More evidence that State lags woefully behind OPM and DOD in performing fair security clearance assessments.
From the Army's website:
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, July 8, 2009) -- With the nation in the throes of an economic downturn and entering the seventh year of overseas combat, some Soldiers and civilians are worried about their security clearance.
The stress of combat and the rise in foreclosures have some Soldiers wondering if their security clearance will be impacted.
"All Army personnel should understand that they can obtain counseling services for financial and mental health issues without undue concern of placing their security clearance status in jeopardy," said Col. Edward Fish, commander, U.S. Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, known as the CCF.
Army leaders want to ensure Soldiers that the security clearance process is fair, equitable and comprehensive and the Army is taking steps to ensure it remains that way. Leading this effort is the deputy chief of staff, G-2, who is responsible for policy formulation, evaluation, and oversight of intelligence activities for the Department of the Army. This includes policy development and oversight of the security clearance process, to include oversight of the CCF.
The CCF reviews personnel security investigations to grant security clearances for Soldiers, civilian employees and contractor personnel. The CCF uses the national adjudicative guidelines to process security clearance requests. These guidelines outline the standard application of the process, which includes consideration of both favorable and unfavorable information, identify specific concerns, and highlight associated mitigating factors.
A bankruptcy or foreclosure will not automatically prevent one from obtaining or maintaining a security clearance, according to G-2 officials. They explain there are many conditions surrounding financial hardships that often mitigate security concerns.
The guideline for financial considerations focuses primarily on individuals who are financially overextended because they may be at risk of engaging in illegal acts to generate funds. For instance, financial guidelines consider "the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control...and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances." Adjudicators identify such conditions as mitigating circumstances.
For example, if an individual did not have financial problems in the past, yet was forced into foreclosure because of a permanent change of station, or PCS move, adjudicators would consider this a mitigating circumstance. However, if the individual has a history of not meeting financial obligations and now forecloses on a home, this would display a pattern of financial irresponsibility that cannot be easily mitigated, officials said.
Likewise, a bankruptcy will not automatically prevent obtaining a security clearance.
There are many other conditions surrounding financial hardships that often mitigate security concerns, officials said. About 98 percent of cases received by the CCF which involve financial issues were granted a security clearance. This trend has been consistent since 2005.
Individuals under financial duress are encouraged to contact their local Army Community Service or Military One Source to obtain financial counseling to determine how to best manage their debts.
In addition, Soldiers, civilians and contractors should not be forced to weigh the detrimental impacts of a possible loss of a security clearance against the choice of whether or not to seek mental health counseling or treatment, officials said.
Many Soldiers expressed an unwillingness to participate in behavioral or psychological health programs based on the perception that a "Yes" answer to the mental health question (Q21) on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Standard Form 86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions would lead to denial, suspension or possible loss of a security clearance.
The OPM conducts the background investigations on Army personnel seeking a security clearance. The OPM ensures that investigations are conducted in a manner compliant with the revised Q21, which excludes the reporting of treatment related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment, such as post traumatic stress disorder, known as PTSD, or mild traumatic brain injury.
Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information states mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a security clearance. Seeking support to address mental health issues demonstrates inner strength and embodies the Warrior Ethos, Army leaders have said.
Professional mental health counseling is not a threat to an individual's security clearance; rather it can be a positive factor in the security clearance process, officials said.
CCF's adjudicative history indicates that 99.98 percent of cases with psychological concerns obtained/retained their security clearance eligibility. Most cases that resulted in a denial or revocation had other issues in addition to psychological concerns.
The current policy provides both adjudicators and commanders flexibility to allow individuals undergoing counseling to maintain their security clearance.
Leadership must make it a priority to educate Soldiers, civilians and contractors that acting responsibly with regard to indebtedness and seeking mental health counseling is a positive course of action and will not result in the denial, loss or suspension of a security clearance, G2 officials said.
Ultimately, the well being and safety of Soldiers, civilians and contractors, especially those in the demobilization process, is of great concern to Army leaders, and personnel must not be discouraged from seeking assistance, Fish said.
