DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office 2006 JSAC WORKSHOP

1. DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office 2006 JSAC WORKSHOP April 20, 2006 John W. Faulkner Director, DISCO john.faulkner@dss.mil (614) 827-1527

2. DISCO Priorities & Timelines • Process Clearance requests • Interim determinations (90% are completed in 1-5 days) • Request investigations (90% are completed in 1-5 days) • Issue final clearance (80% in 30 days by Dec 2006) • Process Incident Reports (80% in 30 days by Dec 2006; all reports are currently triaged within 30 days) • Process RRUs (80% in 15 days by Dec 2006; 90-120 days today) • Trustworthy determinations (80% in 30 days by Dec 2006; 180 days today) • Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandates: • By December 2006 at least 80 percent of all adjudications shall be made within an average of 30 days • December 2009 at least 90 percent of all adjudications shall be made within an average of 20 days

3. Supplementing Resources • Overtime • Utilizing traditional non-direct staff for production work • Realigned FTEs to adjudication work and replaced, where possible, with contract personnel • Leveraging DOD CAF resources • Beginning in August, DOHA has augmented industrial adjudications • Currently DOHA receives a mix of 110 NACLC, SSBI, and SBPR cases per day from DISCO

4. On-Going Activities • Trustworthiness determinations • Tricare Management Activity • Defense Logistic Agency • Defense Manpower Data Center • SCI determinations • Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) • Interim Suspensions • Army Linguists

5. On-Going Activities (Con’t) • No longer necessary to report overseas assignments, returns or re-justifications • Adjudicator certification • Collaboration forum/CAF Board Meetings • No longer necessary to report representatives of foreign interest • Overseas investigations • Overseas deployment notification • Catch’em in CONUS • FBI Headquarters Checks

6. DSS Payment Process for NISP Billing Review of bills for three months disclosed • Contractors submitting PSIs directly to OPM • Requesters using incorrect SON and/or SOI • MilDeps, agencies and contractors using incorrect online payment and collection (OPAC) codes for • PSIs for security clearances • PSIs for trustworthiness clearances

7. Billing for Security Clearance Investigations • NISP PSIs must be submitted through DISCO • If not submitted through DISCO, OPM will reject • Upon receipt, DISCO will • Verify need for clearance • Determine eligibility for interim clearance • Ensure that requester has entered correct SON and SOI to ensure NISP funds are used to pay for the investigation

8. Billing for Trustworthiness Investigations • Contractors must • consult with MilDep or agency to determine • Agency locator code (ALC) • OPAC number • Enter correct SON and SOI • OPM will reject trustworthiness investigation requests with OPAC ALC numbers identifiable with DISCO/NISP (DSS-IND)

9. 346W DSS-IND DD03 SON OPAC SOI DoD Case Billing Per DSS and OPM agreement, all DoD investigations will be billed by SON, OPAC and SOI NISP EXAMPLE:

10. Research/Re-Certify/Upgrade (R/R/U) • Process Request submitted by JCAVS User • Research = Conversion • Re-Certify = Reinstatement • Upgrade = Upgrade • DISCO updates Eligibility • Should not be submitted for other reasons, such as status inquiries, request to adjudicate an investigation or in response to a rejected PSQ • Status inquiries should be made to the DoD Security Services Center at 1-888-282-7682 • Compelling needs should be emailed to clearance@dss.mil

11. Top 10 Reasons for DISCO e-QIP Rejection • Start date or current employer information • Selective Service Number • Status of debts—complete information on financial items (names, addresses of creditors) • Missing coverage (or gaps) in employment, education and/or residence • Citizenship information for foreign born family members residing in the United States

12. Top 10 Reasons for DISCO e-QIP Rejection(Con’t) • SSN and/or POB information for adults currently residing with applicant (co-habitant) • Citizenship/Naturalization information for the subject (or spouse) of the investigation • References • Applicant not verifying self-employment and/or employment periods • Missing details for Sections 21 (Medical Record) and 23 (Police Record)

