opm breach gets permit? simple yes no or depends

[Bigfoot21075]

Maybe MSP LD can share the contents of my SCI tutorial and my other, prior classification/sensitivity level and authority tutorial among themselves. That way they could obtain a clue or two. They could print it, but I doubt they could stay inside the lines when they tried to color the pictures. And they'd probably eat the pencils too.

 

[LGood48]

tl;dr: There are only three levels of clearance (actually sensitivity) in the U.S. Government's holdings: CONFIDENTIAL; SECRET; AND TOP SECRET. Period. Everything else is a handling and access keyword. Some of their names are classified themselves.

EDIT: One of my sundry duties was training noobs in this stuff. You would be amazed how dense General Officers can be.

Absolutely right! That said, SAP (Special Access Program) and SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) are separate levels of access. SAPs, commonly referred to as "Black Programs" are indeed either Acknowledged (don't hide the fact the program exists) or Unacknowledged (definitely hide the existence). They can, but don't necessarily, require access to SCI. My expertise...was the Program Security Manager for multiple programs prior to my retirement two years ago.
AND...I entirely agree that GO's are really dense when you're trying to brief them in!!

 

[LeadSled1]

I would recommend searching google for a copy of Army Regulation 381-12 (AR 381-12).


Pay particular attention to the following sections:

Applicability on page i, first two sentences.
2-1 Army as a target on page 6 subsection a.
2-5 Content of threat awareness training on page 7, subsections a. and l.
2-6 Vulnerable personnel and positions on page 7, first three sentences


This is a unclassified document and it is not FOUO.

 

[BeoBill]

I would recommend searching google for a copy of Army Regulation 381-12 (AR 381-12).


Pay particular attention to the following sections:

Applicability on page i, first two sentences.
2-1 Army as a target on page 6 subsection a.
2-5 Content of threat awareness training on page 7, subsections a. and l.
2-6 Vulnerable personnel and positions on page 7, first three sentences


This is a unclassified document and it is not FOUO.

That works well for Army, but the supplicant needs to locate and reference local threat info for his installation, command, and Service branch. It's the same reason that you don't take a Nevada driver's test to get a Maryland license. I also get the sense that anything specific is going to be classified or require trusted distribution. If the LD wasn't so slipshod they could request LES info themselves. But that would require actual work...

 

[GolfR]

I applied for my permit earlier this week and got a call from MSP today. I used justification of OPM and an open peace order against an individual for making threats against me. I was told by MSP that they were going to remove the OPM verbiage from my application as I would be denied on the grounds of the OPM unless I had documented direct threats against me related to the breach. I suspect that this is a standard comment because I have now heard numberous people (on the recordings) at the Review board being granted permits on the grounds of the OPM breach.

The good news is that she said that baring anything coming up in the background check, she would be working to issue me an unrestricted permit based on the threats and peace order.

 

[Rab1515]

I applied for my permit earlier this week and got a call from MSP today. I used justification of OPM and an open peace order against an individual for making threats against me. I was told by MSP that they were going to remove the OPM verbiage from my application as I would be denied on the grounds of the OPM unless I had documented direct threats against me related to the breach. I suspect that this is a standard comment because I have now heard numberous people (on the recordings) at the Review board being granted permits on the grounds of the OPM breach.

The good news is that she said that baring anything coming up in the background check, she would be working to issue me an unrestricted permit based on the threats and peace order.

First of congrats!
Second, remove opm verbage from application? What do they mean by that? Is MSP going to ignore or literally strip it from your application?

 

[Magnumst]

First of congrats!
Second, remove opm verbage from application? What do they mean by that? Is MSP going to ignore or literally strip it from your application?

I think this may be a new tactic they are employing. Remove all information that they don't think you need so you can't come back later with supporting facts.

 

[Blacksmith101]

First of congrats!
Second, remove opm verbage from application? What do they mean by that? Is MSP going to ignore or literally strip it from your application?

That way the applicant will have less information in their package when they ultimately have to appeal to the Board to overturn the MSP. I would suggest the trooper provide a written statement detailing all information stripped from any application and the reason why.

OPM breach plus threat and peace order gets denied but only threat and peace order gets approved???

 

[swamplynx]

How does one prove to the MSP the level of clearance?

Exactly. They don’t have access or the clearance to see anything in JPAS, CVS, or Scattered Castles. An OPM breach letter is the only thing a permit applicant should release to MSP. Law Enforcement agency or not.

 

[Rab1515]

That way the applicant will have less information in their package when they ultimately have to appeal to the Board to overturn the MSP. I would suggest the trooper provide a written statement detailing all information stripped from any application and the reason why.

OPM breach plus threat and peace order gets denied but only threat and peace order gets approved???

