SC expiry?

#21
The nature of the environment at sea means occasionally disclosure of sensitive information is possible. In addition some of the ITAR requirements for the equipment means it is easier to just clear everyone.

You could make the argument to be more selective but then you need to better track the clearances held by whom and then it restricts who can be drafted, especially at short notice.
You Sir, are waffling. If ITAR was a valid reason everyone in HM Forces would be cleared to SC.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#22
You Sir, are waffling. If ITAR was a valid reason everyone in HM Forces would be cleared to SC.
Seeing as security is very much my day job I'm not going to discuss this over the internet. But I'm right and I don't care if you believe me.
 
#23
Seeing as security is very much my day job I'm not going to discuss this over the internet. But I'm right and I don't care if you believe me.
Ooooh, get you!

The justification is tenuous at best (and thank you I’ve been a USO so I know what it is). It is a total waste of money.
 
#24
@Bubbles_Barker,
Have a look at Exporting military goods to the United States

What the treaty covers
The treaty allows for the transfer of non-exempt US defence articles and services listed on the United States Munitions List (US ML). Such transfers are only allowed between pre-approved US and UK government agencies and contractors (referred to as the ‘Approved Community’) without ITAR export licences issued by the US Department of State.

The ‘quid pro quo’ for the removal of the need for US issued export licences is that while treaty material is in the UK it will be subject to specific marking provisions, protected under the Official Secrets Act and handled only by those with an appropriate security clearance.
 
#25
#26
@Bubbles_Barker,
Have a look at Exporting military goods to the United States

What the treaty covers
The treaty allows for the transfer of non-exempt US defence articles and services listed on the United States Munitions List (US ML). Such transfers are only allowed between pre-approved US and UK government agencies and contractors (referred to as the ‘Approved Community’) without ITAR export licences issued by the US Department of State.

The ‘quid pro quo’ for the removal of the need for US issued export licences is that while treaty material is in the UK it will be subject to specific marking provisions, protected under the Official Secrets Act and handled only by those with an appropriate security clearance.
Thanks - I know about ITAR and ACTO and ASSC etc etc as I comply with it all the time - we hold most of the inventory after all. I simply cannot believe the RN can use it as a justification for wholesale SC.
 
#27
#28
Thanks - I know about ITAR and ACTO and ASSC etc etc as I comply with it all the time - we hold most of the inventory after all. I simply cannot believe the RN can use it as a justification for wholesale SC.
I was surprised by this myself, the last time I looked at ITAR, etc. at MOD/Industry policy level (admittedly some time ago), I thought the MOD had a blanket exemption so that any MOD personnel (military or civilian) could handle/deal with those items in the course of their duties without having to be specifically named on any export Licence. I do not recall them having to have SC (or higher).
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#29
ITAR is but one of the justification measures for wide spread SC. There are others, not for discussion on here as they are minimum OS. If the Navy could get rid of the requirement as a cost saving one it would have.

Feel free to email your thoughts to PSyA Navy if you feel so strongly about it.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#30
I was surprised by this myself, the last time I looked at ITAR, etc. at MOD/Industry policy level (admittedly some time ago), I thought the MOD had a blanket exemption so that any MOD personnel (military or civilian) could handle/deal with those items in the course of their duties without having to be specifically named on any export Licence. I do not recall them having to have SC (or higher).
Having an SC is one of the control measures for the exceptions.
 
#31
Thanks @Guns, I had managed to work that out all by myself. :p
See the bold text in my post #24 above.
 
#32
Ooooh, get you!

The justification is tenuous at best (and thank you I’ve been a USO so I know what it is). It is a total waste of money.
Have you ever thought that a warship is a small place and everyone aboard is likely to see or hear sensitive things, whether or not it is directly part of their job (which it is for a lot of people because of their job)?

I think the RAF also require all their personnel to have SC.
 
#33
ITAR is but one of the justification measures for wide spread SC. There are others, not for discussion on here as they are minimum OS. If the Navy could get rid of the requirement as a cost saving one it would have.

