• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Security Clearance In Order to Be A Naval Aviator (NOTE: for REAL Navy flyers only)

webmaster

The Grass is Greener!
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I'm aware that is the FAS site, and what FAS is.
FAS or ANY ORG site, is not the authoritative site. Documents can be corrupted, or have incorrect information. I directed the link to the proper website for security matters within the Navy. Which you promptly researched being the eager beaver that you are. There is no change in the execution of evaluating foreign influence, and it is now not "easier" like you suggest.
 

das

Well-Known Member
Contributor
FAS or ANY ORG site, is not the authoritative site. Documents can be corrupted, or have incorrect information. I directed the link to the proper website for security matters within the Navy. Which you promptly researched being the eager beaver that you are. There is no change in the execution of evaluating foreign influence, and it is now not "easier" like you suggest.

Actually, there is a change, and it is exactly as I suggested.

The Navy has implemented the new guidance, and the "immediate family" information you referenced in M-5510.30 (JUN 06) is out of date and has been removed from the current adjudicative guidelines -- including those implemented by the Navy. The new guidance has already been implemented per the memorandum I referenced. Again: the family language in M-5510.30 (JUN 06) is no longer accurate, and has been trumped by the 29 DEC 05 adjudicative guidelines, which were immediately implemented by DOD and CNO directive on 12 SEP 06. To be clear, it's just that a new version of 5510.30 hasn't been published yet, but that doesn't change the fact that the new guidance is actually what is implemented by the Navy (and all other DOD elements).

My initial post was the quickest and simplest way to direct people to a public site (e.g., not a site accessible only via NIPR) with the current and correct adjudicative guidelines. I will stipulate that any non-government site could in theory include compromised or inaccurate information. However, that is not the case with the document posted by FAS, and further, directing people to M-5510.30 (JUN 06) is actually giving them incorrect information with respect to the family question. The family language was in the 24 MAR 97 adjudicative guidelines, which is the text that the current 5510.30 contains. However, that is superseded by the memo implementing the 29 DEC 05 guidelines, as I outlined above.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
y'know

when wannabe spy fights active duty aviator, active duty aviator will always win.

but go ahead, this will be a fun experience for all
Fixed that for you. It's about credibility, folks. You don't show up to flight school and start telling O-4 instructors that they're wrong. And if they are, you do it extremely tactfully.
 

webmaster

The Grass is Greener!
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
DAS, please tell me when and for how long you have held any of these positions: DONCAF Adjudicator, NCIS Agent, DSS Agent, Command Security Manager, SSO, or SSR?

I was a CSM for over 18 months, with the requisite schooling and training. I have processed over 200 security investigations, FEP packages, LOI, and DONCAF inquiries into deragatory information. A majority of the ones that were a pain in the ass to me dealt with foreign influence (parents, girlfriends, wives), that I discussed and handled in depth with DONCAF adjudicators.

http://www.navysecurity.navy.mil/ is accessible from ANY computer, not just NMCI. You ALWAYS reference the source documentation, off the official website. I would bet that you didn't even know it existed or would have cited it in the first place. I just don't get ppl that think they are an EXPERT just because they google a topic.

BOTTOM LINE: Not reporting a foreign contact, relative, or someone you are dating and thinking about marrying is grounds for not getting a favorable determination. Depending on the nationality of the foreign contact and relationship status, there may be other hurdles to overcome to determine eligibility. All those contacts get a greater look as you approach TS/SCI eligibility.

As always, be truthful during your interviews and disclose full information during questionairre. If at any time after being granted a security clearance, something changes in your life, report THAT to your security manager. Trustworthiness and financial are the two biggest disqualifiers for maintaining access/eligibility.

TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER: As already stated in my posts, I do not believe you will have any difficulties. And if you contact your CSM, they can pull you up in JPAS to find out your current eligibility determination. NACLC as I mentioned will get you commissioned. Later on in training, you will need a SSBI investigation, where you will update and report all foreign contact (including RELATIVES, das, hint hint), so the investigating agency (the ppl that interview you) have all the information. You may have to fill out further forms asking how much exposure you have, and indepth details on your relatives dates of birth, employment, contact information, etc... All that information will go to DONCAF for Adjudication, where they follow the GUIDELINES listed, which still encompass FOREIGN RELATIVES to determine clearance ELIGIBILITY! If they have unanswered questions, and something comes up in the review, you will get an LOI (Letter of Intent) from DONCAF giving a short time period to answer the questions and what will affect their determination.

Gee, DAS, how do I know this and can speak with authority? Perhaps because I was a CSM, and I have a foreign father in law also, and have gone through these steps MULTIPLE TIMES.

Stay in your lane.
 

scoolbubba

Brett327 gargles ballsacks
pilot
Contributor
Gee, DAS, how do I know this and can speak with authority? Perhaps because I was a CSM, and I have a foreign father in law also, and have gone through these steps MULTIPLE TIMES.

