Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

    Originally posted by HunterStalker View Post
    Hi,

    All immediately family do not have to be citizens, and all the other stuff they are saying on the forum is bolony. Live example right here. If you are second or first generation immigrant with a 3/3 on a language go for it/ or without one, it doesnt matter. The MI Branch is drenched with Foreigners from all over specially the Cryptos (35Ps). MI is like the United Nations. For some reason there's lots of push back on the issue when it comes to TS/SCI because they are all the dinossaurs from the cold war era, circa Bay of Pigs who are still running after the 'Commies'. In other words: RECLASS.
    I'm glad you know so much about what the truth is. Maybe my time writing Army policy and making clearance determinations about such things was all a dream.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

      Originally posted by show_stopper999 View Post
      I'm glad you know so much about what the truth is. Maybe my time writing Army policy and making clearance determinations about such things was all a dream.
      Love this forum...

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

        Originally posted by show_stopper999 View Post
        I'm glad you know so much about what the truth is. Maybe my time writing Army policy and making clearance determinations about such things was all a dream.

        It was all a dream...

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

          Originally posted by Polo08816 View Post
          It was all a dream...

          Now thats ironic. There used to be a forum on AKO run by the old CCF CSM. Only CCF employees or assigned soldiers had access. When a noob would get on there and ask a question, if I answered I would reply "And if ya dont know then now ya know..."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

            Originally posted by show_stopper999 View Post
            You both are sorta right and wrong.

            1) Army CCF has been consolidated into DoDCAF. Some legacy folks may call it CCF but its now DoDCAF
            2) If you have a foreign relative you DO need a statement of compelling need and a waiver for SCI Access
            3) For the DoD CAF this is a rubber stamp. Even with countries such as russia. As long as the person says "I have no loyalty" in their subject interview it is assumed there is both compelling need and a need for a waiver, otherwise why would they have been put in for it?
            4) Never reference AR 380-67 unless its of the most basic fundamentals of security clearances. It hasnt been updated since the soviet era and there are so many new policies that have and havent been published that its almost an entirely worthless regulation. If I remember correctly AR 380-67 also mentions what to do if traveling to a Soviet country.

            The Army security community (particularly personnel security) is in shambles with zero communication up or down to policy makers. If you want a good laugh go look at some of the G2 section news letter areas and look at the multi-year gaps in their quarterly policy newsletter publication.

            Everyone zip up your drawers, the constant measuring contest that comes up anytime someone asks about a clearance is over.

            380-67 fir its problems is still the AR. It is in revision and should be through the comment adjudication phase shortly.
            I wonder how you make the claim that there is zero communication up or down to the policy makers.
            Every time ARNG has held an all states security meeting, someone from DA G2 is there. In the ARNG there is one level between the states and those who make policies...we get copies of any policy ems a whole lot sooner than the way they trickle down on the active side...

            When DA G2 put the draft of 380-67 out for comment, the ARNG distributed it to the States. Nearly all States failed to submit comments but I will guarantee you the States will complain when it has policy they don't like.

            I have seen several circumstances over the past few years where a state or territory is directed by the Army to implement something and the state takes over 2 years to make a simple transition. I believe that the DA g2 listens to the ARNG and tries to be sensitive to our peculiar set up. When we began piloting PSIP, 2 states were pilot sites and the Guard had a lot of influence in the process.

            The Guard is well represented on the HSPD-12 implementation. The Guard is working hard to ensure when the new provisions of DODI 1400.25 vol 731 are put into actual practice the OCT that we will be ready. The challenge is difficult when individual ignore the train lights and te complain whentey get hit by it...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

              380-67 has been in "revision" since at least 2004. Occasionally they send out drafts for review and they mirror the old version for the most part. The line you used to get from DA G2 was they were waiting on DoD to update their regulation. That argument failed when they did (twice I think). I would be surprised if actually goes any further. The comments phase is when it usually dies.

