Reply to: Refused SC clearance. Looking for people experienced with the SC process.

[tarbera]

They probably know the difference between their and there, though.

Possibly for a teaching role

[jamesbrown]

They probably know the difference between their and there, though.

[TheFaQQer]

Indeed, a PhD = burger flipper (or teacher) without 20 years experience

I know some people that take PhD off there cv as they look like egg heads and don't get the contract

They probably know the difference between their and there, though.

[tarbera]

That depends entirely on your area of work. It's unlikely to have any financial benefit in IT, but a Ph.D. is effectively a license to practice, and you wouldn't get work in some areas without one (and the rates on offer in some of these areas are, indeed, way in excess of what you could expect in IT). In any case, I think it's moot for the OP, who wasn't coming at this from a contracting angle.

Indeed, a PhD = burger flipper (or teacher) without 20 years experience

I know some people that take PhD off there cv as they look like egg heads and don't get the contract

[jamesbrown]

No one has actually mentioned it's pointless doing a PhD anyway, just a waste of a few years of your life (like an MBA) it adds no bucks to your day rate

That depends entirely on your area of work. It's unlikely to have any financial benefit in IT, but a Ph.D. is effectively a license to practice, and you wouldn't get work in some areas without one (and the rates on offer in some of these areas are, indeed, way in excess of what you could expect in IT). In any case, I think it's moot for the OP, who wasn't coming at this from a contracting angle.

[tarbera]

No one has actually mentioned it's pointless doing a PhD anyway, just a waste of a few years of your life (like an MBA) it adds no bucks to your day rate

[SimonMac]

It could be something as simple as you don't have enough of a history which in itself is a reason to raise doubts, however the long and short is you will never find out why you have been rejected. Its not nice to hear but move on and try something else.

[SueEllen]

Can you really have your life ruined in the short term?

Agreed.

It's probably a lucky escape.

Now you can go anywhere in the world and get work with your PhD. The UK is not known for paying those with PhDs particularly well.....

[northernladuk]

could practically ruin my life in the short term

Can you really have your life ruined in the short term?

[CloudWalker]

Could be the Chinese GF.
But it gos both ways, as my wife is Chinese and her brother in China tried for a SC job in the Chinese govenment and failed because of his Sisters English husband

[BlasterBates]

That's very good news. To be successful in research you need to be able to publish your results, so this sounds like a much better offer. It would be very difficult with a "top secret PhD".

Probably the best thing that could have happened

You now ought to be able to go to international conferences with your girlfriend to exotic tropical locations and discuss your results without any problems.

[hellsheep]

BlastedBates has pretty much nailed it. I probably won't be able to discuss why I failed with the officials which is why I came here - to look with people with experience in this process to identify potential issues I might have.

I've reiterated this several times but I guess I will reiterate it again. I was completely honest. Why would I come and lie here on a forum of no consequence if I didn't think I was being honest? If I did miss something out it was due to ignorance not dishonestly. Stop implying I'm trying to hide something - I'm not. I really do feel that anything I could've listed, I listed. I didn't even have to list my girlfriend as there was no paper trail connecting us. Perhaps I was overly honest, as I'm starting to think that was probably the reason I failed. The useful replies here have led be to believe it's probably her as I literally have nothing else weird about me that a large amount of other British citizens don't have. What makes me more confident it's probably that is that choosing to not take me has literally wasted about half a year of everyone's time and set back the project significantly so it must have been something kind of major.

And malvolio, please try to keep in mind that this decision could practically ruin my life in the short term as I've had to relocate and spend basically 3 months accumulating debt because I've been waiting for the result of security clearance (long story). I came to this forum for help. Yes, I know that there is a 99.99% chance that I won't overturn the decision and what's done is done. But doing this kind of work for this organisation is a dream for me, and I'm trying to work out if I can ever live this dream or if it will never be a possibility. I don't need to be put down more by you. If you're going to come back and offer another overly blunt and non-constructive reply please don't bother.

If anyone's interested though, the government liaison I've been in contact with found another government department that may be able to give me the same deal for a different project but I won't need a clearance which is really good news for me if it all works out. I'm still waiting for something on paper though, because I've been screwed around enough already.

[BlasterBates]

or it could be his relationship...

https://www.gov.uk/security-vetting-and-clearance

When an individual holding a security clearance marries, re-marries or sets up a stable unmarried relationship living with someone as a couple, there is a requirement for his/her security clearance to be revalidated. It is the responsibility of all vetted personnel to report such changes to DBS NSV.

Sure this time he's failed he won't get it if he reapplies for the same department at the same clearance level and he has to move on, and they will check your partner/spouse.

As Sue Ellen said she knew Chinese citizens who were advised they had no chance of getting SC. This does seem to be a big issue.

[malvolio]

No-one disputes that, but there's no harm in pondering what the problem was if the OP wants to work in this area, to assess his chances of getting work there in the future.

It's pointless for you, but not for him.

Obviously he's a security risk. From the information he's given either it was not "being honest" (traffic offence) or because he has a Chinese girlfriend. Could be either, but no harm in thinking about other problems.

It is precisely because they don't discuss the reason for rejection that we're discussing it instead.

I'm also familiar with the processes by which risk assessment is carried out, and it just involves common sense (i.e. threats analysis), so we can certainly speculate here and come up with reasonable answers.

Also through discussing it we've established there are different clearance levels, and hence because he failed this level doesn't mean he wouldn't pass less rigorous checks or even more rigorous checks in a different area.

Having failed once, what do you think the first thing that will pop up on Cerberus will be if he applies again? Yes, you may get cleared at some point in the future depending on changes in your life or on the particular requirements of the role but this one is dead and buried. All I'm saying is he will never know what he failed on.

As for discussing, feel free. I won't be and I'd rather not get involved in exploring ways to buck the security system. As it says in the big sticky thread (several times), simply tell them everything, honestly and openly, and let them decide what matters. Seems the OP missed that bit.

[BlasterBates]

But I have, and I have worked with the Cabinet Office on clearance issues. You won't be told why you failed for the reason I gave earlier, so it's pointless speculating. It's a risk assessment exercise primarily so discussing the possible risks is not going to happen

No-one disputes that, but there's no harm in pondering what the problem was if the OP wants to work in this area, to assess his chances of getting work there in the future.

It's pointless for you, but not for him.

Obviously he's a security risk. From the information he's given either it was not "being honest" (traffic offence) or because he has a Chinese girlfriend. Could be either, but no harm in thinking about other problems.

It is precisely because they don't discuss the reason for rejection that we're discussing it instead.

I'm also familiar with the processes by which risk assessment is carried out, and it just involves common sense (i.e. threats analysis), so we can certainly speculate here and come up with reasonable answers.

Also through discussing it we've established there are different clearance levels, and hence because he failed this level doesn't mean he wouldn't pass less rigorous checks or even more rigorous checks in a different area.