The first sentance is FALSE.
When a person leaves a classified position, their ACCESS is terminated but not their CLEARANCE. The CLEARANCE remains in place for 2 years. This is by design as the effort to get someone cleared is very costly. Thus the 2 years allows the government to rehire the person prior to the end of the 2 years and only have to conduct a minimal investigation. Once the 2 years is up, and if no other renewal based on a job is submitted, that clearance becomes “inactive”
“inactive” is a designation that says essentially, the person is trustworthy but does not have a need.
“suspended” is a derogatory that usually means something funny is going on, and they are suspected of a breach. Access is no longer granted and the suspension must be cleared before proceeding,.
“revoked” is a VERY derogatory action and is rarely reversed. It means that the administration has found that individual to be in violation of procedure and MAY be in violation of law.
Ok so you seem to know what you're talking about. Can you explain the difference between "clearance" and "access"? I assume that access means you are free to view information at different levels of security. But what are the benefits of having clearance? Does it mean you are just allowed to enter certain facilities with your credentials or is it more than that? I guess what I'm asking is - say you had a computer in a secure facility that you were able to keep files on the were classified. Would there be a way for someone with just clearance to get into that computer and extract stuff that may have been stored when you had that access?
As you pointed out, if the clearances are kept active, they will lapse until a new background investigation is complete.
The real issues is Access: you can have all sorts of clearances but unless you are given access to a particular intelligence product, it's really worthless. The question is why has-been CIA directors or failed former staffers or persons who have grossly violated security procedures are being granted access.
I thought it was 5 years, but 2 would make more sense. I know my ACCESS to classified ended when my need to know ended: when I retired. I was told if I went to work for a place needing a clearance, mine would still be good. But when I retired, I RETIRED.
Good comments, but Brennan could have signed a contract with any number of “beltway bandits” and this would have establisned his need to have his clearance remain active. Any one with a clearance can do this and then if a “need” to see classified material comes up in the context of this “consulting contract” the beltway bandit can apply to use the employee’s clearance and it becomes part of their job to maintain it. (In other words Brennan would not have to go back into government service to maintain the clearance if he took this route.)
Your comment about revocation makes a lot of sense, perhaps Brennan did have some consulting firm maintaining his clearance and the revocation would have severed this relationship.
OK so no access but still cleared to know. This means anyone of his swamp buddies could “access” and then tell him everything they found out because he has ”clearance”.
Woo-hoo! Someone else who understands the clearance deal....thanks!