              The PSIP system is seen, for the most part, as a frustrating process on the federal side and I'm thankful that my state will never have to handle anything to do with my clearance. I understand the need for a change because previously security personnel could submit investigations anytime they liked but when the PSIP and PSI-COE create such levels of frustration that general officer and SES level civilians call and complain (like mine have) because a letter "Y" in their name went below the signature block line so the reviewer rejected their eqip (just one example of many) there's a big problem.

              Most security personnel security people have limited training (usually online only) beyond MOSQ training. I'm also certain that half the problem with the ups and downs of the DA G2 personnel security division is that they're simply not a priority for the G2. The G2 has many more critical functions and even though the system is a disaster from top and bottom, people still get clearances. This was the point made to me in a conversation with a previous CCF commander.

              I would personally love to call every state security manager and just talk to them to see how much they know, how well they know the job and what they think of communication. I've personally saved the rear-ends of two soldiers in my state and a few in another all because of inactions on the part of their state security office or the state basing things on policy that was outdated by years. Thankfully I was able to use contacts i know from the federal side to solve problems and save them from permanent career damage because of someones inaction or ignorance.

              As far as HSPD-12, I'm not even sure the relevance of that to this conversation, since for DoD ID card holders the process is virtually transparent and the requirement is met almost universally with a clearance. So..cool I guess?
              Last edited by show_stopper999; April 28th, 2013, 05:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

                Originally posted by show_stopper999 View Post
                380-67 has been in "revision" since at least 2004. Occasionally they send out drafts for review and they mirror the old version for the most part. The line you used to get from DA G2 was they were waiting on DoD to update their regulation. That argument failed when they did (twice I think). I would be surprised if actually goes any further. The comments phase is when it usually dies.

                The PSIP system is seen, for the most part, as a frustrating process on the federal side and I'm thankful that my state will never have to handle anything to do with my clearance. I understand the need for a change because previously security personnel could submit investigations anytime they liked but when the PSIP and PSI-COE create such levels of frustration that general officer and SES level civilians call and complain (like mine have) because a letter "Y" in their name went below the signature block line so the reviewer rejected their eqip (just one example of many) there's a big problem.

                Most security personnel security people have limited training (usually online only) beyond MOSQ training. I'm also certain that half the problem with the ups and downs of the DA G2 personnel security division is that they're simply not a priority for the G2. The G2 has many more critical functions and even though the system is a disaster from top and bottom, people still get clearances. This was the point made to me in a conversation with a previous CCF commander.

                I would personally love to call every state security manager and just talk to them to see how much they know, how well they know the job and what they think of communication. I've personally saved the rear-ends of two soldiers in my state and a few in another all because of inactions on the part of their state security office or the state basing things on policy that was outdated by years. Thankfully I was able to use contacts i know from the federal side to solve problems and save them from permanent career damage because of someones inaction or ignorance.

                As far as HSPD-12, I'm not even sure the relevance of that to this conversation, since for DoD ID card holders the process is virtually transparent and the requirement is met almost universally with a clearance. So..cool I guess?
                PSIP and PSI-COE have their moments but the system actually works pretty well. Sometimes it seems ridiculous when they reject a signature page but the reduced costs it generates are worth the hassles. OPM is the one that often time rejects the case for the signature and the PSI-COE people are trying to prevent the rejection. OPM and the FIS and budget comes from reimbursable charges. The less that OPM does on cases the less they charge us.

                The PSI-COE also alleviates the need to review every initiated investigation at a lower level. The rejection rate at COE I think based on the last numbers I saw was .3 percent. Prior to PSIP the ARNG rejection rate from the states was upwards of around 27%. Some states were as high as 50%. The average submission time from initiation in JPAS to scheduled at OPM was near 70 days... Most are done now in less than 3 weeks. This makes things go very smoothly and people are getting clearances thanks to PSIP and OPM whole lot faster....

                I am glad you have been able to help other soldiers. It is too bad when there are issues that can mess up a clearance.

