Washington Post, 3 Feb 10: Federal careers expert Derrick Dortch was online Wednesday, February 3, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss government job searching and military transition. . . . .
Ellicott City, Md.: My coworker has a TS/SCI and works for the Defense Intelligence Agency and is dating a foreign national, she already reported it, however they would like to get married, her boyfriend is not from a communist country, I can’t remember where exactly, Central America I believe, the problem is that my friend’s boyfriend has an expired visa/overstayed visa and my friend doesn’t know if her TSC can get revoked and on top of that if her boyfriend would be deported. From the security officer they received AN INTENT TO GET MARRIED FORM, in that form they ask for the foreign national’s I94 number, they don’t know if she would loose her clearance and if her boyfriend would get deported. What should be the best thing to do? After all if they get married he will become a citizen, right? Any consequences if they submit the form and get married? Thanks
Derrick Dortch: Hello Ellicott City, MD, This is a very serious situation your friend is in. She did the right thing by reporting the relationship. If you have a clearance and you travel overseas or you become involved with someone who is a foreign national either here or abroad you are suppose to report it. Failure to do so can result in your clearance being revoked. Now I am not sure if they are living together or not but her having a boyfriend who is no longer a legal status alien in this country is a big red flag if ever discovered. I want you to read through these disqualifying factors under the Adjudicative Desk Reference (ADR) that is used as a guideline for Adjudicators who are looking at someone’s background and determining if they are suitable for a clearance. The same factors are used during reinvestigations to determine if someone should keep their clearance.
The adjudication factors I am listing below fall under “Foreign Influence”:
Potentially Disqualifying Conditions (Extract from the Guideline)
(a) contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information;
(c) counterintelligence information, that may be classified, indicates that the individual’s access to protected information may involve unacceptable risk to national security;
(d) sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;
(e) a substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign country, or in any foreign-owned or foreign-operated business, which could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation;
(f) failure to report, when required, association with a foreign national;
(g) unauthorized association with a suspected or known agent, associate, or employee of a foreign intelligence service;
(h) indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;
(i) conduct, especially while traveling outside the U.S., which may make the individual vulnerable to exploitation, pressure, or coercion by a foreign person, group, government, or country.
Now I am not saying that her boyfriend is a spy for a foreign country or anything but the fact that he did not do what was necessary to remain in this country legally and is not staying in this country illegally is a going to automatically raise some red flags into this persons credibility and intent. Someone could easily use one of these factors above as a case to make against your friend and have her clearance revoked. There are other factors that could be used against her as well.
As long as he is an illegal alien in this country she will not be able to marry him and keep her clearance and avoid having him possibly deported.
What I would suggest is that your friend needs to talk to her boyfriend and he needs to get his status here straighten out. This may require him to see a immigration attorney or someone who can assist him but he needs to find a way to become a legal alien in this country either under a student or work visa or something. Then after that they can discuss getting married. I would suggest he gets all this stuff straightened out first and keep her out of it. She does not want it coming back on her that she knew that she was involved with someone who was deliberately staying in this country without a visa or under some legal status. This will not look good on her.
The United States is very much so involved in Central America and her involvement with him with the agency she works for the the level of clearance and access to information she has can be seen as a serious threat to national security. She needs to get this situation resolved as soon as possible. If he has to leave and then reapply to come back into the country under a visa then that is better than being here illegally.
Courthouse News Service, 11 Jan 10: The Defense Intelligence Agency accused an intelligence officer with a decorated military past of “consorting with known Communist agents” in the early ’90s and fired him without due process, John Dullahan claims in Federal Court. And he says a simple typographical error contributed to his headaches. Dullahan, an Irish immigrant who worked his way up the ranks in the U.S. Army to become a politico-military adviser for Eastern Europe to Gen. Colin Powell, says the DIA used three false polygraph tests to fire him, and used “national security” as a pretext. . . . .
. . . . .Dullahan claims he played an “important and distinguished role in U.S. military relations” with Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which led to an adviser position to then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell, from 1990 to 1992. Dullahan says Powell awarded him with a Defense Meritorious Service Medal for his work in U.S.-Eastern European military relations. During this time, he says, the FBI began watching and photographing him while he met his foreign counterparts from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary for visits and working lunches. He says the visits were to “facilitate planning official exchanges and support Department of Defense policy formulation.”
In 1990, he says, the FBI told him he was believed to be “consorting with known Communist agents,” but took no action against him until the events that led to his termination, which began in late 2008. In 1997, Dullahan says, he returned to the DIA as a civilian employee, successfully passing a polygraph exam in the process, but in 2008 a different polygraph examiner accused him of meeting “Soviet handlers” while on official trips to Europe, including trips with Gen. Powell.. . . . .
Charlottesville, VA Daily Progress, 15 Nov 09: Surveys conducted of federal intelligence workers who may be moving to Central Virginia as part of base realignment provide valuable insight into the kinds of professionals who will eventually become our neighbors.
Federal plans to move intelligence analysis functions and other jobs here beginning next year will result in more than 800 Defense Intelligence Agency workers coming our way. Another 700 jobs could be created as a result of support employment and the general impact on our economy. They can’t come soon enough, for a variety of reasons. This group of military, civilian and contract personnel currently includes highly educated professionals who command impressive wages.
George Mason University’s Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness provided analysis of a pair of surveys conducted of Defense Intelligence Agency workers whose jobs are being moved to the Rivanna Station facility in northern Albemarle County in the months and years ahead. The survey analysis was conducted for the Piedmont Workforce Network and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
The 140 DIA civilian employees who completed the second survey in September work in divisions that provide military forces analysis and research and development in areas such as counterproliferation, strategic warning, and forensic intelligence collection.
. . . . .What’s instructive and encouraging about the survey results is not so much the finding that people are not sure about what they’ll do, but the information we can glean about the kinds of jobs and professionals who are working for DIA.
Example: Of the 140 DIA workers who responded to the survey, half have a master’s degree or PhD. Another 46 have a bachelor’s degree. Almost half of those responding (48 percent) earn more than $100,000 per year. DIA jobs moved to Rivanna Station likely won’t pay as much as the same jobs in the Washington region, but the cost of living will be lower here as well. The takeaway point, though, is that the jobs associated with the DIA work pay very well, indeed. . . . . . .
