|
Yes I check every morning and I've got alerts set up for the agencies I'm looking into. At this point, I'm interested in political risk analysis, country analyst/expert, something of that sort. Trying to widen my range a bit and I've started looking into think tanks, multinationals, and the private sector, but that's about what I want to do.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Hi Everyone, I'm a Fed over at Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We use a different pay system and have Title V exemptions (because control towers can't have elevators). I was hired under 'special hiring authority' and I've studied enough of it to know how to take advantage of it if you're eligible. Mileage varies, and there is zero uniform knowledge across the government about how it works. Anyway, I'm jumping into the thread to field questions, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Which authority did you use? I was Peace Corps and we fall under that category.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Hey y'all. I'm currently a contract employee at an auditing firm in their Federal Advisory division, with around a year's worth of experience in FOIA matters - I'm basically one of the peons that takes the black sharpie to your documents before they're handed over. Paralegal, not a JD. I'm trying to decide if i want to stick with the contract treadmill (man gently caress that noise), move up to a Project Manager position (which i assume will involve me having to knife fight my way to it) or seeing what options I have in the government sector. My main question at the moment is how to properly describe the clearance that I have. I don't deal with classified matters so it's not Secret - everything that I touch is either Law Enforcement Sensitive but Unclassified, or PII. Basically Public Trust, what with the background checks and the interviewing friends and family and coworkers. I just want to make sure where I fall on the spectrum when it comes to applying to positions and the like. This has probably been covered in the thread already, but I'm just now starting to work my way through it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Is anyone familiar with the DCMA hiring process? I received a tentative offer for a management analyst position on November 5th. About two weeks later my HR POC told me that the security team was working on bringing me on board. I'm curious if others have experience on the time it takes between the tentative and final offer. I do have a current secret clearance from my curent position, so hopefully that speeds things up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Hey y'all. I'm at the same level of 'clearance' but it really isn't clearance at all. The good thing is that AFAIK the procedures for getting an actual secret/top secret clearance are almost completely identical with the SF86, security interview, interviewing neighbors/coworkers/family friends etc. I know some agencies throw a polygraph in there but that's fairly rare. If you can get through the process without issue I doubt getting an actual clearance should be much, if any, more difficult. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I know people who have gone through the S/TS clearance process 5+ times and can't tell a difference versus what I've been through. The way I advertise this on my resume is just to mention the responsibility for dealing with SBU/PII information.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Feeliums posted:Is anyone familiar with the DCMA hiring process? I received a tentative offer for a management analyst position on November 5th. About two weeks later my HR POC told me that the security team was working on bringing me on board. I'm curious if others have experience on the time it takes between the tentative and final offer. I do have a current secret clearance from my curent position, so hopefully that speeds things up. I'm currently a software engineer with DCMA and came on board almost three years ago. For what it's worth, I received my tentative offer in mid-December of 2012, and got a final offer about three months later in March. However, this is also my first job in government, and I didn't have any kind of clearance whatsoever before. I couldn't tell you for sure if this would make it any faster, but I would have to think it would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Dislike button posted:I'm at the same level of 'clearance' but it really isn't clearance at all. The good thing is that AFAIK the procedures for getting an actual secret/top secret clearance are almost completely identical with the SF86, security interview, interviewing neighbors/coworkers/family friends etc. I know some agencies throw a polygraph in there but that's fairly rare. If you can get through the process without issue I doubt getting an actual clearance should be much, if any, more difficult. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I know people who have gone through the S/TS clearance process 5+ times and can't tell a difference versus what I've been through. Yeah, the way I always saw it is that I have the exact same security clearance as a janitor working at the VA, so it's not as if I'm going around thinking that I'm a superspy. I've just been hearing mixed messages about whether or not I'd be able to put in for the job postings that do require a clearance. It could be departmentally dependent I suppose. Still, that's a good way of wording it for the resume, thanks! Justus posted:I'm currently a software engineer with DCMA and came on board almost three years ago. For what it's worth, I received my tentative offer in mid-December of 2012, and got a final offer about three months later in March. However, this is also my first job in government, and I didn't have any kind of clearance whatsoever before. I couldn't tell you for sure if this would make it any faster, but I would have to think it would. That was