Background checks

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

Tim May wrote:

> I've refused to answer questions about neighbors when they were being
> checked out by the FBI. I told the agents, this was in the mid-80s, that
> I had no interest in speculating to them about a person I knew only in
> passing.
> 
> I expect a lot of background checks get idle speculation from bluehairs
> and busybodies.

Of course they do - people are people, after all. And the agents running
the checks know it very well. They listen to everybody, smile, thank
them for their time, then make the appropriate comments in their
reports. An adjudication board then examines the reports of all
interviews, records checks and so forth and makes the (usually) final
determination. If that determination is negative, the subject of the
background check gets called in to answer the adverse information. If
the result is still negative, and the subject feels he's had a raw deal,
he still has recourse to the courts.

You need to understand that the system is not designed to weed people
OUT - it is in fact biased toward a positive result. The reason is
simple: background checks and the recruitment work that precedes them is
time-consuming and costly - in my day it cost 20-30,000 "dollars" to
process a Special Background Investigation for the Defense Department -
my guess is a DoE "Q" clearance is about the same. If the clearance has
to be denied, you get to start all over again with the next candidate.
Meanwhile, the position is vacant, which depending on the position could
cost more than just money.

I have performed background investigations, sat on an adjudication board
and monitored the work of others, and over a three-year span in the
field I an truthfully say that I never saw or participated in any
proceeding that was anything but fair and honest at the administrative
level (sources were sometimes less than honest). I wish I could say the
same for the courts.

Key points about background checks:

- they are voluntary, performed with the full knowledge and consent in
writing of the subject, who is seeking a privileged position and has
been informed IN DETAIL of the criteria that will be applied to him and
what will be done with the information that he provides and the
information developed in the investigation

- they incorporate checks based on a very thorough knowledge of human
nature, and of malicious gossip in particular. Every important datum
must be either corroborated or refuted, if necessary by reference to the
subject himself

- nobody is going to make a decision based on ONE lead or one records
check. Security dossiers in even routine cases end up being quite
massive, and the one blue-hair (interestingly, older folk tend to be
more balanced and perceptive in their views - at least in my experience)
with a petty grudge tends to stand out from a generally favorable
background - and be given the degree of attention she deserves.

Bottom line: if you have credible unfavorable information about the
subject, you're doing the whole country a disservice by keeping it to
yourself; if you have generally favorable information to impart, you're
doing the subject a disservice by refusing it. If you are a person of
sound and balanced judgement, your input will help keep the
investigation on track.  Remember: the subject ASKED for this
investigation, and if there is INSUFFICIENT information on which to base
a determination, that is one of the few valid grounds for denial.

If you're in any doubt about whether the subject authorized the
investigation, ask to see the release form that he signed. If the check
is legit, the agent will have a photocopy with him.

Best,
Marc de Piolenc
Philippines