Govt./Security Clearance

[robmazco]

So out in the world, some jobs will require or ask about Government or Security clearance.
Is this usually done by the hiring company? Is it obtainable on your own?
Are there different ones?
..and whatever else I didnt ask about

thanx in advance

 

[tfg13]

There are different levels of a Security clearance. There are also different departments that require them. For example, there are Department of Defense (DoD), and Department of Justice (DoJ) security clearances. Once you have one, they are usually easily transferable, with some gotcha's that employers the employ personnel with clearances easily overcome.

You cannot obtain a security clearance on your own, without being sponsored by a government entity (the various department of's). I don't necessarily think you would want to anyway. The cost for a top secret clearance is somewhere between $3000 to $15000.

A bit of reading on this might help you out:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/security.htm

 

[SQLSister]

If a job requires a clearance, it is very rare for the company to pay to get one. The only times I know of that they do this is if the professional specialty is so rare they cannot find someone with an existing clearance. This is becasue the delay to get a clearance is months long and they don't want to pay some one for months who can't work on their project and who in the end may not get the clearance. The best way to obtain a clearance is to join the military.

"NOTHING is more important in a database than integrity." ESquared

 

[KornGeek]

The best way to obtain a clearance is to join the military.

That all depends on how you define "best".

 

[tfg13]

Not all jobs in the military require a clearance, therefore, joining the military does not guarantee a clearance.

However, there are plenty of companies that will pay to get the person "cleared". I know of several companies. The common misconception is that a person can't work until the clearance is completed. The truth is, once the paperwork is submitted by the person attempting to get the clearance, they are given an interim clearance, which means they can work.

You can't discount getting a government job itself. Not all government positions require a clearance, but if the job you get requires one, you will inevitably get a clearance.

 

[cdogg]

"...they don't want to pay some one for months who can't work on their project..."

That is making a big assumption that companies are prone to hire new employees right before the start of a major project. Even when that is true, there are often individual roles and small pieces within a particular project that can be worked on while the new hire is being vetted for clearance.

Also, the lower government clearances such as "confidential" and "secret" are much easier to obtain in a shorter amount of time as opposed to "top secret". In fact, it is rare for confidential clearance to take longer than a few weeks. So it really depends on what type of clearance you are referring to.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[mrdenny]

Since I've never held a security clearance, and probably never will as I don't see myself working for the government any time soon.

I'm curious, what would be the things that would stop a person from getting a security clearance (at both ends of the spectrum)?

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration / Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005) / Database Developer (SQL 2005)

My Blog

 

[tfg13]

The first things that will disqualify someone is not being a U.S. citizen.

The second thing that usually disqualifies someone is anything that could be used to coerce the individual for information. Things such as financial issues, legal issues, and/or life issues.

Another thing that can disqualify someone is lying on the application about something, and it is discovered during the investigation, that the individual did actually do x,y, and/or z.

The below link has additional info, but should not be considered the only source:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/security2.htm

 

[cdogg]

On the higher end of the spectrum, they will interview friends, family and past co-workers to gather as much information they can about character. Once I was interviewed on behalf of a friend seeking top secret clearance. The interviewer asked a wide range of questions about things ranging from drug use (including alcohol) to behavior (does he show up on time, is he loud & obnoxious at get-togethers, etc). They vet whatever they can to gauge the applicant's trustworthiness.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[ettienne]

The first things that will disqualify someone is not being a U.S. citizen.

Not true.
I'm not a US citizen and I hold a security clearance. Sure it is becoming increasingly difficult for non-US citizens to hold one (thanks to Homeland Security). Obviously there is a limit to the level of security clearance one can obtain.

A criminal record is also a sure way to be denied a security clearance.

 

[tfg13]

If you are not a US Citizen, you will NOT have a clearance, period. Unless you are a dual citizen, you will NOT get a clearance, and even then your allegiance to the US can and will be questioned.

I've held a clearance since 1991, and have over the years watched as many young men who are citizens of US territories, be denied clearances, because they were not US citizens.

That being said, since there are several different departments that can "grant" clearances, I am only talking about DoD, FBI, and a few others that I have experience with.

 

[harebrain]

If you are not a US Citizen, you will NOT have a clearance, period.

Again, not true, even (or especially) with DOD. If you have seen citizens of US territories denied clearances, there is ANOTHER reason other than citizenship.

Among the lower classifications used in the military are
[UL][li]CONFIDENTIAL[/li]
[li]CONFIDENTIAL-NOFORN[/li]
[li]SECRET[/li]
[li]SECRET-NOFORN[/li][/UL]
If it were impossible for a non-citizen to obtain a clearance, two of those classifications would not exist.

 

[toddl]

This topic peaked my interest a bit, but from the information that I've read, it specifically states that Non-US citizens are not eligible for a security clearance except under rare cirumstances. This is the statement from the dss.mil website regarding security clearances.

Is there a source that says otherwise?

 

[MDXer]

rare cirumstances = wants only that individual for the job.

Paul
---------------------------------------
Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!
- Daffy Duck

 

[cdogg]

Both arguments have some truth to them. Though uncommon, non-U.S. citizens can obtain an LAA (as described below).

This link should settle it:

http://www.clearancejobs.com/security_clearance_faq.pdf

Can non-US citizens obtain security clearances?

No. Non-US citizens can not obtain a security clearance; however, they may be granted a Limited Access
Authorization (LAA). LAAs are grant in those rare circumstances where the non-US citizen possesses
unique or unusual skill or expertise that is urgently needed to support a specific US Government contract
involving access to specified classified information (no higher than Secret), and a cleared or clearable US
citizen is not readily available.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[tfg13]

harebrain, the truth of the "noforn" is that it is a caveat of the clearance, not a clearance itself.

 

[harebrain]

tfg13, I was clearly describing classifications, not clearances. That notwithstanding, the addition of the NOFORN restriction to a classification, as I stated, would be superfluous if non-citizens were absolutely forbidden access to classified material.

 

[tfg13]

It is also a caveat of a classification, not a classification itself.

 

[KornGeek]

tfg13,

It seems to me like you're splitting hairs here. Can you elaborate on what you mean? To me, it seems like the distinction wouldn't be necessary unless there were cases where some material can be viewed by appropriately clearanced (is that a word?) non-citizens.

 

[tfg13]

Harebrain, at no point did I say that "non-citizens" were forbidden access to classified material. I simply stated that a US clearance would not be granted to non-citizens.

KornGeek, there are cases in which information is shared between nations. This caveat (Noforn) indicates that this information will not be shared with "other" nations. Think of it in the commercial world aspect of "for company use only".