                You forget that nearly 30 percent of the Army does not get a clearance when they join. It is not as universal and as transparent as you suggest. The point was there is communication in the security world and the ARNG is active involved in the processes. The system is not perfect but we have to make it work

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

                  Originally posted by Kelvin View Post
                  PSIP and PSI-COE have their moments but the system actually works pretty well. Sometimes it seems ridiculous when they reject a signature page but the reduced costs it generates are worth the hassles. OPM is the one that often time rejects the case for the signature and the PSI-COE people are trying to prevent the rejection. OPM and the FIS and budget comes from reimbursable charges. The less that OPM does on cases the less they charge us.

                  The PSI-COE also alleviates the need to review every initiated investigation at a lower level. The rejection rate at COE I think based on the last numbers I saw was .3 percent. Prior to PSIP the ARNG rejection rate from the states was upwards of around 27%. Some states were as high as 50%. The average submission time from initiation in JPAS to scheduled at OPM was near 70 days... Most are done now in less than 3 weeks. This makes things go very smoothly and people are getting clearances thanks to PSIP and OPM whole lot faster....

                  I am glad you have been able to help other soldiers. It is too bad when there are issues that can mess up a clearance.

                  You forget that nearly 30 percent of the Army does not get a clearance when they join. It is not as universal and as transparent as you suggest. The point was there is communication in the security world and the ARNG is active involved in the processes. The system is not perfect but we have to make it work
                  30% may not get a clearance but 100% get a valid NACLC submitted the second they digitally sign enlistment paperwork. The reason numbers/time/rejection rates prior,etc are exactly what I'm talking about. When I was a brigade G2 scheduled at OPM was < 72 hours. Rejection rate was almost zero. The rejections I have mentioned are before they're even submitted to jpas, they are during review by COE. In fact, up until last week I still received notices that my recent PR had been rejected by COE, despite the fact that I called OPM last week and they are compiling it for adjudication. It's done. I'm aware of exactly what the charges are. I can also look up the states on the OPM FIS website.

                  The ARNG may be involved in the process in your state or at NGB level, but the rest of your posts about no comments only proves my point. The vanilla, collateral personnel security program is broken at both ends army wide. The lack formalized requirements for training, clearly communicated and standardized policy and this more than a decade long revision has cost people permanent damage to careers and missed opportunities. The few I've gotten involved in were only by virtue of my civilian position and luck. These are ground facts vs a save-face statement of how well we're doing meanwhile officers recently branched MI are shoved into other slots because the state security manager wont put him in for a TS clearance because he never had one before, and a soldier in another state whom Im friends with almost had a clearance revoked because the state didn't submit her rebuttal because he thought "the colonel has to do it", so I submitted it through my civilian command.

                  When 380-67 is revised to be even somewhat relevant, formal job specific training is required for security manager appointments, which are tracked at higher levels and information is disseminated in a timely manner from policy on down to the lowest level security manager, we'll take a step in the right direction.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

                    I'd also probably recommend adjudicators training be a part of that as well. I've personally represented four people in from of an administrative judge in the final stage of appeals. If their security officers had an idea of what the standards are as well as how to write a proper memo, the people never would have been there.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: TS/SCI and Immediate Family Members

                      Good afternoon, I stumbled on this thread after looking for info on security clearances. I am in a similar situation as Kayem. I am a soldier in National Guard that trying to transfer to active duty and get into 35p MOS (ACASP program). I came to US from Russia and have been living in US for 8 years (citizen for 3). All of my immediate family are naturalized citizens, however my mother still has her russian passport active and she goes to Russia every year for 2-3 months to spend time with my grandmother. My Russian passport is expired and I have no intention to renew it, nor I have any intentions to travel back to Russia. My only 2 foreign contacts (both in Russia) are my grandmother (I talk to her on the phone/skype about 4 times a year) and my old friend from high school (we exchange short e-mails about 2-3 times a year). So, I was wondering if any of these facts can hinder my chances to get ts/sci clearance. If its somehow helps my case my wife is US born citizen and we have one child. Thank you.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X