Jpas Loss Of Jurisdiction
- Jpas Loss Of Jurisdiction Clearance Status
- Jpas And Loss Of Jurisdiction
- Jpas Loss Of Jurisdiction
- Dod Loss Of Jurisdiction
- No Action By Dod Caf
- December 3, 2015
- Posted by: William Henderson
- Category: Special Issues
Jpas Loss Of Jurisdiction Clearance Status
In April 2014 a DOD Inspector General report (DODIG-2014-060) found that agencies were avoiding the “due process” requirement of Executive Order 12968, “Access to Classified Information,” in situations where a clearance applicant’s need for access to classified information was terminated. The report stated:
We recommend that. . . in substantiated misconduct cases personnel security clearance adjudicative actions continue, even if the contractor employee has been terminated and/or no longer has access to classified information.
- Problems with the JPAS System and Loss of Jurisdiction A major problem with the JPAS system for security clearance holders tends to occur when an individual is terminated at the same time that an Incident Report is submitted.
- Loss of Jurisdiction Issue: I left my prior company over a year ago before adjudication, and my TS reads Loss of Jurisdiction in JPAS. I interviewed and got hired with another company, and the FSO said he can put in a CSR and they would probably just adjudicate my investigation.
This recommendation by the DOD Inspector General pertains to DOD agencies’ use of “Loss of Jurisdiction” (LOJ) as justification for not adjudicating potential clearance eligibility issues. But LOJ not only affects people with eligibility issues, it also affects anyone who loses clearance sponsorship before their clearance eligibility is adjudicated. In many cases LOJ has the same effect as a clearance denial or revocation without the “due process” required for these actions. This leaves many people in security clearance limbo
JPAS DATA NO LONGER SYNCING TO DISS Effective Thursday October 15, 2020 at 1800 ET, all data syncing from JPAS to DISS was TURNED OFF. All updates made in JPAS after this date will not be automatically updated in DISS. This includes all data updates to a subject record including Eligibility, Access, and Visit data.
LOJ is a major problem affecting thousands of former DOD contractor, civilian, and military personnel each year. For contractor personnel the number of LOJs may significantly exceed the number of clearance denials and revocations each year. The mere existence of LOJ in a clearance database record often results in a qualified job applicant being non-selected for a position requiring a security clearance. Job applicants are unable to receive a clearance eligibility determination and have the LOJ removed without clearance sponsorship, and they are unable to obtain sponsorship due to the stigma of LOJ.
Jpas And Loss Of Jurisdiction
LOJ occurs when an individual’s clearance sponsorship is withdrawn while any clearance adjudication is pending. An employer must withdraw clearance sponsorship when the employment of a cleared individual or clearance applicant is terminated or when a written offer of employment for a cleared position is rescinded. LOJ permits DOD Central Adjudication Facilities (CAFs) to avoid making clearance decisions even when no further investigation is needed. This results in people being denied the normal “due process” of having a decision made regarding their clearance eligibility. LOJ can be an almost insurmountable obstacle for people trying to obtain employment that requires a federal security clearance.
Some LOJ cases involve completely clean cases where applicants are merely victims of poor timing, but most LOJ cases involve admissions or allegations of misconduct or other security concerns. LOJ prevents people from submitting and having information considered by a DOD CAF that might refute or mitigate the security concern. The alleged security concern can be minor or major or completely bogus and can arise from an initial personnel security investigation, a periodic reinvestigation, or a report of unfavorable information (Incident Report). LOJs commonly fall into two categories:
A. Clearance sponsorship is withdrawn after the applicant’s clearance investigation has been completed, but before a final clearance eligibility determination is made. This usually occurs when:
- an employer cannot continue employing an individual in an uncleared position while waiting for a final clearance determination,
- an employer rescinds a conditional offer of employment because the clearance process takes longer than acceptable to fill a job vacancy, or
- an individual is laid off due to a reduction-in-force or is separated from the Armed Forces. This can include situations where an applicant had a Secret clearance and was pending adjudication for a Top Secret clearance.
B. Clearance sponsorship of a cleared individual is withdrawn due to employment termination and:
- an Incident Report, which may contain inaccurate or biased information, was submitted by the employer to a DOD CAF shortly before or after employment termination, or
- the individual’s clearance was temporarily suspended pending further adjudicative action.
When clearance sponsorship is withdrawn under any of these circumstances, DOD CAFs annotate LOJ in the person’s Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) record. If there’s an unresolved Incident Report or a clearance suspension, the individual’s name in his/her JPAS record is highlighted in red.
When a person applies for a new position that requires a security clearance, the prospective employer’s security officer will immediately see the LOJ in the person’s JPAS record. Because LOJ strongly suggest the existence of a clearance eligibility problem that may require considerable time to resolve, potential employers often reject these job applicants in favor of other candidates with readily reinstatable clearances or with no prior clearance.
