Silly Question about “Security Clearance”

I honestly don't have a fricking clue.

The back ground check is still on file. Your clearance is technically in a non active status. Or permanently I revoked.

Simply put, if you work in a job that requires a security clearance, you lose access to classified info and likely lose your job.

it means you no longer hold a clearance and cannot access classified information.

To go further the Gov estimated it cost $30k to do a background check for TS clearance. That was quite a few years ago it’s probably $50-$60k now. When they did mine they even went back to where I grew up and asked neighbors about me. They used to take NatSec very seriously not sure if as comprehensive now. I had to do efbeeeye interviews and NIS too. It costs a lot of money to do all these checks with real people going all over.

When military retire with an active clearance it’s deactivated. However, lots of ex military go work for some type of Gov contractor and many of those jobs require a clearance.

When these contractors get Gov contracts they need to hire people. If they can get a retired military where the clearance time limit hasn’t expired (they are only good for so long and have to be renewed/vetted) the contractor can hire at much cheaper costs over someone off the streets with no prior clearance. They can do a basic check on ex military and get it reactivated. It’s a massive amount of money difference.

Whats great is these scumbags they deactivate that means any job they are in or want they can’t be involved in anything requiring a clearance.

You simply no longer have access to whatever it was. Our son's was deactivated upon leaving the USAF and was reactivated before returning to the ME as a contractor. He has since left and no longer has said access

Correct, but , I wonder if just because your DOD TS/SCI is turned off, does that filter include DOE Q or L clearance?

So, in order to have access to classified information, an individual requires both pieces:

1. A background investigation resulting in a security clearance at least at the classification information of the material (best expressed as, "Is this person trustworthy enough to trust with this information?")

2. A need to know - primarily mission requirements (best expressed as, "Is access to this information, despite its sensitive nature, necessary for this person to successfully complete his work?")

Without both pieces, access it not given. These clearances are valuable (although I think the last headcount over 1 1/4 million Top Secret clearances were outstanding), as if you're are applying for a range of government contractor jobs, that clearance is sometimes mandatory. Yes, they can go through the lengthy process to get you one, but it is much easier if you already have such a clearance or only had a recent lapse so that you can be granted an interim and it be quickly reinstated.

When these clearances are pulled from high profile folks like Clapper, Brennan, and even second tier folks like Holmgren, Sullivan, Hartig, Eisenstat, it pulls their ready and regular access to think tanks, NGOs, "research" outfits and even some of their media jobs depend on their continued access to classified documents.

It also puts in the minds of the public and employers that, "They may have breached their trust. They may not be fully trustworthy (see Item #1 above)."

Hope this helps.

You would not have both. The agency you work for would the one that you have. Losing one in one agency would make it hard to get the equivalent in another agency if you were to leave and get a job in the other agency, which is unlikely if you lost your clearance as they would know before hiring you.

You are also barred from security briefs although I’m not sure where those originate from ie emails or teleconferences.