO of mine and "retired" because the individual had their clearance revoked - for douchebaggery - on the government civilian job side. Individual lost their government civilian job as well (was 18 years in to the job). This was pure schadenfreude because the individual was an arrogant prick.

The O3 -- an OIC at the time as I recall -- had credit card default problems.

 

[WAMI]

They are moving to a "continuous evaluation" process, away from a PR process. I don't know that it will actually change anything.

That’s interesting... I haven’t heard that. I wonder how that will work e.g. the field portion of the PR (interviews). I know they already pull credit reports every year and the IC is implementing a financial disclosure, much like the OGA has done for full scopes. The interesting part of this is that OPM does the PRs, and the prospective agencies do the maintaining e.g. adjudications based on OPM findings. I honestly can’t see the agencies funding OPM to do field interviews every years. Id assume they’re only paying OPM to conduct a credit check, medical and tax portions of the SF86.

I do know that a PR is not required to be finished every 5 years though. Many people I know have not had a PR in as much as 10 yrs I have heard – though the agency does have to request OPM to conduct one every 5 yrs. As long as the request is in by the 5 years mark and they do not see any initial alarms e.g. tax, credit, new jobs, change in marital status… Your PR will go at the bottom of the pile and the field investigators will work on those of higher priority.

Another interesting fact is if you are a civilian and a reservist, you’ll have two clearances. A close friend of mine is an LtCol and has lost his clearance with his reserve component due to a domestic dispute. He is no longer drilling, and he will be retiring with 25 years of service in 2 yrs. He cannot return to drill status because the AF has revoked his clearance. As for his civilian clearance, they initiated a panel to conduct an adjudication – there were no significant findings and since charges were dropped, he has been able to maintain his civilian clearance – returning to work after 2 weeks administrative leave.