Search

The present research is the second in a series of studies to test preliminary decision rules and provide automated approval estimates for a Department of Defense Adjudication Decision Support (ADS) system. This study further evaluated decision rules for automated screening of National Agency Check with Local Agency Checks and Credit Checks (NACLC) investigations. Two random samples were drawn from NACLC investigations, for Secret and Confidential clearance, closed by the Defense Security Service (DSS) in CY03. Since the results for the two samples were nearly identical, only results for the second sample are provided in this report. The results indicated that approximately 40% of determinations based on NACLC investigations could be eligible for automated approval under the reported ADS decision rules because these cases contained little or no adverse information of security concern. Implementation of this type of system could provide significant cost savings, improve adjudication timeliness, and allow the central adjudication facilities to focus human resources on complex cases and those with serious issues., Prepared in collaboration with Northrop Grumman Technical Services. The original document contains color images.

The Defense Personnel Security Research Center conducted research to develop a measure of investigation quality that can be used by agencies of the federal government as part of their personnel security programs. This effort focused on Single Scope Background Investigations (SSBI). The research involved an examination of investigation procedures, quality standards, and existing evaluation tools. Ultimately, a rating form was developed to assess the quality of investigations from different providers. The Single Scope Background Investigation Quality Rating Form (SSBI-QRF) was designed so that it could be used by different agencies to give feedback to investigation providers, for supervising and training investigators, and for oversight and monitoring of investigation products. The reliability and validity of the SSBI-QRF were assessed in two workshops with senior security personnel from various government agencies. Inter-rater reliability estimates for the rating items ranged from poor to excellent. The item content and the relationship between SSBI-QRF and other items were found to be adequate. The form was revised as a result of the reliability and validity findings. Recommendations for further research, development, and use of the rating form are discussed., The original document contains color images.

The Defense Personnel Security Research Center, p05/05 (PERSEREC) undertook a study to develop a definition of adjudication quality and outline a systematic approach that the Department of Defense (DoD) can adopt to assure the quality of adjudication decisions. Subject matter experts identified adjudication customers, products and services, and customer expectations and defined adjudication quality. A quality adjudication decision is a timely eligibility determination by a qualified adjudicator in accordance with national personnel security program regulations, policies, and procedures. The definition requires that standards and measures be established for timeliness, adjudicator qualifications, and adherence to guidelines. It was recommended that requirements be established in the DoD 5200.2-R for a DoD-wide quality assurance program and in JPAS for uniform reporting of adjudication case information and decision rationale. Further it was recommended that the program be developed and implemented with the participation of constituents with expertise and interest in adjudication. The program has the potential to facilitate reciprocity and trust among parties responsible for clearance eligibility determinations by assuring the quality of DoD adjudication.

The Defense Personnel Security Research Center (PERSEREC) conducted a review of Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) industrial security clearance decisions from 1996 to 2000 to identify and describe cases that meet the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 requirements concerning prison sentences, drug use, mental incompetence, and dishonorable discharge from the armed forces (Section 1071(c)). PERSEREC obtained electronic copies of the clearance decisions from DOHA. A text-based search and retrieval computer program was used to find text strings associated with imprisonment, drugs, mental incompetence, and dishonorable discharge. A review of those decisions resulted in 23 out of 921 cases with a prison sentence in excess of one year; only 3 were granted clearance. There were 148 cases citing drug use within one year of the close of record, and 25 were approved. No cases were approved when drug use occurred within six months of the close of record. There were no instances of mental incompetence or dishonorable discharge in the reviewed decisions. It was concluded that the impact of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 on the DoD can only be partially estimated by this study. The impact of the Act on DOHA industrial security clearance decisions may be minimal since very few clearances have been approved for recent cases that meet the provisions of Section 1071(c).

The present study examined the sources and methods used by private organizations for conducting applicant background checks. The goal of this research was to identify potentially advantageous screening practices that could be used in the Department of Defense (DoD) Personnel Security Program for conducting national security background investigations. A total of 82 companies completed a brief screening questionnaire, 54 of those companies answered additional questions, and 22 companies participated in interviews. This study found little evidence to indicate that private sector investigative sources or methods would be useful to the DoD for conducting national security background investigations. The federal government by and large examines more sources and conducts more thorough investigations than industry. In general, private employers (1) have less access to information about applicants; (2) conduct relatively inexpensive investigations in a short amount of time; (3) occasionally use alternative information sources; and (4) outsource many elements of background checks. It is recommended that the DoD periodically evaluate private sector screening programs and data sources in order to monitor progress.

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) conducts industrial security clearance reviews for Defense contractor employees who appeal the denial or revocation of a security clearance. In December, 1999, USA Today published an article suggesting that DOHA granted security clearances in a manner inconsistent with applicable adjudicative guidelines. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the clearance review decisions reported by USA Today were representative of all DOHA decisions resulting in the granting of a clearance. Results indicated that approximately 72% of DOHA clearance reviews resulted in a security clearance denial/revocation. DOHA denied a security clearance in approximately 86% of cases with issues similar to those presented in the USA Today article. Thus, in cases similar to those chosen by USA Today, DOHA usually denied rather than granted a security clearance.