Communication from leaders is key, Fish said. He added that Army personnel need to know that their chain of command, fellow Soldiers and coworkers will support their decision to seek the proper help for both mental health and financial concerns.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
New GAO Report - Security Clearance Reform Still a Long Way Off
The GAO released today a May 2009 report on the status of reforming the security clearance process government-wide.
In 2007, a Joint Reform Team, led by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was established to improve the clearance process across the government. Related to the just-released May 2009 report, GAO was asked to review the extent to which reform efforts (1) align with key practices for organizational transformations and (2) address identified factors for reforming the personnel security clearance process. To assess these objectives, GAO compared joint reform reports to key transformation practices and essential factors for reform.
GAO’s prior work, and the wording of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which initiated this process, had identified several factors key to reforming the clearance process. These included (1) developing a sound requirements determination process, (2) engaging in government wide reciprocity, (3) building of quality into every step of the process, (4) consolidating information technology, and (5) identifying and reporting long-term funding requirements.
However, GAO found, the Joint Reform Team’s information technology strategy does not yet define roles and responsibilities for implementing a new automated capability which is intended to be a cross-agency collaborative initiative.
Additionally, GAO found, the joint reform reports do not contain any information on initiatives that will require funding, determine how much they will cost, or identify potential funding sources. Without long-term funding requirements, decision makers in both the executive and legislative branches will lack important information for comparing and prioritizing proposals for reforming the clearance processes.
In short, much remains to be done, and in the interim, agencies like State remain able to abuse the system.
In 2007, a Joint Reform Team, led by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was established to improve the clearance process across the government. Related to the just-released May 2009 report, GAO was asked to review the extent to which reform efforts (1) align with key practices for organizational transformations and (2) address identified factors for reforming the personnel security clearance process. To assess these objectives, GAO compared joint reform reports to key transformation practices and essential factors for reform.
GAO’s prior work, and the wording of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which initiated this process, had identified several factors key to reforming the clearance process. These included (1) developing a sound requirements determination process, (2) engaging in government wide reciprocity, (3) building of quality into every step of the process, (4) consolidating information technology, and (5) identifying and reporting long-term funding requirements.
However, GAO found, the Joint Reform Team’s information technology strategy does not yet define roles and responsibilities for implementing a new automated capability which is intended to be a cross-agency collaborative initiative.
Additionally, GAO found, the joint reform reports do not contain any information on initiatives that will require funding, determine how much they will cost, or identify potential funding sources. Without long-term funding requirements, decision makers in both the executive and legislative branches will lack important information for comparing and prioritizing proposals for reforming the clearance processes.
In short, much remains to be done, and in the interim, agencies like State remain able to abuse the system.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Some Hope for Whistleblowers
As every organization concerned with the rights of government whistleblowers will tell you, summary suspension of security clearances and initiation of years-long fishing investigations is the primary tool used by the government to prevent the revelation by whistleblowers of wrongdoing by an agency.
Two bills currently in Congress, HR 1507 and S 372 address this issue by making the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement, a suspension or revocation of a security clearance, and an investigation of a whistleblower a "prohibited personnel practice" - making it illegal for agencies to abuse the security clearance process for that purpose.
A statement released by the White House on Thursday offers some hope that, despite some astonishing reverses on the issue of transparency, the White House supports these bills.
In particular, the statement (in reference to another bill) notes that: Administration officials are working closely with Senate and House staff to craft appropriate whistleblower enhancement protections for intelligence community whistleblowers through separate legislative vehicles, H.R. 1507 and S. 372, and urge that the whistleblower enhancement provision in this bill account for Administration proposals offered in those contexts to address constitutional and other concerns with the current formulation.
While small, the statement is a bold departure from the Bush administration's policy, which simply stonewalled any attempt to link whistleblowing to security clearance reform.
We'll keep you informed.
