Reply to: Level of Honesty in Security Clearance forms

[djw]

Hi All,

Thanks for the replies (a mixed bag, I'd say :-) )

And no, the original post is not a wind-up - genuine question and thoughts being solicited.

I honestly believe the role to be legit - I sat through 2 interviews with 2 lovely people who chatted endlessly re: the need for this position to be filled - a search which started in Oct.!! And I am the agent's only contractor that they put forth (which the client told me directly) so it's not in the agent's best interest to lose my forms or present another contractor to the client based on time-to-vet and the fact that they don't have another contractor.

But you're (all) correct - I am now concerned that my sealed envelope was opened. The agent told me that they themselves are security cleared, they specialise in providing SC contractors to several gov. clients (SC advise and info. is plastered all over their website) and that they ensure that they simply check the info. on the forms to guarantee the info. submitted requires no further clarification (she likened it to the post office clerk checking a passport application).

But why did she open the sealed envelope knowing that she can do *nothing* about whatever is or isn't written on that page? The info. can't be edited, corrected or omitted ... simply sent on as is, so she opened it for her own curiosity ??

Hmmmm ... now I'm (marginally) wound up - before 9am, damn it!! As advised, I am now going to formally complain first to the agency and go from there. I think I'm b*ggering my gig, but there's other irons in the fires ...

Cheers all,

[djw]

I worked on a contract with the Home Office sometime ago. Had no probs getting SC

Unfortunately, one of the girls had been done for having some weed years earlier. She only lasted the day.

Hi BB, did "she" actually get SC and then got found out for a non-disclosure? How did she actually get the gig in the first place and why did she only last the day?

Curious ...

Cheers

[BolshieBastard]

I worked on a contract with the Home Office sometime ago. Had no probs getting SC

Unfortunately, one of the girls had been done for having some weed years earlier. She only lasted the day.

[TykeMerc]

Thanks for the confirmation of my thoughts BrowneIssue, i knew that I had read the guidelines on others reading the form before.

I'd be inclined to make a complaint too since the Agent had absolutely no business reading the form let alone opening sealed pages.

[BrowneIssue]

Having dug a little further I would advise you to complain formally to the DVA or the client.

"Privacy of personal information
Should you wish only the Security Authorities to see your criminal declaration, detach the page and place it in a sealed envelope and write your full name and date of birth on the outside, and sign across the flap. Ensure that the envelope is stapled to the form. If you leave the page intact it can be read by your sponsor."

("For contractors, to ensure that the security authorities alone see your response on these matters, remove the section and place in an envelope.You should then seal the envelope, sign your name across the flap and attach it firmly to the front of the questionnaire before sending to your Sponsor.")

Notes for Sponsors
As sponsor, you will need to ensure that:
Under NO circumstances should you open any sealed envelope forwarded to you by the Vetting Subject as part of their application.

WHY is this person going through this information? What are they doing with it?

Links:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...Safeguards.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...tTheAgency.htm

[threaded]

djw, from what you say I think the role is bogus. Probably not even real forms or maybe some the agent had laying about the office.

Don't worry about it, just keep on looking for that next gig.

I'd also check bank accounts and credit cards a bit more closely for the next few months.

[pmeswani]

Hello,

Was wondering if I could solicit an opinion from anyone out there who has security clearance.

I've just gotten a contract requiring SC (which I don't have). I've just filled out the form and sent it back to my agent. In the form, there is a section asking for full and unconditional disclosure of past criminal activity which I filled in and sealed in a signed envelope as required. My agent opened this signed envelope (saying that they work with the SC vetting agents to help alleviate the workload and they're authorised to view this information - fine, I believe her), but then made measured comments about my disclosures, saying "well, it should be okay, but we'll just have to submit the application and see ..."

Sorry for the long-winded description, but my question is for those who have security clearance, in your opinion, do you think my declaration of:

a) a shoplifting conviction in Canada in 1984 (!!) - $200 fine
b) a formal caution *only* by Sommerset police in 2004 who confiscated certain "substances" found in my car (after I voluntarily disclosed them) on my way to Glastonbury

would have an adverse affect on the vetting process? The Sommerset caution would not even be on record now (was told it lasted 12 months only)! Nor would the shoplifting conviction.

I only ask as the agent who was quite chirpy and cheery up till now sounded quite guarded and "formal". I didn't even think she'd read the sealed envelope! And I honestly thought disclosing *everything* was a sign of honesty and trust - and that there are intelligent humans doing the vetting process which can put events into perspective.

