TOPICS
TOPICS
Lawmakers lash out at security clearance backlog
Lawmakers launched a blistering attack Thursday on personnel officials responsible for the backlog of Defense Department security clearances for industry personnel.
The Defense Department currently has 188,000 contractors waiting for personnel investigators to make a decision on their security clearances, according to a General Accounting Office report (GAO-04-202T). Since 2001, the average time it has taken the Pentagon to determine clearance eligibility for industry workers increased from 56 days to more than one year. During a House Government Reform Committee hearing Thursday, lawmakers said the slow pace was obstructing U.S. military and homeland security efforts.
"It is a strange irony that the security clearance process ... would actually be hindering our efforts to protect the security of our country," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., said clearance delays are costing taxpayers billions of dollars because federal employees and contractors cannot perform their duties.
"We're getting less security and it's costing us more," he said.
Officials from the Defense Department and the Office of Personnel Management said that the problem had been created by stark shortfalls in personnel.
"The demand for background checks exceeds our capacity," said Stephen Benowitz, OPM associate director for human resources products and services. "We believe the process is one that needs improvement."
OPM recently delayed plans to take over the Defense Security Service, which conducts background checks of Pentagon applicants. That merger was supposed to streamline the clearance process.
It is the Pentagon's policy to hire contractors to relieve the security clearance backlog, according to Heather Anderson, the acting director of security for the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. She said Defense officials were concerned about hiring federal investigators and then having too many staffers on hand when the backlog was reduced.
Anderson said three Defense contractors have been "immeasurably useful" in resolving security clearances. She did not explain, however, why the backlog still existed if the contractor work has been successful.
Lawmakers demanded action from the personnel officials. Davis produced a GAO report from 1981 that identified the security clearance backlog as a serious problem at the time.
"Why is the federal government in the same boat with the same issues 23 years later?" Davis asked.
Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, questioned why the Pentagon did not seek funds to hire more investigators.
"What's most frustrating [is] you've never asked for any more people," he said. "We'll give you anything you need to get this done."
Gregory Wilshusen, GAO's acting director for defense capabilities and management, said the Pentagon does not know the extent of its agencywide security clearance backlog. Determining the size of the problem - beyond contractor clearances - would be an important first step, Wilshusen said.
Personnel officials indicated that relief in the backlog would probably not come before the end of fiscal 2004. Lawmakers seemed desperate for more immediate action, saying their district offices have been deluged with complaints from frustrated federal employees and contractors seeking security clearances or renewals.
"Chairman Davis is holding this hearing because it has gone way beyond any reasonable expectation of patience," Moran said.
COMMENTS
- I should have been clearer in my original post. The entries I referenced were the result of inaccurate note taking by the investigator. No one made the accusations I referenced, the investigator just took poor notes. In my case, the investigator made the entry that during his interview with me (not someone else, but with me) that I said I was releasing classified info to uncleared people. I made no such comment and if the investigator thinks I said that, why didn't he clear it up during our interview? My point is that the investigators are writing down things that people are NOT saying or, in an even worse scenario, they are making the entries into the wrong case file and that people making such comments are being cleared. GovExec.com reader Posted June 1, 2004 7:01 AM
- That's true that these allegations generate more work which cause delays, but in the 5-10% of the cases that the allegations are untrue, aren't you happy that we are catching the other 90% and those people are not getting clearances? I would estimate that 85% of all additional work, that is work that was not done initially on a case but was required to be done to meet national standards for a security clearance, comes from incomplete security forms. I don't fill out your SF86, you do. If you forget to list a residence or job, you generate more work for me that doesn't get found out until later in the investigation causing a HUGE delay. This happens to me 1 out of every 4 cases I work. You want to talk about lengthy delays on your clearances, do the math. Last year I carried a caseload of over 300 cases at any given time. That's 300 people waiting for a clearance. In my office there are 10 agents. We all have the same caseload. That's 3000 people. I work 8 hours a day and hopefully can close 2-3 cases a day. But I receive 8-10 cases a day. I can never catch up! Simply, hire more agents!! We are doing the best we can with what we got. GovExec.com reader Posted May 28, 2004 11:58 AM
- Part of this problem is that the investigations are getting so sloppy that they are creating more work for themselves. In my case, an entry was made that I leaked information to people I couldn't remember. Even though I never said this, it had to be investigated which created a ton of extra work. (And I wonder if someone else said it and if it was noted in their investigation.) I'm not alone - a co-worker had an entry in his records that he walked out of a polygraph interview, another had an entry that he did serious drugs. All untrue, but all had to be investigated. Three molehills turned into mountains. GovExec.com reader Posted May 7, 2004 6:59 AM