Two bills currently in Congress, HR 1507 and S 372 address this issue by making the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement, a suspension or revocation of a security clearance, and an investigation of a whistleblower a "prohibited personnel practice" - making it illegal for agencies to abuse the security clearance process for that purpose.
A statement released by the White House on Thursday offers some hope that, despite some astonishing reverses on the issue of transparency, the White House supports these bills.
In particular, the statement (in reference to another bill) notes that: Administration officials are working closely with Senate and House staff to craft appropriate whistleblower enhancement protections for intelligence community whistleblowers through separate legislative vehicles, H.R. 1507 and S. 372, and urge that the whistleblower enhancement provision in this bill account for Administration proposals offered in those contexts to address constitutional and other concerns with the current formulation.
While small, the statement is a bold departure from the Bush administration's policy, which simply stonewalled any attempt to link whistleblowing to security clearance reform.
We'll keep you informed.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Some Statistics From the AFSA Election
For those of you who are political junkies, some statistics:
The total number of ballots cast in the AFSA elections was 3326 (the most since 1997, when 3,460 were cast). Retirees cast 47% of all votes cast; active-duty State cast 44% of all votes cast; USAID cast only 6%; FCS 3%; FAS 1% and IBB .001%.
Approximately 23% of eligible voters voted, compared to 20% in 2007, 19% in 2005, 20%in 2003 and 26% in 2001.
Retirees voted at a much higher rate than active duty employees. 46% of all retirees cast a ballot in this race. In contrast, only 16% of State active-duty members voted.
The number of votes cast for AFSA president was 3321 (more than 100 people wrote in candidates or opted not to vote for president).
David Firestein defeated Susan Johnson in the four largest active-duty constituencies, as follows: State (Firestein = 50.5%); USAID (F = 59%); FCS (F = 76%); FAS (F = 87%). Overall, David Firestein defeated Susan Johnson among the active-duty voters (combined) with 53% of the total active-duty vote.
In the IBB constituency, only four (4) votes were cast -- Susan Johnson won IBB overwhelmingly, three votes to one.
Susan Johnson lost the active duty vote, but won the retiree vote, defeating David Firestein (in that constuency) by a margin of just over 60:40. Her entire margin of victory came from this one constituency.
Both Louise Crane and Nancy Brannaman defeated their opponents in the combined active duty constituencies. However, Andrew Winter barely defeated Nancy Brannaman among active-duty State (708 to 701). Louise Crane won 54% of the combined active-duty vote; and Nancy Brannaman won 53% of the combined active-duty vote.
In the State VP race, Daniel Hirsch won 46% of the vote, Diana Page won 39%, and Kathy Hadda won 15%. In all, 1420 active-duty State members cast ballots for this office. Notably, Daniel Hirsch won more votes for State VP than Steve Kashkett did in 2007, despite the fact that in 2009 there were three candidates and in 2007 only two. Most State voters in 2007 elected not to cast a vote for either VP candidate.
In terms of State reps, 27 candidates ran for 9 available seats. CLEAN Slate won 7 of the 9 seats, and represented 8 of the top 10 vote-getters in this race.
There were a total of 13,131 votes for State rep at play (1,459 x 9 votes each), and there were 27 candidates -- thus, to get the "average" number of votes, a candidate would have had to garner 486. Notably, all 8 CLEAN Slate State rep candidates were above that average. Only four of Team AFSA's Rep candidates exceeded the average, and five were below it.
Being on a slate was a clear advantage. The top seventeen candidates for State rep were all slate candidates. No independent candidate outpaced a slate candidate (of either slate) in this race. That was true in 2007, as well. In all, the 9 independent candidates, representing one-third of the candidates for State rep, collectively garnered about 20% of the total State rep vote.
The total number of ballots cast in the AFSA elections was 3326 (the most since 1997, when 3,460 were cast). Retirees cast 47% of all votes cast; active-duty State cast 44% of all votes cast; USAID cast only 6%; FCS 3%; FAS 1% and IBB .001%.
Approximately 23% of eligible voters voted, compared to 20% in 2007, 19% in 2005, 20%in 2003 and 26% in 2001.