roughly the same time frame as my contractor clearance - it's my understanding that they had a backlog of checks to run. Hell, we had folks still waiting a month after the project officially started to finally get the all clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:Which authority did you use? I was Peace Corps and we fall under that category. I was brought on using Schedule A (Persons with Targeted Disabilities). I have a two year probationary period (halfway done). FAA is one of the many 'exempted' agencies. We use a pay band system, and not the GS (as a result, I had an agency pay raise on top of the federal one). I also got a 5% raise from my boss (which not everyone gets). I'm not allowed to telework until my probationary period is over. There are other hiring authorities. For example, if you have a Bachelor's degree, and you have 24 credits between math, law, economics or some others, you are immediately eligible for GS-11 jobs with the Air Force (civilian side) being an 1102 (Contract Specialist/Manager/whatever). That uses Emergency Hiring Authority. A buddy of mine is trying to get me up to Hanscomb AFB in one of those jobs. There's veteran's preference, 30% disabled veteran, etc. In some places, spouse of active duty military is a hiring authority. All I know is, disability comes in last after all of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Assume you are hired in DC. After your two-year probationary period, you are approved to telework, and you move to a less expensive city, though you periodically return to HQ every couple weeks for a few days or so. Is your salary adjusted to the locality where you move, or does it stay at DC rates? e. NM: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/official-worksite-for-location-based-pay-purposes/ Teleworkers An agency must determine and designate the official worksite for an employee covered by a telework agreement on a case-by-case basis using the following criteria: The official worksite for an employee covered by a telework agreement is the location of the regular worksite for the employee's position (i.e., the place where the employee would normally work absent a telework agreement), as long as the employee is scheduled to report physically at least twice each biweekly pay period on a regular and recurring basis to that regular worksite. In the case of a telework employee whose work location varies on a recurring basis, the employee need not report at least twice each biweekly pay period to the regular worksite established by the agency as long as the employee is performing work within the same geographic area (established for the purpose of a given pay entitlement) as the employee's regular worksite. For example, if a telework employee with a varying work location works at least twice each biweekly pay period on a regular and recurring basis in the same locality pay area in which the established official worksite is located, the employee need not report at least twice each biweekly pay period to that official worksite to maintain entitlement to the locality payment for that area. The official worksite for an employee covered by a telework agreement who is not scheduled to report at least twice each biweekly pay period on a regular and recurring basis to the regular worksite is the location of the telework site (i.e., home, telework center, or other alternative worksite), except in certain temporary situations, as explained under "Temporary Telework Arrangements," below. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Living the dream, landed a detail at a part of the Government that is probably small enough that I would be personally identifiable if I even posted what it was! Turns out the secret to getting a detail assignment is to be the only person who actually reads the monthly e-mail newslettery things your agency sends out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Quarex posted:Living the dream, landed a detail at a part of the Government that is probably small enough that I would be personally identifiable if I even posted what it was! Turns out the secret to getting a detail assignment is to be the only person who actually reads the monthly e-mail newslettery things your agency sends out. Anybody else getting some completely absurd new security requirements as an idiotic overreaction to the hacks? We're basically going back in time to the mid 90s because they're making email usage such a pain in the rear end I'm only going to communicate by fax. Any email containing PII going outside our department has to be encrypted. For basic emails the end user will get a link to sign up for an account and then can click to read the email. Pain in the rear end for a simple email. And I tend to not send repeated emails to one person, I'm always communicating with new people. Even better is that according to my test of it yesterday, it doesn't even work at the agency I do most of my communicating with. For attachments, it's even better. I have to send a signup form and user agreement to anyone I want to send an attachment to. They return it to me, I send it to our IT department, they create a box.com account for that person. Then I request that person be added to access my folder. Then I email them a link to the folder. The really great part is, the majority of the PII I would be sending in emails is totally disclosable information that I would immediately hand over to any chinese hacker who called me up and asked for it. I'm praying it's just our component's IT department misinterpreting some guidance from above and this will all be changed when someone realizes how pointless and disruptive this is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Only change I've noticed since the hack is we're no longer allowed to use our personal e-mail on our work computers. Not sure whether it's a response to the hack, though, and it's not a problem for me, since I get my personal e-mail through my phone anyway.
Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
You need to work for an agency that doesn't handle info anyone would care about stealing. We also use endless paper files for most stuff, so I guess that is super secure or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Kase Im Licht posted:I read those! Haha, ours is doing the same thing too. Mandatory encryption training starts soon for us, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:You need to work for an agency that doesn't handle info anyone would care about stealing. I don't. We have zero classified information. 95% of the information I send is actually public information. The rest is just sensitive but unclassified. They said if it's got a name, it has to be encrypted. End of story. Makes no sense. No one wants this poo poo. We've made some additional attempts to send the basic encrypted emails, none of them worked. And now IT is saying we have to do it for all emails, even inside the department.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
09:35, Logged into my government e-mail even though I am on leave "Hello Quarex, just double-checking to make sure the 10:00 interview time works for you, please respond." 09:36, Stare blankly harder than I have ever stared blankly before 09:37, "Extremely sorry, never received initial notification of interview, on leave, possible to reschedule?" 09:45, "Is a phone interview acceptable?" 09:46, "Yes, when?" 09:53, "Thank you, you will receive a call in a few minutes." 09:59, Phone interview with zero preparation If I were the sort of person who experienced stress at a normal level, I think I would have actually had a heart attack at some point during this experience. Pretty sure I nailed it, though. But I also am pretty sure I do not have enough of the right kind of experience to beat anyone else who nailed it and knows what (s)he is doing. So it goes!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
"Grade 12: We reviewed your resume and application materials and determined that you are not qualified for this particular position. We encourage you to apply for other positions for which you may be better qualified." Holy poo poo does that piss me off. gently caress you too, Department of Energy. There seriously can't be a dozen people in the world who are better qualified for this job than I am. To be sure it would conform to their standards, I even used their resume builder tool, and used the exact language of the ad in my resume and cover letter. I hate this opaque, impossible system. Job hunting is awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
I feel you, I've applied to a few where I met every qualification and scored the highest possible on the KSAs and still didn't get my resume forwarded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
I definitely got messages like that for GS 5/7 versions of the exact same job I ended up with at GS-9.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
So wait, as part of the onboarding, I have to print out the IT policy test, circle the right answers, and physically mail it to my supervisor? Is this some sort of steampunk agency I'm stepping into? All I want to do is play with trees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
When a job is listed as "Full Time - Temporary NTE 180 days, will not be extended and will not be made permanent", what happens at the end of the 180 days? Would I get my old position back, or are you then released from the service?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
sullat posted:When a job is listed as "Full Time - Temporary NTE 180 days, will not be extended and will not be made permanent", what happens at the end of the 180 days? Would I get my old position back, or are you then released from the service? You are summarily executed berzerker posted:"Grade 12: We reviewed your resume and application materials and determined that you are not qualified for this particular position. We encourage you to apply for other positions for which you may be better qualified." As you may have noticed, there is almost zero integrity in this system
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
sparkmaster posted:So wait, as part of the onboarding, I have to print out the IT policy test, circle the right answers, and physically mail it to my supervisor? Sounds pretty tame to me. At one point my payroll process worked as follows: 1. Type up timesheet in specific format in excel. 2. Print, get supervisor signature, hand to secretary at base A. 3. Secretary types time info into unit payroll system. 4. Secretary prints out results of unit payroll system, get signature from supervisor. 5. Secretary faxes printout to base B payroll office. 6. Secretary at base B types everything into base B payroll system, prints results to pdf, emails to base C. 7. Base C inputs payroll information into Base C computer system at which point it disappears into the computer network; I think it's just computers from there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
berzerker posted:"Grade 12: We reviewed your resume and application materials and determined that you are not qualified for this particular position. We encourage you to apply for other positions for which you may be better qualified." Was it one of the postings that had a questionnaire that asked like what option best suited your experience? If so from what I have seen and been told you want the "best" versions of those, drat near copy and pasted into your resume to have the best chance to get though the automated resume eating machine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
My typical situation is: 1) Email word doc with blanks to fill in 2) Recipient prints out doc, fills numbers in blank by hand 3) That guy faxes it back to me 4) That guy emails me to tell me he sent a fax And wasn't there something about the Supreme Court Justices sending hand written notes to each other by courier somewhat recently?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Deeters posted:My typical situation is: One of the Justices here in Texas has a standing order that basically involves you sending in old school style collections of documents rather than any of this perfunctory e-filing stupidity. If it was good enough for the pioneers then it's good enough for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Deeters posted:My typical situation is: I had to do exactly this to get my assignment reimbursement and per diem at the BLM. I had hoped perm employees had a more efficient system than us temps. Hope is quickly fading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Today I interviewed for a job and half-way through they were like "oh also we are asking everyone if they would consider potentially starting the same job at a different office, how do you feel about that?" I did not expect this amazing two-for-one interview offer
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:Sounds pretty tame to me. At one point my payroll process worked as follows: Sounds like you guys need a budget cut to sort out all that inefficiency
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Anyone ever been denied clearance based on internet activity? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
sparatuvs posted:Anyone ever been denied clearance based on internet activity? Pretty sure posting on SA will result in not only denied clearance, but possibly also being whisked off to a CIA black site for a lot of water boarding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
This whole thread was a honey pot oh poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
I read LF once and posted a reply. But I don't think it will come back to hau--- *muffled screams, sounds of bags being pulled over heads*
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:Pretty sure posting on SA will result in not only denied clearance, but possibly also being whisked off to a CIA black site for a lot of water boarding. Is the first part of that true? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
For the record, I know absolutely nothing about clearances or background checks 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Half day on Xmas eve! Thanks Obama!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
So when an application package asks for "completed course work (unit/credit hours.)" They can't possibly mean every single college and above course I've ever been in, right? What do they mean? Wouldn't a transcript cover that in any case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
FuriousAngle posted:Is the first part of that true? Asking for a friend. Artificer posted:So when an application package asks for "completed course work (unit/credit hours.)"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Quarex posted:Probably not. I know my Single Scope Background Investigation was not technically a clearance investigation, but thinking about how it went... as long as you are just using these Forums as Forums rather than as, like, a place to recruit people for your seditious militia, I think you are good. I'll cut to the chase, my friend once posed as an arms dealer online so they could talk with people fighting in Ukraine. Should they not even try? I get that the mechanism of the national agency check is purposely obscured, but it still does consult the NSA. ass struggle fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:44
|
|