Can any of you veterans tell me if I'm required to be involved in a security investigation? Should I get involved if I have only uncomplimentary things to say about a guy? Anyone been in this situation?
When I was on active duty I was subject to a number of background investigations (SBIs, SSBIs, whatever we were calling them back then) for submarine security clearances. Hawaii's submariners are a pretty small group so we all ended up being named as references for each other's investigations.
At my final duty station I was pretty easy to interview so word got around among the DoD investigators that us training command guys were the ones to call first. There was a huge investigation backlog around the turn of the century and no one wanted their clearances to be held up by delays in checking references, so it wasn't unusual for an agent to drop by with questions about five or six guys at once. I saw it as doing my part to help get these guys what they needed.
But I retired over five years ago and no one wants to talk to the retired guys-- or so I thought. I don't know how the investigator got my name but presumably the guy who's being investigated used me as a reference. He retired from active duty in 2003 but he's a contractor (or civil servant?) at a major military command. He's probably involved in exercise planning, wargames, and tactical development requiring a TS clearance or higher. If he gave my name to the investigators then it's because he's run out of people who are willing to talk about him or because everyone else told the investigator that she should talk to me.
He was, bar none, the worst boss I've ever had. I served under him from 1992-3 and again 2001-2, different commands and different jobs, and he was equally horrible both times. He had a miserable personality, was a terrible hypocrite, played power games, and didn't train or trust his subordinates. He spread hate, fear, & discontent wherever he went.
He was also one of those guys who felt the U.S. Navy would screech to a halt without his presence. He had no life and he was afraid to miss anything so for my first tour with him it was normal for us to work 12-hour days six days a week turning molehills into mountains. During my second tour with him he literally and significantly jeopardized his health to show up for work, despite surgeon's orders.
When the investigator told me the name of her subject I started laughing by reflex and she said "Why does everybody do that when I say his name?!?" I told her "I have nothing to say to you" and she said "I hear you loud and clear". I confirmed the dates that we'd served together and said "I'm not willing to discuss him without a subpoena or unless he's involved in an Article 32 hearing." She said that wasn't the case so we parted on polite terms.
Now that I've had a chance to calm down I'm wondering if I should get involved. He has some serious health problems that, in my inexpert opinion, impair his judgment even when he's not on his prescription medications. He's earning a govt COLA pension of over $80K/year plus free healthcare for life yet he's still working with highly classified material. Why? Is it because he can't turn it off (most likely) or is it because he's supplementing his income like John Walker did? Is it appropriate for my inaction to allow him to inflict himself on other human beings as he inflicted himself on me?
But another part of me reminds me to "no talk stink", to not pile on, and most importantly to not get involved in anything that could result in my being compelled to testify at considerable inconvenience. The guy was a jerk but I'm over that and the second time around I learned to feel sorry for him. My interview might not be kept anonymous. My stories might cause his clearance to be revoked and him to lose his job, not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. What if my stories-- all of them true but not all witnessed-- cause him to take offense or even try to exact retribution? It ain't libel/slander if it's true, but I don't care to be subject to the burden of proof.
The investigator knows where to find me, and I still have her name/phone number. What would you guys do?
When I was on active duty I was subject to a number of background investigations (SBIs, SSBIs, whatever we were calling them back then) for submarine security clearances. Hawaii's submariners are a pretty small group so we all ended up being named as references for each other's investigations.
At my final duty station I was pretty easy to interview so word got around among the DoD investigators that us training command guys were the ones to call first. There was a huge investigation backlog around the turn of the century and no one wanted their clearances to be held up by delays in checking references, so it wasn't unusual for an agent to drop by with questions about five or six guys at once. I saw it as doing my part to help get these guys what they needed.
But I retired over five years ago and no one wants to talk to the retired guys-- or so I thought. I don't know how the investigator got my name but presumably the guy who's being investigated used me as a reference. He retired from active duty in 2003 but he's a contractor (or civil servant?) at a major military command. He's probably involved in exercise planning, wargames, and tactical development requiring a TS clearance or higher. If he gave my name to the investigators then it's because he's run out of people who are willing to talk about him or because everyone else told the investigator that she should talk to me.
He was, bar none, the worst boss I've ever had. I served under him from 1992-3 and again 2001-2, different commands and different jobs, and he was equally horrible both times. He had a miserable personality, was a terrible hypocrite, played power games, and didn't train or trust his subordinates. He spread hate, fear, & discontent wherever he went.
He was also one of those guys who felt the U.S. Navy would screech to a halt without his presence. He had no life and he was afraid to miss anything so for my first tour with him it was normal for us to work 12-hour days six days a week turning molehills into mountains. During my second tour with him he literally and significantly jeopardized his health to show up for work, despite surgeon's orders.
When the investigator told me the name of her subject I started laughing by reflex and she said "Why does everybody do that when I say his name?!?" I told her "I have nothing to say to you" and she said "I hear you loud and clear". I confirmed the dates that we'd served together and said "I'm not willing to discuss him without a subpoena or unless he's involved in an Article 32 hearing." She said that wasn't the case so we parted on polite terms.
Now that I've had a chance to calm down I'm wondering if I should get involved. He has some serious health problems that, in my inexpert opinion, impair his judgment even when he's not on his prescription medications. He's earning a govt COLA pension of over $80K/year plus free healthcare for life yet he's still working with highly classified material. Why? Is it because he can't turn it off (most likely) or is it because he's supplementing his income like John Walker did? Is it appropriate for my inaction to allow him to inflict himself on other human beings as he inflicted himself on me?
But another part of me reminds me to "no talk stink", to not pile on, and most importantly to not get involved in anything that could result in my being compelled to testify at considerable inconvenience. The guy was a jerk but I'm over that and the second time around I learned to feel sorry for him. My interview might not be kept anonymous. My stories might cause his clearance to be revoked and him to lose his job, not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. What if my stories-- all of them true but not all witnessed-- cause him to take offense or even try to exact retribution? It ain't libel/slander if it's true, but I don't care to be subject to the burden of proof.
The investigator knows where to find me, and I still have her name/phone number. What would you guys do?