Retirees voted at a much higher rate than active duty employees. 46% of all retirees cast a ballot in this race. In contrast, only 16% of State active-duty members voted.
The number of votes cast for AFSA president was 3321 (more than 100 people wrote in candidates or opted not to vote for president).
David Firestein defeated Susan Johnson in the four largest active-duty constituencies, as follows: State (Firestein = 50.5%); USAID (F = 59%); FCS (F = 76%); FAS (F = 87%). Overall, David Firestein defeated Susan Johnson among the active-duty voters (combined) with 53% of the total active-duty vote.
In the IBB constituency, only four (4) votes were cast -- Susan Johnson won IBB overwhelmingly, three votes to one.
Susan Johnson lost the active duty vote, but won the retiree vote, defeating David Firestein (in that constuency) by a margin of just over 60:40. Her entire margin of victory came from this one constituency.
Both Louise Crane and Nancy Brannaman defeated their opponents in the combined active duty constituencies. However, Andrew Winter barely defeated Nancy Brannaman among active-duty State (708 to 701). Louise Crane won 54% of the combined active-duty vote; and Nancy Brannaman won 53% of the combined active-duty vote.
In the State VP race, Daniel Hirsch won 46% of the vote, Diana Page won 39%, and Kathy Hadda won 15%. In all, 1420 active-duty State members cast ballots for this office. Notably, Daniel Hirsch won more votes for State VP than Steve Kashkett did in 2007, despite the fact that in 2009 there were three candidates and in 2007 only two. Most State voters in 2007 elected not to cast a vote for either VP candidate.
In terms of State reps, 27 candidates ran for 9 available seats. CLEAN Slate won 7 of the 9 seats, and represented 8 of the top 10 vote-getters in this race.
There were a total of 13,131 votes for State rep at play (1,459 x 9 votes each), and there were 27 candidates -- thus, to get the "average" number of votes, a candidate would have had to garner 486. Notably, all 8 CLEAN Slate State rep candidates were above that average. Only four of Team AFSA's Rep candidates exceeded the average, and five were below it.
Being on a slate was a clear advantage. The top seventeen candidates for State rep were all slate candidates. No independent candidate outpaced a slate candidate (of either slate) in this race. That was true in 2007, as well. In all, the 9 independent candidates, representing one-third of the candidates for State rep, collectively garnered about 20% of the total State rep vote.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Veterans Day, 2009
In case you missed it in the Wednesday, April 15, 2009, Japan Times:
The end of the long march
By LESTER TENNEY
Special to The Japan Times
CARLSBAD, Calif. — Sixty-seven years ago this month, on April 9, 1942, I was surrendered to the Japanese Imperial Army on the Bataan Peninsula in the Philippines. At my first prison camp, the Japanese commandant turned to the American prisoners of war (POWs) and told us that we were "lower than dogs" and "they (the Japanese) would treat us that way for the rest of our lives." Then he said, "We will never be friends with the piggish Americans.
For a long time I thought he was right. But we have both changed. This year, I welcomed the Japanese government's first official apology to the American POWs, 63 years after our liberation.
If my fellow soldiers or I had known the consequences of being a POW of the Japanese, we would have fought to the death. After three long months of jungle fighting against a better-equipped invasion force, the American and Filipino troops were starving, sick, exhausted and out of ammunition.
At surrender, we were immediately forced to march 105 km through the steaming Bataan Peninsula without food, water, medical treatment or rest. Today, the Bataan Death March is remembered as one of the worst war crimes of World War II.
I will never forget my buddies who were shot simply for trying to get a drink of water; crushed by a tank for stumbling; bayoneted just because they could not take another step; or forced at gun point to bury alive the sick. I bear a deep scar where a Japanese officer on horseback brought his samurai sword down on my shoulder.
Those who survived the Death March faced over three years of unimaginably brutal imprisonment. Many, like me, were herded into "Hell Ships," packed shoulder to shoulder without food or sanitation and shipped to factories, mines and docks across the Japanese Empire. The survivors were literally sold to private Japanese companies to work sustaining wartime production.
