When a Background Investigator Calls: What Security Clearance Holders Should Know Under Continuous Vetting

Continuous Vetting is supposed to make the security clearance process more efficient, but investigators say a lack of communication is creating unnecessary headaches for everyone involved.

Continuous Vetting (CV) was designed to modernize the security clearance process, identifying potential security concerns as they arise rather than waiting years for a periodic reinvestigation. On paper, it makes sense. In practice? Some background investigators are finding themselves spending more time tracking down clearance holders than actually conducting interviews.

A recent ClearanceJobsBlog discussion highlights growing frustration among investigators assigned Reimbursable Suitability / Security Investigations (RSIs), particularly when subjects have no idea why they’re being contacted or what Continuous Vetting even means.

“Just a little rant about the RSI work. Anyone else having the same problems I am having getting Subject’s to cooperate? 100 percent of the time when I call they have no idea what is going on, what CV means, and feel like they are being scammed. With almost all the cases I get I have to leave numerous voicemails, emails, and contact the listed security personnel to intervene to get the Subject to cooperate. This is just pure madness that they decided to role out this program, think it a great idea to make Subject’s go through an interview having no idea what CV even is, and make us go through hoop after hoop just to get a Subject to cooperate. There has got to be a better way to get these cases taken care of!”

And really, secret squirrels are genuinely cautious – can you blame someone for being skeptical when a stranger calls out of the blue asking to discuss their background?

Investigators Are Spending More Time Chasing Subjects Than Interviewing Them

The original poster described a frustrating pattern: subjects aren’t answering calls, don’t understand why they need another interview, and sometimes assume the investigator is running a scam. The result? Multiple voicemails, unanswered emails, requests for assistance from security personnel, and cases that keep getting kicked back to investigators with instructions to continue trying.

Other investigators quickly chimed in with similar experiences. One reported completing just one interview out of five assigned RSI cases. Another estimated that only one or two subjects out of every five actually respond and cooperate.

These are individual experiences, not official program-wide statistics, but they suggest a communication problem that needs a look. Investigators aren’t necessarily arguing against Continuous Vetting. They’re questioning why so much responsibility for explaining the process falls on the person assigned to conduct the interview. Is there an education gap that clearance holders and would more security policy training benefit the workforce?

The Communication Gap Between Investigators, Security Officers, and Clearance Holders

One of the most interesting comments in the thread came from a Facility Security Officer (FSO), who pointed out another issue: security teams aren’t necessarily receiving notifications when an RSI is initiated for one of their employees. The FSO explained that they can sometimes see the activity in DISS, but only when checking an employee’s profile for another reason.

Security officers are often the first people cleared employees turn to with questions about their eligibility, reporting requirements, or unexpected investigative activity. But if they aren’t aware an interview has been requested, they can’t proactively prepare employees or help verify the legitimacy of the contact. For investigators, that means more time spent attempting to establish trust. For clearance holders, it creates confusion and potentially unnecessary anxiety. And for an already complicated security clearance process, adding another layer of uncertainty isn’t doing anyone any favors.

Why Are Some Investigators Revisiting Issues From Decades Ago?

Another frustration raised in the discussion involves the age and relevance of the issues triggering interviews. One investigator described an RSI involving an assault charge from nearly 30 years ago, when the clearance holder was a teenager. Others mentioned cases involving individuals who had already retired, issues previously disclosed during recent investigations, and financial concerns involving accounts in collections.

That raises a question: Are these follow-up investigations always being appropriately screened before they’re assigned? Continuous Vetting is intended to identify potential security concerns sooner, not necessarily to reopen every issue from someone’s past. According to DCSA, alerts are assessed for validity and whether they meet criteria for further investigation.

Of course, an old incident isn’t automatically irrelevant, and investigators aren’t the ones making final clearance determinations. But the experiences shared in the thread suggest that additional screening and better coordination could help reduce unnecessary investigative work.

What Should Clearance Holders Do When an Investigator Calls?

First, don’t automatically assume an unexpected interview request means you’re about to lose your clearance. A follow-up investigation may be intended to clarify information, establish context, or give you an opportunity to address a potential concern. And yes, investigators may contact you by phone, email, or text to schedule an interview.

If you’re contacted unexpectedly, here’s what you should do:

• Verify the investigator’s identity. DCSA maintains an official investigator verification resource and hotline at 878-274-1186.
• Contact your security officer. They may be able to help explain the process or direct you to the appropriate personnel.
• Don’t ignore legitimate requests. Failure to cooperate with required investigative activity can have consequences for your eligibility.
• Be honest and prepared. If an investigator wants to revisit a previously disclosed incident, provide accurate information and any relevant context or documentation.

Remember, an interview isn’t the same thing as an adverse clearance determination.

Could Better Coordination Fix the Problem?

Several participants suggested a relatively straightforward solution: contact and prepare subjects before assigning cases to field investigators. One commenter described previously working with an agency that had personnel responsible for reaching out to subjects in advance, discussing interview logistics, and confirming availability. That kind of coordination could help address several complaints at once. Clearance holders would know to expect contact. Security personnel could help explain the process. Investigators could spend less time chasing unanswered calls and more time conducting the interviews they’re assigned.

It wouldn’t eliminate every challenge associated with Continuous Vetting, but it could make the process less frustrating for everyone involved.

Continuous Vetting may be designed to catch security concerns earlier, but better communication could prevent those concerns from getting lost in a sea of unanswered voicemails.

Are you a background investigator, FSO, or clearance holder who’s experienced an RSI interview under Continuous Vetting? Join the conversation on ClearanceJobsBlog and share your experience.