Just curious as to what anyone else thinks.

Cheers

I am assuming this is not a windup... if that is true, then you have to be open and honest about everything and declare everything. If you don't and you get found out, you would damage your chances of getting SC Clearance. If you get it and you get found out, you will lose your SC Clearance.

[scotspine]

No it's not, SC clearance is granted (or refused) by the Defence Vetting Agency, the information on the form is confidential and nothing to do with the Client or Employment Agency.

Teachers don't generally have access to material marked as Secret or even Confidential according to UK Security requirements so they aren't subject to the same checks.

i agree. the info is strictly confidential and it seems that someone has not respected that.

[TykeMerc]

It really is down to your hiring manager.

I worked beside someone in the police that had a previous assault charge. Know a teacher that has 4 BoP charges.

No it's not, SC clearance is granted (or refused) by the Defence Vetting Agency, the information on the form is confidential and nothing to do with the Client or Employment Agency.

Teachers don't generally have access to material marked as Secret or even Confidential according to UK Security requirements so they aren't subject to the same checks.

[AlfredJPruffock]

OTOH, if the job is in Parliament, you should be ok, since these are probably not seen as "convictions" but more "entry requirements".



To the poster - your wee 'sins' are very trivial indeed - I wouldnt bother to declare them on those grounds - its ultimately your hiring manager who makes the decision anyway.

Repent and Sin no more (unless there is nobody looking) ...

[minestrone]

It really is down to your hiring manager.

I worked beside someone in the police that had a previous assault charge. Know a teacher that has 4 BoP charges.

[Board Game Geek]

) a shoplifting conviction in Canada in 1984 (!!) - $200 fine
b) a formal caution *only* by Sommerset police in 2004 who confiscated certain "substances" found in my car (after I voluntarily disclosed them) on my way to Glastonbury

would have an adverse affect on the vetting process?

So basically, robbing shops and substance abuse ?

It may count against you if you are going to work in a Pharma or a Retail outlet, as they will rightfully assume you are well dodgy.

OTOH, if the job is in Parliament, you should be ok, since these are probably not seen as "convictions" but more "entry requirements".

[BrowneIssue]

In the form, there is a section asking for full and unconditional disclosure of past criminal activity which I filled in and sealed in a signed envelope as required. My agent opened this signed envelope (saying that they work with the SC vetting agents to help alleviate the workload and they're authorised to view this information - fine, I believe her)

Bollocks.

Some larger agencies have their own security bod who arranges the clearance with the DVA. They do NOT have access to the police files, court records, Special Branch records etc. that DVA can (probably ) access.

That is totally out of order. I would be inclined to complain to the client.

but then made measured comments about my disclosures, saying "well, it should be okay, but we'll just have to submit the application and see ..."

Complain. The implication here is that you are sort of being advised to withhold information. I would now worry whether that part of the form will be submitted by the agent.

do you think my declaration of:
<stuff>
would have an adverse affect on the vetting process?

Failure to disclose *everything* can result in a delayed process, more forms to fill in or being turned down. And when clearance is turned down, you do not get told why.

I bet that agent is now cacking themselves. I also bet the role "goes away".

Edit: I also bet the role "goes away", not because the DVA turn you down, but because the agent will 'lose' the form and never get back to you to cover up their cock-up.

[scooterscot]

Listen -


No other person should have access to a completed SC form unless that person is the security officer of the end client. If this was not the person you handed it too... well keep an eye on your credit record in the coming months.


Regarding your concerns, it's honesty there looking for. You could be tax dodging murderer as long as you don't try and hide it. Ok maybe not but you get the drift.

[TykeMerc]

I'm not convinced that the Agent should have opened the sealed section, that bit is specifically for the DVA to look at and judge according to their guidelines. I realise that this isn't the question you asked, but I'm a little concerned by it.
For that matter the whole damn form is subject to strict Data Protection rules, I can't see why an Agent would have anything to do with the damn thing without your express permission, it should have been sent unopened to the Security Office of the ListX company or Ministry and then on to the DVA.

What I believe are called "spent" convictions will probably not make a huge difference, for that matter your full and frank disclosure will probably do your application far more good than harm as if they had turned up these items and you hadn't put them on the form it would have been pretty much an automatic rejection.