GovernmentExecutive.com

COMMENTS

• We have come a long way since 2005. A portion of the problem can be attributed to the peaks and valleys of the requests. Many agencies make requests thru OPM at differing times of the year. This causes spikes in the workload, which of course causes backlog. It is very hard to anticipate when and where these spikes come sometimes. Also, as one response alluded to there is a bigger process. In actuality the “back end” or the adjudicative process, can be the most time consuming. I think this is an area that needs to be improved. CJ: the investigative products are complex. Your idea would work but only if they had had precious experience conducting OPM investigations. Also in essence this is what OPM and most contractors try to do. The investigators work from their homes and there are SACs and Work Load Leaders that provide work and try to make it as local as possible. Bud: Contrary to popular belief, the cases can be complex, even the updates. Many times the investigator still needs to discuss areas that have been covered in order to ensure inconsistencies do not exist between the current investigation and past investigations. For example: If a Subject admits to a felony offense on the current case papers that happened 10 years ago the Investigator does not know what was discussed in the previous investigations. They are still responsible for obtaining all details. Then the adjudicator can go back, compare the two versions, and sort out any possible problems. There are many instances where inconsistencies have led to further investigations and sometimes discovery of a security breach. Remember most spies have been employed by the government for years and not intended to spy when hired. Usually the update investigations are where they are caught, or they get careless. L Pacquining: There are many different OPM case types but the most sensitive ones require in-person contact with the Subject, neighbors and employers as well as advanced records checks. I am unsure where you had heard this was “forbidden” per OPM training”. In actuality OPM policy is to do face to face interviews. I have expereicne with Law Enforcement BIs and many times they are done by phone. Field Trainer (OPM Investigations) Posted May 26, 2009 4:27 PM
• This story does not show the entire picture. I am OPM investigator and I conduct background checks for a living. It needs to be understood that short turn around does NOT equal a quality investigation. Also, our investigations are completely voluntary and are based on the good-will, availability, and cooperation of all those involved. The ONLY ones who are required by law to cooperate with us are the law enforcement agencies. You know how hard it is to go door to door, employment to employment, call to call, and hope that someone is willing to meet with you? Its time consuming, and in order to conduct a proper investigation we must speak with sources. I think that Bud's investigation is an anamoly. A very very large majority of our investigators are well-educated and knowledgable about the requirements of the investigation. Yes, certain things may be discussed beyond the 5 year mark, but that doesn't mean we are actually going out and investigation that residence, school, or employment. As it turns out, a significant amount of people have no idea how to fill out a SF86 properly. When it says go back ten years and list every residence, do just that, go back ten years and list EVERY residence. If you don't list a residence or employment because it "wasn't very long" then that is another aspect that will delay the investigation. Investigator Posted May 22, 2009 7:17 PM
• I think the process is much improved from 2005, when OPM took over. What it comes down to is what does Congress want? Do they want a quality investigation or do they want a fast investigation? Do they want us to fully investigation issues (alcohol, drugs, violence, employment misconduct, credit) or do they want us to give a free pass? Until it is written into law (which it never will be) that ALL individuals are required to cooperate with our investigations, then there are going to be difficult situations. Companies don't have to provide employment information and people don't have to speak with us. That's just how the investigation cookie crumbles. Congress needs to decide and then we can go from there. Oh, and Bud, yes, we do have clearances. We all have top-secret clearances but they aren't typically active unless we need them to be. So when you say that we don't talk about classified information, thats because we take notes on everything that we talk about, and once we write that information into our notes they, in turn, become classified as well. And really, that just becomes a huge pain because of all the restrictions on handling and storage of classified information. Many of us work from home in a "remote agent" situation, and aren't equipped to deal with classified information. So, please don't assume that we aren't investigated ourselves. You really think they would let us investigate, with being investigated? Investigator Posted May 22, 2009 7:17 PM