13. Reasons for OPM e-QIP Rejection • Missing fingerprint cards • Missing signed releases/certifications • Discrepant information between e-QIP and fingerprint cards (e.g., Date of Birth, Place of Birth • Canadian and/or Australian release forms • Missing complete addresses for employment • Clarification of whether National Guard (listed in the employment section) is full- or part-time employment

14. Interim Eligibility • Many applicants can not be granted interims due to lack of clarifying details in the SF86 remarks section. Providing this information will assist in making the interim eligibility decision. • Financial Considerations - Provide details of bankruptcies and planned payments • Emotional, Mental, and Personality Disorders - Applicants who have received psychological treatment during the past seven years should provide the following information in the remarks section of the SF86: Reasons for treatment; Diagnosis; Frequency of treatment; Medication prescribed; and Dates of hospitalization • Drug Involvement - Provide dates of use and types of drugs involved • Criminal Conduct - Provide dates of arrests/convictions and length of incarceration (if any). • Foreign Preference – Provide nature of financial or personal relationships with listed foreign persons and dates of association • DSS is not providing written responses to requests for information explaining why an applicant was not granted an interim clearance. Clarifying information with examples as to when an interim clearance may not be granted has been posted to the DSS website.

15. Adjudication Guidelines • There are 13 adjudicative guidelines that DISCO, along with other CAFs, use to adjudicate eligibilities • These guidelines are the same for final and interim eligibilities • Difference is the information available to make a decision • Currently – • Declining 15 percent of applications for Interims • Sending 6.4 percent to DOHA for adjudication

16. Adjudication Guidelines • Allegiance to the U.S. • Foreign Influence • Foreign Preference • Sexual Behavior • Personal Conduct • Financial Considerations • Alcohol Consumption • Drug Involvement • Emotional, Mental & Personality Disorders • Criminal Conduct • Security Violations • Outside Activities • Misuse of Information Technology Systems

17. Guideline Structure • Basis – what the guideline covers • Disqualifying Conditions • Serious enough to be disqualifying • One or more conditions • Mitigating Conditions • Reduces the seriousness • May or may not be present • May or may not outweigh the disqualifying information

18. Guideline Example • Drug Involvement—Improper or illegal involvement with Drugs raises questions regarding willingness or ability to protect classified information • Disqualifying Conditions • Any drug abuse • Illegal drug possession • Failure to complete treatment program • Mitigating Conditions • Drug involvement was not recent • Involvement was isolated or infrequent • Demonstrated intent not to use drugs in future • Satisfactory completion of drug treatment program

19. Dual Citizens Foreign Preference • Conditions that could be disqualifying - examples • Possession/use of a foreign passport • Willingness to bear arms for a foreign country • Accepting benefits from a foreign country such as educational, medical, retirement or social welfare • Conditions that could mitigate concerns • Based on parent’s citizenship or birth in foreign country • Indication of possible foreign preference occurred before becoming a U.S. citizen • Expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship

20. Requirement to identify RFIs Eliminated • Guideline L: Outside Activities • A concern if it poses conflict of interest • Conditions that could cause concern include any service with a foreign country, foreign national or foreign interest • Mitigations include outside activity does not pose a conflict with an individual’s security responsibilities • Individual discontinues activity upon being notified there is a conflict

21. Due Process No unfavorable final personnel security eligibility determination shall be rendered without first affording due process in accordance with established DoD personnel security program regulations and executive order

22. Continuous Evaluation Program (CEP) • Continuous evaluation while holding a security eligibility • Continuous evaluation is defined as: Uninterrupted assessment of a person for retention of security eligibility or continuing assignment to sensitive duties.

23. CEP (Con’t) • The CEP requires that persons who are authorized access to classified information continually meet certain standards of: • Trustworthiness • Reliability • Loyalty

24. CEP (Con’t) The integrity of the CEP rests with • Adverse information reports • Individual culpability reports • Reinvestigation of persons with security eligibilities at periodic intervals: • A PR is required at five-year intervals for individuals with Top Secret eligibility • Secret level PR is due at 10 years