2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

Observations made as a result of a review of 1,200 SSBIs conducted by the
Defense Security Service (DSS) provides anecdotal evidence which suggests that some of
the problematic procedural components include:
• A lack of coordinating the interviews with other investigative components. (e.g.,
issue-relevant information that is developed through other sources may not be
followed-up with the subject)
• Investigators tend not to acquire the names of additional references from the
subject or workplace references during the interview which, if done, could be
passed on to other investigators conducting reference interviews
• Investigators with less experience may not know why they are asking certain
questions
Interview Objectives
The DSS investigative manual asserts that the subject interview has two basic
objectives:
1. To ensure that all information listed by the subject on his or her security forms
is accurate and complete.
2. To resolve issue or discrepant information by offering the subject an
opportunity to explain, refute, amplify, or mitigate information developed by
an investigation or known at the onset of the investigation.
The first objective consists of reviewing and validating the responses the subject
provides to each item on the security form (SF 86, SF 85P, SF 85PS, EPSQ, etc.). While
it is important to ensure the information on the forms is accurate and complete, questions
remain as to the costs and the benefits of the form validation portion of the interview.
One question is whether the time spent on validating forms could be better used on
uncovering issue-relevant information related to substantive security concerns.
Investigators who conduct the SSBI and the SSBI-PR are tasked with gathering as
much information about the subject as possible under time and resource constraints.
Validating the subject’s security form can be done relatively quickly compared to
conducting a more thorough interview which tends to take longer. Such time pressure
discourages investigators and review personnel (supervisors, case analysts, and
adjudicators) from being thorough. The emphasis placed on high production (e.g.,
conducting as many investigations as possible under severe time constraints) creates the
risk of compromising quality. Such quality concerns have become particularly important
because of the current trend towards outsourcing PSIs and efforts in making clearance
eligibility determinations reciprocal across federal agencies. Private contractors
increasingly conduct personnel security investigations for the government, yet there is no
standard method of conducting interviews or of assessing their quality.
2 Information relevant to establishing that an issue is of potential current security concern
and/or information that an adjudicator would want to review in making a clearance
decision.
279
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003