Jpas Loss Of Jurisdiction
For people in category A (above) LOJs occur primarily because of delays in clearance adjudication caused by security issues present in their cases. If LOJ did not occur, most would ultimately receive a security clearance. Some of these people are able to obtain a subsequent job offer, clearance sponsorship, and have their completed background investigation favorably adjudicated in a timely manner. Most others, who are equally qualified, will not receive a job offer and new sponsorship, because prospective employers will view their clearance eligibility as being problematic and requiring too much time to resolve. People in category B rarely receive a job offer for a cleared position. The red flag in their JPAS record alerts the prospective employer’s security officer that the clearance has been suspended or an unresolved Incident Report exists and that any attempt to have the clearance reinstated will probably encounter significant delays.
LOJ not only affects individuals. It affects Government and private employers by discouraging them from hiring qualified people, because of potential delays in putting them to work in cleared positions. The Government has already paid the vast majority of the cost of security clearance vetting for these people. If they are unable to obtain new sponsorship within a reasonable period of time, this is money that will be wasted. It also will result in the loss of valuable human capital.
The current DOD LOJ policy needs to be changed. DOD should provide all clearance applicants “due process” and make clearance eligibility determinations, even if the applicant’s employment and need for access to classified information was terminated.
By William H. Henderson
Copyright © 2015 Federal Clearance Assistance Service. All rights reserved.
- May 30, 2012
- Posted by: William Henderson
- Category: Special Issues
Few things cause more frustration than being rejected by a prospective employer because of a “Loss of Jurisdiction” and an “Incident Report.”
When you’re terminated from a job where you held a Department of Defense (DoD) security clearance, your former employer “separates” you in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS—the DoD security clearance database). If you were terminated from your job for cause, the employer often concurrently submits an Incident Report via JPAS describing the reason for termination. This occurs when the termination is related to one of the thirteen Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information.
Normally when an employer submits an Incident Report to the DoD Central Adjudication Facility (CAF) responsible for your clearance, the CAF reviews the report to decide what action is necessary. If the report doesn’t contain any disqualifying information, the CAF closes the Incident Report simply by updating the JPAS record. Alternatively the CAF can request additional information, including a new Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard Form 86—SF86), and/or a limited investigation. Once sufficient information is received, the CAF can decide whether to favorably adjudicate the Incident Report and “continue” your clearance or begin the process of clearance revocation.
When the Incident Report occurs at the same time you’re “separated” in JPAS, the CAF cannot review the Incident Report or take any other action, and a Loss of Jurisdiction is entered into your JPAS record. The Loss of Jurisdiction and the unresolved Incident Report remain in your JPAS record, and your name is flagged in red letters. Getting the red out can be a problem.
The problem arises when you apply for a job at another place of employment and your clearance cannot be quickly reinstated. The new employer can take “ownership” of your JPAS record, but the request for Research/Recertify/Upgrade (RRU) submitted via JPAS for reinstatement will require the CAF to favorably adjudicate the Incident Report before your clearance can be reinstated. If the RRU is submitted to the same CAF that originally received the Incident Report and the report contains only minor unfavorable information, the CAF can easily and quickly resolve the matter and reinstate your clearance. If the RRU is submitted to a different CAF, that CAF will only see that an unresolved Incident Report exists; they won’t be able to see what was said in the report. The CAF will have to obtain a copy of the report before they can review it and determine what action should be taken. This usually means initiating a limited investigation, which could take months to complete, and might or might not result in clearance reinstatement.
For this reason many prospective employers may be reluctant to extend a job offer for a cleared position when a pending Incident Report and Loss of Jurisdiction are in your JPAS record. It’s usually faster for them to obtain a Secret clearance or an interim Top Secret clearance for an applicant who didn’t previously have a clearance.
Dod Loss Of Jurisdiction
A person’s eligibility for access to classified information in JPAS can be change to “Loss of Jurisdiction” for other reasons, such as:
- Sponsorship of a clearance is withdrawn while any other adjudicative action is pending.
- Withdrawal of an interim security clearance by the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO).
- Failure to submit an SF86, when requested by a CAF.
- Access eligibility to Sensitive Compartmented Information for a DoD contractor is denied, revoked, or terminated, and DISCO has security cognizance for the collateral clearance.
Although Loss of Jurisdiction is never desirable; when it occurs to a person who is still employed in a position that requires a clearance, they are notified of the problem and may be in a situation where they can exert some influence over the ultimate outcome. When Loss of Jurisdiction occurs in conjunction with an Incident Report, the person usually doesn’t become aware of the problem until they apply for another job that requires a clearance. Unfortunately the only way to resolve the problem is to find a prospective employer who is willing to sponsor the clearance and wait until the Incident Report is
adjudicated.
by William Henderson
All Original Content Copyright © 2012 Last Post Publishing. All rights reserved.
