Refused DV (developed vetting) clearance

[malvolio]

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.

No need to get smart, you haven't passed yet. It could be that one of the things you got failed on has proven to be wrong - for example someone said something in the interviews that has turned out not to be correct. And yes, there is an appeal, they spent several thousands to perform the vet, it would be unreasonable to assume there aren't cross checks in place.

I wasn't going to say that though - for one thing you're still discussing DV clearace on an open forum.

[northernladuk]

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.

I think the right of appeal is always there to fulfil some human rights needs. You can appeal your IR35 SDS with your client, who happens to be the party that did the SDS. Like that is really gonna work. Complete and utter waste of time but it's there to fulfil some misplaced obligation.

You can appeal as there may have been some incorrect information or they've gotten something fundamentally wrong but it doesn't mean a valid decision can be re-assessed. If, like most flawed appeals process, it's the same people dealing with the appeal that dealt with the original decision then it's pretty pointless except in rare instances where there has been an almighty balls up.

[OwlHoot]

I know a few people who claim to have signed it, and they don't seem to be shy about admitting it. There's always the chance they could be making it up...

Well I was first to crash through those Iranian embassy windows, closely followed by Lofty and the rest, but modesty forbids me talking about it (much) either.

[SueEllen]

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.

In the past some posters have had to go through threads deleting all their posts.

But that's what happens on a public forum where posts can easily be found using a search engine.....

[OwlHoot]

.. It could be that one of the things you got failed on has proven to be wrong ..

Seriously (following your lead), could it be the OP provided a CV, or referred to their CV when completing an employment/contract history form, but inadvertently left dates in that had been "stretched" (as most of us do) to minimise unsightly gaps between contracts? An average agency wouldn't care tuppence, because they know it happens and it isn't in their interest to weaken a candidate's CV, but some nitpicking security clerk checking the dates might take a dim view if discrepancies were found.

[BR14]

Well I was first to crash through those Iranian embassy windows, closely followed by Lofty and the rest, but modesty forbids me talking about it (much) either.

so you've been dead for ten years then?

[Lance]

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.

it's probably far simpler.
They may well have interviewed one of the referees who said that OP was a total untrustworthy clint. That would be enough.

[Lance]

Hey, thanks for the considered response.

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

Cheers.

what is most odd about this is I've never heard of anyone being sponsored for DV who doesn't already have SC. It's a lot of cost to the sponsor with significant risks. Risks that could be somewhat mitigated if the candidate has SC in the first.

I am amazed that any sponsor would go for DV without at the very least checking that the candidate had at least held SC previously.

[agentzero]

what is most odd about this is I've never heard of anyone being sponsored for DV who doesn't already have SC. It's a lot of cost to the sponsor with significant risks. Risks that could be somewhat mitigated if the candidate has SC in the first.

I am amazed that any sponsor would go for DV without at the very least checking that the candidate had at least held SC previously.

Perhaps not having SC is the reason they were refused DV!

[NotAllThere]

so you've been dead for ten years then?

It does at least explain the smell.