Originally posted by SimonMac
View Post
The process can only happen by the new employer sending a transfer form to DBS-NSV (assuming List X) and they will then make the arrangements to change the sponsor. There may be decisions on whether or not to accept the SC or DV when they get the full details of the file including the assessed risk level and any caveats.
Incidentally, the 12 months is not a hard-and-fast rule, and can be flexed slightly based on individual circumstances. It is formed around the risks of not knowing what a cleared invididual was doing over that time - given that sometimes transfers can take a while to complete, generally if you were known to the new sponsor before the 12 months were up there is no reason for there to be a problem if the transfer isn't completed until a while later - the file isn't automatically closed by DBS-NSV on the day the twelth month expires.
There are slight variations depending on whether the individual is employed by a public body or a List X (either before or after transfer) as (to put it loosely) the public bodies just get a report by DBS, and are responsible for making their own risk decisions on whether to grant the clearance or vetting (so, potentially, anything goes), whereas for List X the risk is ultimately owned by MoD and hence DBS-NSV apply their guidelines to what activities or history (and level of risk) are acceptable before a clearance can be granted. Therefore a clearance might have been granted with things that a public body were happy about in the individual circumstances, but that DBS-NSV find don't comply with their baselines for List X clearances.
Everything for FCOS is broadly the same, some differences for the Agencies due to their particular operating environments - there is no nobody else allowed to do the casework for SC or DV, but as stated it is the risk owner who makes the ultimate decision on what is acceptable in each case.
Understanding the system is a struggle, given that it is more broad rules than tight definitions, and consequently it is dangerous to look at any one individual's experiences (in terms of time overseas, financial or conviction history) and try to draw conclusions about what would be accepted from others - the decision is made on a whole picture, including the role and location to be worked in. I also couldn't claim that the whole thing always make conherent sense - it is partly a product of a long history, and could possibly do with a 'from scratch' rethink in terms of some elements of the policy, but that appears to be too painful an area for Cabinet Office and MoD to want to get in to, as it could have implications on the many already working with it.
Finally, I should of course say that the above is based on the policy and theory, but individual mileage may vary! There are certainly some odd practices out there.
Comment