I dug coal in a dangerous Mitsui Corporation-owned mine. Like all POWs, I was overworked, beaten, humiliated and starved. The damage and suffering we endured from these companies' employees were comparable to, and sometimes worse than, that inflicted upon us by the Imperial Japanese military. Among World War II combat veterans and former POWs, those who were prisoners of the Japanese have the highest percentage of post-traumatic stress disorders. To say the least, we POWs had and still have intense feelings about Japan.
Yet the Japanese commandant who belittled his American captives was wrong. The United States and Japan have become friends and close allies — a result we welcome. My anger has been tempered by the many Japanese people who have welcomed me to Japan. Personal friendships and common goals heal many wounds.
Our unfortunate history came largely to closure in a personal meeting with the Japanese ambassador to the U.S. and his wife last November. I was finally able to tell a Japanese official my story. He heard of my humiliations, saw my scars and learned of my Japanese friends who have helped me overcome my POW trauma.
I asked for the ambassador's help in requesting three things from his government so that justice is achieved for POWs: (1) an official apology; (2) an appeal to companies to apologize for their wartime use of POWs; and (3) a reconciliation project.
In December, the ambassador wrote me with news for which I have waited decades. His letter said that Japan's government extends "a heartfelt apology for our country having caused tremendous damage and suffering to many people, including those who have undergone tragic experiences in the Bataan Peninsula and Corregidor Island in the Philippines."
This acknowledging gesture was followed in February by a Cabinet-approved statement to a member of the Diet that extended the apology to all "former POWs." It is the first official apology specifically to mention POWs or any particular group hurt by Imperial Japan.
We POWs accept these long-sought apologies and now ask Japan to state them for all to hear and understand. I trust that my two other requests will be fulfilled soon. It has taken nearly seven decades, but Japan's recognition of its mistreatment of POWs attains historic justice and brings fullness to the U.S.-Japan relationship. A future of a peaceful alliance is what we really wanted in the first place.
Dr. Lester Tenney is a professor emeritus of business administration from Arizona State University and commander of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor. He is a survivor of the Bataan Death March and slave labor in a Mitsui coal mine.
The end of the long march
By LESTER TENNEY
Special to The Japan Times
CARLSBAD, Calif. — Sixty-seven years ago this month, on April 9, 1942, I was surrendered to the Japanese Imperial Army on the Bataan Peninsula in the Philippines. At my first prison camp, the Japanese commandant turned to the American prisoners of war (POWs) and told us that we were "lower than dogs" and "they (the Japanese) would treat us that way for the rest of our lives." Then he said, "We will never be friends with the piggish Americans.
For a long time I thought he was right. But we have both changed. This year, I welcomed the Japanese government's first official apology to the American POWs, 63 years after our liberation.
If my fellow soldiers or I had known the consequences of being a POW of the Japanese, we would have fought to the death. After three long months of jungle fighting against a better-equipped invasion force, the American and Filipino troops were starving, sick, exhausted and out of ammunition.
At surrender, we were immediately forced to march 105 km through the steaming Bataan Peninsula without food, water, medical treatment or rest. Today, the Bataan Death March is remembered as one of the worst war crimes of World War II.
I will never forget my buddies who were shot simply for trying to get a drink of water; crushed by a tank for stumbling; bayoneted just because they could not take another step; or forced at gun point to bury alive the sick. I bear a deep scar where a Japanese officer on horseback brought his samurai sword down on my shoulder.
Those who survived the Death March faced over three years of unimaginably brutal imprisonment. Many, like me, were herded into "Hell Ships," packed shoulder to shoulder without food or sanitation and shipped to factories, mines and docks across the Japanese Empire. The survivors were literally sold to private Japanese companies to work sustaining wartime production.
