Alcoholism is a serious disease that falls under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) – if you are a clearance holder and need help, do so – seeking help for a disability, medical health condition, or mental health problem will not prevent you from getting or keeping a security clearance – but failing to follow through with treatment will.
This week on the ClearanceJobsBlog, a concerned ‘friend’ wants to report someone, but may or may not have concrete evidence that his drunk buddy shouldn’t be making character judgements as an investigator:
I have a friend who is an investigator and he has a conviction for a DUI and one more alcohol-related charge coming up. I think he might be a high-functioning alcoholic, but I’m not qualified to make that diagnosis. For some reason, his boss has allowed him to keep his job, and I just can’t understand how that is even possible. My wife has a clearance, and she explained the whole process and how hard it is to be granted one.
The thing is, I don’t think my friend should be making any character judgements or be in a position where he’s trusted to make this type of work. Another thing, he’s always out of money because he pretty much drinks it all and has a lot of debt. He also has poor judgment and I wouldn’t put it past him to do something stupid just to get $ for his next drink or pay some debts. He already owes money to almost everyone he knows, and he just goes from bad to worse.
Is there someone we can report him to? His boss knows about his first DUI, but he doesn’t know about his second DUI-related incident. How can he be trusted with this line of work when he’s almost always under the influence?
Last year we wrote about concerned citizens reporting security clearance holders. People need to remember not to let their emotions run amuck or make impulsive assumptions. Perhaps this person’s ‘friend’ didn’t feel comfortable telling them about alcohol treatment they are going through, or other stipulations that have been made directly with their employer. You may not see the full picture as an outsider.
However, if you’re genuinely worried about the wellbeing of others and the state of our national security, there are avenues to tackling the issue. Eventually, the investigator would have to mitigate any financial debt that is on the books or any arrests or criminal issues in the future pertaining to his clearance.
Rule of thumb if you are a civilian
If you are not affiliated with the government as an employee, military or contractor but see something that’s concerning, speak up.
Reporting an issue will not immediately cause a clearance denial or be a career killer for your ‘friend’, but it does allow the government to consider or open an investigation into potential issues if they are not aware about the second alcohol related incident. When in doubt, you would contact your local law enforcement or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Given the fact that an issue would need to be reported in this way should prevent individuals from making rash judgments based on minimal information. If you have concrete evidence someone is a security threat, contacting law enforcement is the right thing to do. If you have a ‘hunch’ or ‘don’t think the person can do their job’ – be a friend, not a reporter.
IF YOU HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE
Saying something to your Facility Security Officer is the right thing to do, but some clearance holders might be hesitant in reporting for fear of getting involved or experiencing backlash. The Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD)-3 imposes a requirement on clearance holders to alert their agency head or designee on reportable activities of other clearance holders that may be of potential security or counterintelligence concern in sensitive positions.
The SEAD 3 has newer self-reporting requirements that all clearance holders should familiarize themselves with.
For example, for reporting on individual culpability, individuals should report if there is a pattern of questionable judgement, irresponsibility, negligence, or carelessness. The report should include a statement on the administrative actions taken against the employee and details of the incident through an Incident Report in DISS which will be evaluated by the Vetting Risk Operations Center (VROC).
RECENT HISTORY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS
The original poster of the blog refers to their friend as an OPM investigator, so let’s remind folks of the recent history of background investigations.
In 2017, the DoD began planning the move of the National Background Investigation Bureau (NBIB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under its own umbrella. The next year, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) shifted background investigations under the DoD.
Presidential Executive Order 13869 finalized the move, devoting priorities to personnel vetting reform and Trusted Workforce.
The agency today is the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency or DCSA. DCSA conducts background investigations for 95% of the federal government, including 105 departments/agencies. DCSA also adjudicates 70% of the federal government’s adjudicative determinations.
Snitch. Rat. Tattletale.
No matter what you may be called, just use your best judgement if you are worried that the background investigation apparatus of the security clearance process is in jeopardy and there is questionable conduct going on.
Insider threats are a real and imminent risk to national security and there are typically indicating factors (or ones we only see because hindsight is 20/20).
