Security Clearance [Merged]

[bh1224]

I am an ex Navy nuke, got out in 2001.  I have a job interview coming up that wants some info about my past security clearance.  Here is the list they ask about:

Month and year of your most recent background investigation
Type of most recent background investigation (Initial, Single Scope, Periodic Review, etc.)
Which Company/Government agency conducted or processed your most recent background investigation
The level of clearance/SCI access and date of briefing
If you have held but do not currently hold a clearance/SCI access, provide the month and year of your debriefing.
The name of the Security Officer, firm, area code, and telephone number or the Security Officer holding your most recent clearance/SCI access


Some of them I know or have an idea on but there are some like the date and type of most recent background check that I don't know.  Does the Navy do periodic reviews of background checks.  Does your last command keep this information?  If anyone has an idea where I can find this type of information, I would appreciate it.  Thanks.

[GARYGWOODJR]

Did you make a copy of your service record before you got out?  If you did you should have a form on the left hand side that has all of that information.  If I remember correctly your command would only keep that information for 3 years.  The navy does periodic check but you would have remembered because you would have had to supply all of the information.   

[sefrick]

Hey, I'm pretty new to the forum ( 1 week), but I've been lurking around for about a month now. Now I have a question and maybe this topic needs to be in a different forum, but let's see how this goes.

I'm just about at my 10 year point, MM1 and de-nuked due to the revocation of my security clearance. My Command went to bat for me, but DON CAF decided to revoke my clearance in the end of 2002 for an icident that occured in February of 2000. Right now I want to get out and go back to doing what the Navy trained me to do, operate a nuc plant.

Will this pose a problem in the civilian sector? Thanks

[Already Gone]

Absent details, we have to go on assumptions.

First, they didn't kick you out and you still have lots of paygrades left.  So, it doesn't appear to be a disciplinary or criminal problem.

Being de-nuked is not the same as if you were never a nuke at all.  As much as the Navy thinks it has the power to change reality, the fact is that they cannot go back in time and undo history.  You were a nuke, and you are free to say so on your resume.  They would be subject to prosecution if they tried to deny it.  It is illegal to file a false instrument.  In other words, if someone asks if you were a nuke, they have to tell the truth regardless of what NEC shows on your DD214.

So, basically, being de-nuked affects ONLY your naval career, and has little bearing on your civilian prospects.  But I caution you to be 100% truthful and forthcoming about it.  They can and will deny yu a civilian clearance for lying or for withholding information.

You also say that your command went to bat for you.  That is good. It indicates that you could probably use them as references. 

If you have no felony convictions, pending court cases, illegal drug use or alcohol abuse that has not been rehabilitated, or associations with known terrorists or anarchists; If you have not tried to commit treason or overthrow the government; If you have no mental illness or psychological condition that affects your ability to work without posing a risk; If you can account for your activities and whereabouts for five years with solid references to back you up, then you should be able to get a clearance.

Civilian licensees are required to conduct (or contract out) their own investigations.  They each are responsible for issuing or withholding you unescorted access.  If you just cooperate and tell them the truth, you'll have a better chance.  Your situation, given the limited amount of information, does not seem hopeless.

Good luck.

[sefrick]

OK Beer, I guess I'll give a little more info. My ex wife had a unique way of resoving conflict at home. She would use base police to remove me from the house if we had a simple argument i.e.  whether to get creamy or crunchy peanut butter (gross, but not too gross exageration). It was her way to excecute control. She knew that all she had to do was tell the police that we were arguing and that she feared that is was going to get violent and next thing I knew I was on the ship for 48 hours. Each time she did that it counted as an incident. After the fouth time she tried I flew off the handle and put a Latrell Spreewell move on her. I was arrested for Domestic Assault, misdemeanor.

The funny thing was, I plead guilty becasuse I figured it would be better to plea, spend a week in jail and go back to my life, than the alternative which was spend 30 days in jail awaiting trial and miss movement. So basically, I plead guilty so that I could continue my carreer.

So in a nutshell, one criminal conviction, misdemeanor, 5 years old and resolved and about 5 additional accusations, all unfounded. Did I mention that this is my EX-wife?

[Roll Tide]

OUCH!!!

I have an ex-wife, and my former sisters-in-law sound like they would fit in that category. SC recently changed their laws: they never arrest ONE person for domestic violence. I bet after cooling her heels in jail one night she wouldn't have called again without a reason.

To backup BC, absolutely tell the complete truth in security applications. I saw one guy not get his security clearance because he didn't mention getting fired as a waiter (immediately after telling them he was quitting!) It must be discussed, but that is a matter for your security clearance paperwork not job interview (I said be honest, not stupid!)   

[Already Gone]

Man, I feel your pain.  I have an ex-wife too.  A misdemeanor conviction that old should not stand in your way as long as you tell all the details.  Considering that you were willing to tell it here in public, you should have no problem being forthcoming with the investigators.

A word of advice though:  The companies that do the investigations for nuke plants do not employ the brightest people.  They always call my house asking for me when I am obviously at a job thousands of miles away.  Then, when they finally get the idea that I'm gone from home, they still fedex stuff to my house.

Also, the references you give them should be expecting a call.  Nothing is worse than being caught off guard by someone asking a lot of personal questions about you.  The people you give for references will not even be asked a lot about you.  They figure that you will only give names of people who will give favorable info.  The only thing they really want to know from these people is the names of other people who know you.  This is known in the business as "developed references".  These are ther people whom they will ask the really good questions.  They figure that they can get more dirt from someone whom you did not name as a reference.  You might wish to work out in advance a list of names for your references to give as developed references.  You won't get the clearance until they can contact a certain number of these people.  So, the more names they get to start with will increase their chances of getting someone to answer the phone.  There is no way to rig this so that you can control who will be getting a call, so don't even try.  If it sounds like they are all reading from a script, they'll just throw those names out and ask for others.

You should do okay.  Just tell the truth and it will all work out in the end.

[valpal]

Beer Court - I would have to disagree about the companies that do the investigations for the nuke plants not being the brightest people.  I am sure that when they are attempting to contact you they are only utilizing the information that they are provided at the time.

In addition, if you could only imagine what it takes to help individuals piece together a 3 year employment history, you would be very surprised.

[Already Gone]

Actually, I think they cover both ends of the spectrum, leaving the middle empty.  It's probably just the phone interviewers who are a little daffy.  They just can't seem to understand the phrase "he's not here."