Feel free to email your thoughts to PSyA Navy if you feel so strongly about it.
No point - I’ve engaged with PSy(A) before in other areas, notably about access to certain MOD locations where the ‘local commander’ has demanded a higher level of security clearance for commercial drivers than the MOD policy requires thereby driving up costs. Most ‘security’ people (and you may of course, be an honourable exception) seem to be minor party functionaries who embody all the worst traits of the Civil Service on a par with most commercial officers in MOD.
 
#34
Have you ever thought that a warship is a small place and everyone aboard is likely to see or hear sensitive things, whether or not it is directly part of their job (which it is for a lot of people because of their job)?

I think the RAF also require all their personnel to have SC.
If they do it must be because those MOBs are such small places.
 
#35
Have you ever thought that a warship is a small place and everyone aboard is likely to see or hear sensitive things, whether or not it is directly part of their job (which it is for a lot of people because of their job)?

I think the RAF also require all their personnel to have SC.
You don’t have to be SC to see or hear sensitive things.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#37
No point - I’ve engaged with PSy(A) before in other areas, notably about access to certain MOD locations where the ‘local commander’ has demanded a higher level of security clearance for commercial drivers than the MOD policy requires thereby driving up costs. Most ‘security’ people (and you may of course, be an honourable exception) seem to be minor party functionaries who embody all the worst traits of the Civil Service on a par with most commercial officers in MOD.
PSyA Navy is a Captain (OF5) so not really a minor party functionary. The local commander carries the risk, they get to decide the security control measures in place to meet their security risk management framework.
 
#38
PSyA Navy is a Captain (OF5) so not really a minor party functionary. The local commander carries the risk, they get to decide the security control measures in place to meet their security risk management framework.
That's one of the problems - local commanders, who should know better, over manage the risk because they are risk averse due to blame culture etc. Consequently they often set frankly unnecessarily stringent security protocols which drive greater cost into both MOD and Industry - such as demanding that a delivery driver has to be SC when BPSS is MOD policy. Given what even just BPSS allows you to do, see, hear, hold and access, it should be good for the vast majority of activity in a base, unit ship or anywhere else. However, local commanders etc think that they don't pay for the consequences of their risk aversion not realising that the costs will inevitably be passed onto the MOD in some way or another.

Amateur doesn't begin to describe it.
 
#39
Think this is the best forum to ask this - how can I confirm if my SC is current? I held DV in 2013 but haven’t had a role that’s required that since.
Now a possibility of another job that requires SC has come along but I’m not sure if I still have clearance?
Outside the MOD you can only be SC / DV if you are in an SC / DV role.

If you are not currently in a SC / DV role then you are not SC / DV - the clearance comes with the role.

Clearance can easily be re-instated upto 12 months afterwards, after that you need to go through the whole process again.

When people say they are "SC / DV Cleared" but not in a current role - what they actually mean they is recently have been SC / DV Cleared.

Within the MOD you clearance is normally held regardless of your role until it's natural expiry date, and will be renewed accordingly pending further reviews and interviews as appropriate. If you move to a Unit that does not require DV they will normally let this lapse and leave you at SC which has a longer shelf-life anyhow.
 
Last edited:
#40
When people say they are "SC / DV Cleared" but not in a current role - what they actually mean they is recently have been SC / DV Cleared.
Except - in support of Bubbles' point - 'recent' in SC terms can mean 'nearly ten years ago' which (by any sane interpretation) is next to useless if not downright misleading.

Having recently been through this process, I was struck how utterly feeble the whole construct is.

I re-entered a metric fücktonne of information that they already had access to. I answered a lot of questions about inlaws, outlaws and sundry other people in my life, like where they were born, when they got married etc ad nauseam. I answered a few questions about finances. But I answered precisely no questions about my aptitude for handling sensitive information (which, ironically, is possibly one of the only relevant human factors in this zone that can both be assessed empirically and has any kind of objective consistency).

And the assessment of those pieces of information, which can change in a matter of days, is supposed to lead to a judgement that basically says 'this SP can be trusted with material marked up to Top Secret for the next decade'.

As Bubbles says, its a total waste of money, and I challenge anyone to show how the current SC process produces the 'assurance' that the letters 'SC' imply and on which the 'system' relies with such blind confidence.

Out of interest, does anyone know what it takes to fail an SC vetting? Genuine question - I've never come across one before.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Brevet Army Reserve 2
V Army Pay, Claims & JPA 2

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top