Security Clearance (SC) Q&A Read first before asking questions

[malvolio]

DV could rather boringly be described as like SC but with an additional question about who your grandad is.

ermm...

The DV process involves interviewing family and friends in some depth as well as detailed looks at your financial and personal history. It is not only nothing like SC but is deeply invasive. Unlike the risk assessment based processes for the lower levels, it is concerned with the totality of your suitability for Top Secret (and above) material.

[PerfectStorm]

Looks like the SC form (National security vetting 001) link is broken on the government publications website but the DV form (National security vetting 002) makes interesting reading: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...curity-vetting

That's gone now, but there is inexplicably a copy of the DV and SC forms on the Guardian's website
DV: https://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-fil...orm_NSV002.pdf
SC: https://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-fil...8Compliant.pdf
(Spooks: nowt dodgy here, they're near enough the first result on Google)

DV could rather boringly be described as like SC but with an additional question about who your grandad is.

[malvolio]

I get tired of saying this but let's do it again...

Clearance is not a badge , a special coloured hat or anything else. It is a risk assessment, measuring a candidate's history against criteria specific to a given role. While a lot of that is shareable and repeatable there is no certainty that what happened for job A will be applicable for job B. So trying to guess what happens for a new application based on what happened before is a non starter.

DV is a bit different since it goes very deep into your background (see the fourth post at the start of this thread!) but while having DV means you dont have to worry about passing the lower levels it has no effect if you don't have or failed DV.

[David71]

i automatic fail because i failed dv?

Automatic? Nope.

[manohbrit]

..

[northernladuk]

Told you, pretty boring but could be useful if you wanted documented proof of your SC (and NPPV).

Bearing in mind your SC clearance can end after the assignment it doesn't prove anything really.

[David71]

Not exactly earth shattering but might be of interest to anybody with an NPPV with included SC (not an SC directly from UKSV).

The NPPV certificate now shows your SC status as well - previously it didn't mention it. Not sure when the change was, but must be since I last checked my certificate about 4 or 5 months ago.

Told you, pretty boring but could be useful if you wanted documented proof of your SC (and NPPV).

[Zombie]

You believe the new site's SSO. They are the ones making the decisions. Are you sure they asked the right people at company A?

It seems highly unlikely your clearance was dropped and you remained on site, unless you had moved to a role where clearance wasn't required (which seems unlikely but we don't know the history). Is company A someone like Capita that has many parts working separately from each other?

EDIT - Actually, ignore this. What you are asking here and in your other thread makes no sense.

Considering what I've seen it's not unlikely. I have an ex colleague who signed on with a new employer only to be escorted off site midday because their old employer had failed to let UK SV they were no longer employed with them. And several others who worked on a defence contractor client without actually being SC cleared at all. Never underestimate the incompetence of the "big" MSPs.

[malvolio]

Hi all,

Im in a bit of a strange position with my SC.

Company A took my SC clearance and confirmed to me in writing that it was valid until Jan 2029.

I moved to company B who were looking to move my SC to them. There was no gap in time when j moved from A to B.

Company B is telling me my SC was cancelled even before I joined company A! Whom I worked with for 2.5 years.

I went to company A to confirm if that was true, they still tell me it's active till Jan 2029!

Who do I believe as I'm in process of applying for a new Contract requiring SC.

You believe the new site's SSO. They are the ones making the decisions. Are you sure they asked the right people at company A?

It seems highly unlikely your clearance was dropped and you remained on site, unless you had moved to a role where clearance wasn't required (which seems unlikely but we don't know the history). Is company A someone like Capita that has many parts working separately from each other?

EDIT - Actually, ignore this. What you are asking here and in your other thread makes no sense.

[northernladuk]

His underlining was to "hide" a link to a URL, probably promoting a business he is involved with.

We've had this kind of thing a bit but it never fails to surprise me when someone does this veil posting inc their business but asks a really stupid question. I remember years ago some guy pushing his business either in his links or in the post text as well as user name and asked a particularly stupid question and got ripped a new one which then became the number 1 google result for his company for a while. They say any exposure is good exposure or something but I'd have to disagree in that instance.

Good spot though thanks.