I dug coal in a dangerous Mitsui Corporation-owned mine. Like all POWs, I was overworked, beaten, humiliated and starved. The damage and suffering we endured from these companies' employees were comparable to, and sometimes worse than, that inflicted upon us by the Imperial Japanese military. Among World War II combat veterans and former POWs, those who were prisoners of the Japanese have the highest percentage of post-traumatic stress disorders. To say the least, we POWs had and still have intense feelings about Japan.
Yet the Japanese commandant who belittled his American captives was wrong. The United States and Japan have become friends and close allies — a result we welcome. My anger has been tempered by the many Japanese people who have welcomed me to Japan. Personal friendships and common goals heal many wounds.
Our unfortunate history came largely to closure in a personal meeting with the Japanese ambassador to the U.S. and his wife last November. I was finally able to tell a Japanese official my story. He heard of my humiliations, saw my scars and learned of my Japanese friends who have helped me overcome my POW trauma.
I asked for the ambassador's help in requesting three things from his government so that justice is achieved for POWs: (1) an official apology; (2) an appeal to companies to apologize for their wartime use of POWs; and (3) a reconciliation project.
In December, the ambassador wrote me with news for which I have waited decades. His letter said that Japan's government extends "a heartfelt apology for our country having caused tremendous damage and suffering to many people, including those who have undergone tragic experiences in the Bataan Peninsula and Corregidor Island in the Philippines."
This acknowledging gesture was followed in February by a Cabinet-approved statement to a member of the Diet that extended the apology to all "former POWs." It is the first official apology specifically to mention POWs or any particular group hurt by Imperial Japan.
We POWs accept these long-sought apologies and now ask Japan to state them for all to hear and understand. I trust that my two other requests will be fulfilled soon. It has taken nearly seven decades, but Japan's recognition of its mistreatment of POWs attains historic justice and brings fullness to the U.S.-Japan relationship. A future of a peaceful alliance is what we really wanted in the first place.
Dr. Lester Tenney is a professor emeritus of business administration from Arizona State University and commander of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor. He is a survivor of the Bataan Death March and slave labor in a Mitsui coal mine.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Taking the High Road
I've always said that the mark of a well-run organization is not the absence of problems, but the way in which problems are addressed. A well-run, accountable, organization, owns up to its problems, and fixes them.
Two recent events show again how law enforcement and security clearance professionals do things.
First, a recent Washington Post article discusses the fact that, since 1977, half a dozen OPM security clearance investigators have been charged with falsifying information in security clearance cases.
"Five investigators have pleaded guilty; one was convicted last year after a week-long trial in federal court in the District. Most have received probation. Two await sentencing.
In court papers, prosecutors say the workers lied about having interviewed the friends, co-workers or former professors of applicants seeking government jobs requiring security clearances at Treasury, Defense and other agencies.
One investigator admitted he lied in 30 of 67 background investigations. Another said he lied in a dozen."
What is important here is not that background investigators lied. OPM's 1,540 staff investigators and 5,300 contractors conducted more than 2 million background checks last year. That six of those 6,840 investigators (one tenth of one percent) were corrupt should surprise no one. In any group that size, someone is going to act badly.
What is important is how OPM handled the situation. OPM "discovered the false reports after mailing questionnaires to about 20 percent of those whom investigators said they had interviewed."
In other words, OPM actually conducted quality control procedures to verify the accuracy of investigations. And, as recommended in a recent Foreign Service Journal article by AFSA Vice Presidential candidate Daniel M. Hirsch, they went to the sources of the interviews, and reinterviewed the sources. Because reinterviewing the sources is the only way to know whether the investigators quoted those sources accurately or not.
Unlike OPM, DS has taken no steps whatsoever to either investigate allegations of investigative malfeasance, nor institute quality controls to prevent them. The investigative function is, and remains, one of the few and perhaps the only process in the State Department that is completely immune from oversight.
Similarly, earlier this week, a Federal Judge called for a criminal investigation into the behavior of Federal prosecutors in the case of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. These prosecutors allegedly violated Ted Stevens' constitutional right to a fair trial, something that Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan found unconscionable.