Stay in your lane.

KelsoBURN2.jpg
 

PerDiem

Look what I can do!!
Since, we're on the topic of security clearances, I remember hearing that they are good for 7 years or something like that. If this is the case, mine would expire next year around the same time I commission. Would the process be any easier if I try to re-new while I still have a clearance, or is it all just the same and I can process another one once I report to Pensacola?
 

das

Well-Known Member
Contributor
webmaster and all,

I'm quite aware that I'm the "new guy" here, in more ways than one.

However, I would appreciate it if someone could point out anything I said that was inaccurate.

Specifically: I would like someone to explain how the CNO memo implementing the 29 DEC 05 adjudicative guidelines doesn't supersede the old guidelines in the JUN 06 Navy personnel security manual.

Another issue is the fact I referenced the current adjudicative guidelines on the FAS site, as opposed to a government site. The fact is I reference that site because it's the easiest way to point people to a standalone, complete HTML version of the current guidelines. Further, those are, indeed, the current adjudicative guidelines as implemented by the Navy.

Being a longtime forum admin myself, I'm certainly amused at the prospect of being the new guy and low on the totem pole. I want to make it clear that I'm not disrespecting anyone here; I'm a professional, just as the rest of you. I'm also aware that there are many senior Naval officers in the membership here, and many folks that have many years, if not decades, of experience. And being the new guy, I'll take all the ribbing you can dish out. ;-)
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
webmaster and all, I'm quite aware that I'm the "new guy" here, in more ways than one ... However, .... ;-)

There ... you almost had me; and then you had to go and say:

"However" ... :)

I see one thing you haven't learned while serving as a "longtime forum admin" : when to hold 'em ... and when to fold 'em ...

In other words -- you haven't learned when to shut the fuck up.

Oh, by the way -- "Webmaster" starts w/ a capital "W". :)

I think I'm gonna ban the next person that uses " ;-)" or anything similar in a post ...
 

webmaster

The Grass is Greener!
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I corrected three misconceptions in your post(s),

1. That it is not permissible/advisable to go to outside non-DOD, gov or mil website to cite current manuals, forms and updates. I provided the OFFICIAL Navy website, that handles ALL Naval personnel security matters.

2. 5510.3 is still current. Even in addition to that CNO memo, there are MANY other changes that affect the day to day use of that manual.

3. Your assertion that everthing is changed, and its now "easier" to handle foreign contacts.

See CNO Memorandum 6U871220 (12 SEP 06) with instructions for "immediate implementation" of the 29 DEC 05 adjudicative guidelines and the notice that "[t]hese guidelines will be incorporated in the next revision of the SECNAV Manual 5510.30". In other words, SECNAV M-5510.30 (JUN 06) is outdated.
Have you ever heard of a change, or update to a current instruction or manual? In the military we get changes to all of them. The manual is still current, and covers a WIDE variety of other topics also (amazing! who would have thunk it?).

In short, the original poster would have had more difficulties and more mitigation work before the 29 DEC 05 guidelines were implemented across DOD, including the Navy, on 12 SEP 06.
What are the "more difficulties"? I answered this ad naseum, and was part of the implied authority you were putting in your posts that I corrected.

Bottom line, you google'd the topic, thought you would come post as an expert and start trying to split hairs about the process of handling foreign contacts. I have explained the real day to day handling of these, with respect to the current MANUAL and Adjudication guidelines. I will concede in my haste I listed the ones from the current manual, but it does NOT change the execution of security investigations. My goal for the original poster was to answer his question, and POINT HIM in the right direction, which I did. I tried to keep it simplistic, and not delve into the forms, or the requisite handling of follow up questioning through LOIs that are also handled and discussed in depth via the manual, which you are so happy to state is no longer applicable.

FOREIGN NATIONAL EXPOSURE + NOT DISCLOSED = UNFAVORABLE INFORMATION WITH REGARDS TO TRUSHWORTHINESS
 

TrunkMonkey

Spy Navy
Since, we're on the topic of security clearances, I remember hearing that they are good for 7 years or something like that. If this is the case, mine would expire next year around the same time I commission. Would the process be any easier if I try to re-new while I still have a clearance, or is it all just the same and I can process another one once I report to Pensacola?

Secret is good for 10 years from the investigation close date, TS for 5. My rule of thumb is to have people start renewing when they are 9 months out from expiration. The time to renew a clearance is before you need it and/or while you are not busy or underway.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
^ There you go ... an opportunity for learning has occurred and been seized with gusto.

It proves there is hope for all (make that most) Grasshoppers ...
:)
 
We need to watch out what we are saying in open forum here. FOUO. Just saying, watch out so people don't get in trouble.
 
Top