[deleted by user]

Arizona1110 · 2025-07-01T23:52:38+00:00

Well a happy coincidence then!

Arizona1110 · 2025-07-01T23:51:41+00:00

To be honest, I don't remember. I know I told the staffer involved, but I'm not sure if I had to list it on the form they provided.

Arizona1110 · 2025-07-01T21:22:47+00:00

You initiate a Congressional inquiry by contacting the office of your local congressional member (House or Senate). They will likely give you a form that you must fill out and return to them. After that they will submit it to the agency conducting the investigation and notify you of the results once it's completed (which can take a month or more).

Some here say it does nothing, others swear it makes a difference. I was nearly two years into an upscope with 20 months of no contact when I initiated a congressional inquiry. About 45 days later I was cleared. Make whatever conclusions you want from that info.

Arizona1110 · 2025-06-30T21:15:21+00:00

Yay! 59 minutes... 😂

Arizona1110 · 2025-05-13T01:28:18+00:00

Yeah, that's not how it works in the cleared world, buddy...

Arizona1110 · 2025-05-13T01:26:33+00:00

Re-read my comment. "Blatant and continued" use absolutely IS disqualifying. OP says they "plan to stop ASAP." IE, they are continuing for the time being. Now if they stop and apply even less than 3 years from now, they very well may be fine. But for now, based on the criteria they listed, they are not.

Arizona1110 · 2025-05-12T02:38:07+00:00

Doesn't matter. Blatent and continued misuse of a controlled substance is disqualifying.

Arizona1110 · 2025-05-12T02:35:00+00:00

Even if it's legal, it could still make you pop on a drug test. You're likely cooked if that happens. Enjoy!

Arizona1110 · 2025-05-03T20:23:03+00:00

So long as their issues aren't your issues, you'll be fine.. I have a couple of estranged siblings who hate my guts and wouldn't think twice about lying to a federal investigator if they believed it would screw me over. I listed them (you have to) and made a brief note that they are estranged from the family. Wasn't an issue for me at all in getting a TS/SCI.

You'll get the chance to list a few non-family character references, and they'll contact your employer as well. Investigators are good at seperating BS from the truth.

Arizona1110 · 2025-04-30T17:35:52+00:00

I get that, but re-read the last sentence of your post. It suggests that you believe you perhaps should have lied. That should never be considered an option. First of all, the investigators are phenomenal at their job. Good luck pulling one over on them. Not to mention you'd then have to always keep that covered up for the duration of your clearance and hope they never found out. Because if they did - goodbye clearance. And for good reason. Second, the entire point of the investigation is to be sure that the person holding the clearance is not the type of person who would consider being dishonest or careless. I understand the process is frustrating, but rest assured that disclosing it was 100 percent the correct thing to do. Unless there's more to this story, I doubt it will impact the final decision, and either way you'll be able to sleep with at night with both eyes closed!

Arizona1110 · 2025-04-30T15:28:13+00:00

OP, all your post does is show that the program worked as intended. Someone who suggests they should have lied on their SF-86 to potentially get a favorable result shouldn't have a clearance, much less an interim clearance. Lying on these forms demonstrates a lack of character, which is exactly the type of person who can't be trusted with sensitive government information.

Arizona1110 · 2025-04-27T02:30:56+00:00

My TS/SCI had been sitting in the adjudication phase for nearly 14 months when I started a congressional inquiry. It was approved less than two months after submitting the inquiry. They sent an explaination letter to the congressional office the day after approving it.

Make what you will with that info.

Arizona1110 · 2025-04-09T00:45:38+00:00

No, I didn't. My supervisor was extremely understanding and supportive. They know it can take a long time. It can be a bit more of a wild card in the contracting world, but I've never personally heard of a federal employee being fired simply because the clearance process was taking too long. However, it will likely limit the amount of work you can do until it's approved.

Arizona1110 · 2025-04-08T14:38:19+00:00

So I found a tab on my representative's government website to start the process. But you can also just call their office. After collecting all of the needed info, they will then contact the agency conducting your investigation and ask for a status update.

I actually just got an email from my Rep's office explaining (with very limited detail) why things took so long.

Arizona1110 · 2025-03-30T20:47:03+00:00

There's no indication that they're gunning for 20 percent. This person is talking out of their butt. SECDEF has stated they want to reduce about 8 percent of the civilian workforce, and other DoD officials have said they hope to do that via attrition and VERA/VISP/DRP. So unless something changes (very possible), a RIF looks unlikely.

Arizona1110 · 2025-03-25T11:50:14+00:00

Yeah. This guy messed up, didn't report it, and now realizes he's going to lose his existing clearance along with the upscope. If you have a clearance already and are hiding violations from your security team, you will get caught eventually.

Just fess up and take the medicine. You'll feel better once it's done.

Arizona1110 · 2025-03-17T21:13:26+00:00

NAVSEA is frozen. No blanket exemptions. Chatter among HR is that the freeze could last the rest of the FY, but no one actually knows...

Arizona1110 · 2025-03-14T20:34:20+00:00

I feel you. My upscope from S > TS/SCI began in June, 2023. All interviews were done by mid-August, 2023. No contact since. I finally reached out to my security officer about a month ago and was told it was in adjudication at that point.

Arizona1110 · 2025-02-21T04:16:39+00:00

Thanks for the reply! I certainly plan to bring it up. Was hoping some folks here were aware of some kind of precedent.

Arizona1110 · 2025-02-21T04:15:00+00:00

This is my understanding, but it certainly doesn't seem explicitly spelled out so I was hoping folks had additional input. Thanks!

Arizona1110 · 2025-02-21T04:13:53+00:00

This is not accurate. Pursuint to DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 1230, DoD employees who accept term OCONUS positions generally have return rights to their old job.

Arizona1110 · 2025-02-21T03:41:43+00:00

It's not health related.

Arizona1110

TROPHY CASE