"For nearly 25 years, I've told defendants appearing before me that in my courtroom they will receive a fair trial and I will make sure of it," the judge said. "In nearly 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and the misconduct I have seen in this case."
The judge appointed Henry F. Schuelke III, a respected private attorney in Washington and a former prosecutor, to investigate. If he finds evidence of crimes and the prosecutors are convicted, they could face prison time.
Among other things, prosecutors interviewed a key witness, but made no official record of it so they would not be forced to give the record to the defense. This is eerily similar to DS actions in a recent security clearance case. The difference is that, for the Justice Department, such improprieties are an embarrassment and an offense, whereas for DS, they are business as usual.
Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, made a statement that would surely provoke apoplexy in DS's Director of Security Infrastructure. According to the Associated Press, "Holder said in response to the case that he's been telling lawyers in his department that their job is to do justice, not just win cases."
In fact, Holder requested a "thorough review" of the matter even before Judge Sullivan's finding.
The Justice Department is a professional organization.
Like OPM, when one of their own acts badly, they take it seriously.
Too bad DS can't get with the program.
Two recent events show again how law enforcement and security clearance professionals do things.
First, a recent Washington Post article discusses the fact that, since 1977, half a dozen OPM security clearance investigators have been charged with falsifying information in security clearance cases.
"Five investigators have pleaded guilty; one was convicted last year after a week-long trial in federal court in the District. Most have received probation. Two await sentencing.
In court papers, prosecutors say the workers lied about having interviewed the friends, co-workers or former professors of applicants seeking government jobs requiring security clearances at Treasury, Defense and other agencies.
One investigator admitted he lied in 30 of 67 background investigations. Another said he lied in a dozen."
What is important here is not that background investigators lied. OPM's 1,540 staff investigators and 5,300 contractors conducted more than 2 million background checks last year. That six of those 6,840 investigators (one tenth of one percent) were corrupt should surprise no one. In any group that size, someone is going to act badly.
What is important is how OPM handled the situation. OPM "discovered the false reports after mailing questionnaires to about 20 percent of those whom investigators said they had interviewed."
In other words, OPM actually conducted quality control procedures to verify the accuracy of investigations. And, as recommended in a recent Foreign Service Journal article by AFSA Vice Presidential candidate Daniel M. Hirsch, they went to the sources of the interviews, and reinterviewed the sources. Because reinterviewing the sources is the only way to know whether the investigators quoted those sources accurately or not.
Unlike OPM, DS has taken no steps whatsoever to either investigate allegations of investigative malfeasance, nor institute quality controls to prevent them. The investigative function is, and remains, one of the few and perhaps the only process in the State Department that is completely immune from oversight.
Similarly, earlier this week, a Federal Judge called for a criminal investigation into the behavior of Federal prosecutors in the case of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. These prosecutors allegedly violated Ted Stevens' constitutional right to a fair trial, something that Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan found unconscionable.
"For nearly 25 years, I've told defendants appearing before me that in my courtroom they will receive a fair trial and I will make sure of it," the judge said. "In nearly 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and the misconduct I have seen in this case."
The judge appointed Henry F. Schuelke III, a respected private attorney in Washington and a former prosecutor, to investigate. If he finds evidence of crimes and the prosecutors are convicted, they could face prison time.
Among other things, prosecutors interviewed a key witness, but made no official record of it so they would not be forced to give the record to the defense. This is eerily similar to DS actions in a recent security clearance case. The difference is that, for the Justice Department, such improprieties are an embarrassment and an offense, whereas for DS, they are business as usual.
Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, made a statement that would surely provoke apoplexy in DS's Director of Security Infrastructure. According to the Associated Press, "Holder said in response to the case that he's been telling lawyers in his department that their job is to do justice, not just win cases."
In fact, Holder requested a "thorough review" of the matter even before Judge Sullivan's finding.
The Justice Department is a professional organization.
Like OPM, when one of their own acts badly, they take it seriously.
Too bad DS can't get with the program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