Oh it makes perfect since to remove evedance, but is sketchy at best. MSP stamps every page of an application when it is received, so if they do, a PIA request should reveal it, that is if they ever respond.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

I think this may be a new tactic they are employing. Remove all information that they don't think you need so you can't come back later with supporting facts.

I think they are doing that so once the peace order expires there goes your "good and substantial."

 

[GolfR]

I think they are doing that so once the peace order expires there goes your "good and substantial."

That's exactly what I'm concerned about. I'm going to fight to make sure that the OPM language at least stays on the application. I honestly think that they are specifically doing this in an attempt to keep the "cleared personnel flood gates" from opening. I have my interview on Monday and I will certainly be inquiring about what exactly she is going to do. At the same time, I don't want to push too hard because she seemed very confident that my current circumstances would yield the result I'm looking for.

For those concerned about getting verification of clearance level. My security folks were clear that they would not provide anything in writing. My boss was open to making a verbal statement that my "current job duties required a DoD TS clearance". It's a grey area but he doesn't make a statement about what I have.

 

[LGood48]

This thread contains a letter from MSP explaining how to show cause by having your security manager verify clearance.
Plain TS won't fly, but with SCI or SAP caveats should suffice. I do know of one person at APG that used this and received his permit.
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=210921&highlight=security+verification

edit: Please note that this applies only to ACTIVE clearances, not those of us that no longer work for the Govt or a contractor.

 

[Rab1515]

This thread contains a letter from MSP explaining how to show cause by having your security manager verify clearance.
Plain TS won't fly, but with SCI or SAP caveats should suffice. I do know of one person at APG that used this and received his permit.
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=210921&highlight=security+verification

edit: Please note that this applies only to ACTIVE clearances, not those of us that no longer work for the Govt or a contractor.

Interesting, Everything from my and friends experience(including my initial denial) showed that they were looking for at least plain TS, and did not know really know what anything else was besides S or TS. I haven't heard they wanted SCI as well. Can you go into any more detail about where in the process MSP did not like TS? Not trying to contradict, just

 

[Stoveman]

That's exactly what I'm concerned about. I'm going to fight to make sure that the OPM language at least stays on the application. I honestly think that they are specifically doing this in an attempt to keep the "cleared personnel flood gates" from opening. I have my interview on Monday and I will certainly be inquiring about what exactly she is going to do. At the same time, I don't want to push too hard because she seemed very confident that my current circumstances would yield the result I'm looking for.

For those concerned about getting verification of clearance level. My security folks were clear that they would not provide anything in writing. My boss was open to making a verbal statement that my "current job duties required a DoD TS clearance". It's a grey area but he doesn't make a statement about what I have.

Which She? Wright or Myers? Myers is a complete whackadoodle who will make shit up on the fly.


No offense Sgt. Durkee, FSgt Moriarty, Captain Johnson, et al, but you know I'm right. I know y'all are reading this thread going "Yep, that Stoveman is right, she's completely looney tunes but she's got some big cans."

 

[photoracer]

The parking lots even outside the fenceline are on a military base. So all of the base Commander's policies and DoD regs apply.

After the CIA shootings all NSA employees were allowed to carry firearms in their cars. I don't personally know how long that policy lasted. As I remember when I was there the DOD and base commander's regs stopped at the fence line of all NSA buildings.

 

[Ghost40]

I'd still like to know what contractor FSO provided a letter to the MSP on an employee's clearance level. They are FOUO and most entities consider it bad practice to pass that information around.

Couple a user here posting he used his clearance of S/TS with compartments and the OPM breach letter and your bad actor has a lot more information.

The MSP do not have a need to know.

 

[Gryphon]

Depends.

 

[SWO Daddy]

I'd still like to know what contractor FSO provided a letter to the MSP on an employee's clearance level. They are FOUO and most entities consider it bad practice to pass that information around.

Couple a user here posting he used his clearance of S/TS with compartments and the OPM breach letter and your bad actor has a lot more information.

The MSP do not have a need to know.

This is what gets me. My FSO would never give out my clearance level to someone calling themselves a cop over the phone, and they wouldn't put it on a letter either. It sounds like a scam in and of itself.

I think I'm SOL regardless, my FSO (female, DC resident, you get the picture) freaked out once when someone tried to use their concealed carry permit for a second form of identification.

 

[hodgepodge]

After the CIA shootings all NSA employees were allowed to carry firearms in their cars. I don't personally know how long that policy lasted. As I remember when I was there the DOD and base commander's regs stopped at the fence line of all NSA buildings.

What? Ever read the signs on every gate? I do not ever recall this.

And base regs don't apply, but DiD regs certainly do.