Refused DV (developed vetting) clearance

[Gibbon]

"Sign the OSA" is a figure of speech.

Right, got it at long last, its an official declaration that 'my friend has signed'. So some of the above is correct, but what you are signing for is that you know some of the information you will work with is covered by the act. Signing this is mandatory at some of the places he has been!

Annex C– Official Secrets Act declaration - GOV.UK

[NotAllThere]

Signing this is mandatory at some of the places he has been!

No one doubts that. It's just not a requirement of the act to sign anything for it to apply.

Of course the official secrets act is to protect officials. Not secrets.

[malvolio]

Right, got it at long last, its an official declaration that 'my friend has signed'. So some of the above is correct, but what you are signing for is that you know some of the information you will work with is covered by the act. Signing this is mandatory at some of the places he has been!

Annex C– Official Secrets Act declaration - GOV.UK

Which, I believe, is wot I sed earlier in the thread...

[TreeOfLife]

You are looking too deeply into this. You were rejected. If they had wanted any clarification they would have asked you directly.

They're trawling through your history, including mobile phone and internet usage, and for some reason some aspect of you hasn't fulfilled the criteria for DV.

You shouldn't worry about it. Think of the benefit, no more applying for roles that say "you must have current SC clearance and be prepared to go to DV level". No more waiting for 4 to 8 weeks to start a role only to be rejected. You can concentrate on SC roles or normal roles with basic BPSS/DBS clearance.

The reason people are joking about your post is because you are trying to find out information that you can't possibly find out. Move on.

Best of luck to you for the next role.

Hey, thanks for the considered response.

Given that I was refused DV, do you think it will affect my chances of getting SC?

Cheers.

[TreeOfLife]

As this is general I will play nicely, are you sure it was DV? DV involves a lot of background checks and interviews with family etc, maybe they said something.

Either way if it was SC or DV, can you appeal, due to the fact you will never find out why you were deemed a security risk to the nation the short answer is no, the longer answer noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Hey, yeah it was definitely DV.

[TreeOfLife]

To be serious for a moment, why do you think something as sensitive as failing a DV vetting is anything of concern for people who don't hold DV clearance? It's about assessing your suitability for handling material at Top Secret and above. If you fail, they sure as hell aren't to explain why, if only to prevent other people working out how to get around the vetting.

For that reason there is no appeal. It's done, you have to move on. It probably won't harm you getting an SC, which is one consolation.

And one more thought - you have blown any future chance of DV by talking about it on an open forum. It's called "secret" for a reason. If you don't believe me, go read the first half dozen pages of the OSA.

In order for me to have ''blown any future chances of DV'' I would had to have shared or disclosed information that carries restricted/confidential/secret/top-secret classifications which I didn't do in my original post. So your point is irrelevant here. But thanks replying in any case.

[malvolio]

In order for me to have ''blown any future chances of DV'' I would had to have shared or disclosed information that carries restricted/confidential/secret/top-secret classifications which I didn't do in my original post. So your point is irrelevant here. But thanks replying in any case.

Not irrelevant at all. Your original question showed a total lack of knowledge of not only how clearance works but why it works the way it does. Discussing DV on a public board is a seriously bad idea. The forms you filled in were protectively marked, and that means "Don't talk about them", and that includes discussing the process with anyone not already sufficiently cleared.

Unlike SC and below, DV is an expensive one-off because it is a wide-ranging test of character and integrity and not simply a risk assessment for a given role. They don't give second chances. So yes, being failed once means no more DV.

[Whorty]

Hey, thanks for the considered response.

Given that I was refused DV, do you think it will affect my chances of getting SC?

Cheers.

Depends which websites you've been browsing ... if they're the same as me, I wouldn't hold out too much hope to be honest. Just wash your hands before you flip the burgers

[northernladuk]

Hey, thanks for the considered response.

Given that I was refused DV, do you think it will affect my chances of getting SC?

Cheers.

The fact you discuss it in the bearpit section of an internet site? Yes definitely.

[TreeOfLife]

Not irrelevant at all. Your original question showed a total lack of knowledge of not only how clearance works but why it works the way it does. Discussing DV on a public board is a seriously bad idea. The forms you filled in were protectively marked, and that means "Don't talk about them", and that includes discussing the process with anyone not already sufficiently cleared.

Unlike SC and below, DV is an expensive one-off because it is a wide-ranging test of character and integrity and not simply a risk assessment for a given role. They don't give second chances. So yes, being failed once means no more DV.

Actually they DO give second chances - I have been given the chance to appeal. So it turns out that YOU actually don't know much about the process at all.