In 2016, an NSA employee alleged that a colleague had been improperly hired-someone with prior access to classified information and potential foreign government connections.
The case triggered a months-long internal investigation by the agency’s Inspector General.
The resulting document, Investigation IV-16-0032, doesn’t offer scandal.
But it reveals how suspicion inside the NSA-especially suspicion about foreign entanglements-triggers a precise, opaque machinery of review.
🕵️ The Allegation: Improper Hiring with Security Red Flags
According to the IG report, the subject of the complaint-referred to only by position and anonymized references-was flagged for:
-
Prior involvement with foreign nationals
-
Access to sensitive intelligence
-
Potential misrepresentation during the hiring process
The complainant alleged this individual had either failed to disclose-or been allowed to bypass-standard security protocols during their onboarding.
The IG took it seriously.
🔍 The Investigation
The Inspector General reviewed:
-
The employee’s background investigation file
-
Personnel security forms, including the SF-86
-
Interviews with both the complainant and the subject
-
Email chains and internal referrals regarding clearance status
There was no smoking gun. But there were contradictions.
One issue: the subject’s timeline of foreign contacts didn’t precisely match NSA records.
Another: the justification for waiving a clearance hold lacked documentation.
📑 Clearance Discrepancies and Administrative Gaps
At the center of the issue was a “Security Processing Interruption"-an administrative hold that had been lifted under unclear circumstances. The IG flagged this as a procedural failure, noting that:
-
The Personnel Security Office (PersSec) could not produce full records of who authorized the override
-
No record existed showing the foreign contact issue was adjudicated in detail
-
The subject’s file was incomplete at the time of hire
Despite this, the individual was cleared for duty.
🧾 The Conclusion: No Misconduct, But Policy Holes
Ultimately, the IG ruled that no intentional wrongdoing occurred. The hiring did not violate law or policy-because, technically, no policy required more than what was done.
But the report’s tone is cautionary. It highlights weaknesses in the security clearance process, particularly when:
-
Time pressure to fill roles overrides vetting
-
Foreign contacts aren’t disclosed early
-
Internal documentation is assumed but missing
The result was a cleared hire-and a reminder of how easily red flags become bureaucratic footnotes.
🕳️ What Happens Next? Nothing.
The investigation concluded with recommendations for better documentation and clearer authority chains-but no disciplinary action. No referral to DOJ. No follow-up audit.
The file was closed in 2017. The subject remained employed.
Sometimes, the intelligence world doesn’t bury stories. It just files them under "resolved."
