ISL 95L-2 July 7, 1995
1. Restricted information Provided by Foreign Governments and International Organizations
Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton
on 17 April 1995, contains provisions that now allow us to relax
the handling procedures for foreign government information (FGI)
that is marked
RESTRICTED. Current procedures for handling FGI are
described in Chapter 10, Section 3 of the National Industrial
Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). Pending the publication
of necessary changes to the NISPOM, the following interim guidance
will be used for handling RESTRICTED FGI.
2. 1995 Cogswell Award Recipients Announced
(1) Facilities that require access to FGI RESTRICTED must be appropriately cleared in accordance with the NISPOM.
(2) The information will be provided only to facilities or persons whose access is necessary in connection with a contract of the originating government or international organization or a component of the U.S. Government.
(3) Release to any third country government, national (including resident aliens), or organization requires the prior written consent of the originating government or international organization.
(4) All persons who are to be given access to the information must be informed of and acknowledge their responsibilities in writing for protecting the information.
Personnel security clearances are not required except as may be required by the originating government.1/ If an individual has a security clearance and has executed an SF 312, there is no need to sign a separate briefing acknowledgment.
1/ A personnel security clearance is required for access to Spanish RESTRICTED information.
(1) The information will not be left unattended or handled in a manner that could result in unauthorized access. It may be stored in locked desks, cabinets or similar containers to which access is restricted. It also may be secured in the open in locked rooms, provided access to the room is restricted to persons who are authorized access to the information by the FSO. When the information is not secured in a container, it will be turned face down or be protected by a cover sheet that is marked to identify the fact that it covers RESTRICTED FGI. During travel, the information must remain in the personal custody of the carrier or be secured as described herein. It may not be left unattended in hotel rooms or vehicles. It may not be read in public.
(2) U.S. documents or other media that contain RESTRICTED FGI, but that otherwise would be unclassified, will be protected as above.
(1) Documents or other media containing RESTRICTED FGI may be transmitted within the U.S. by any of the means authorized for U.S. CONFIDENTIAL information. First Class mail is also authorized. If sent by First Class mail, the envelope or wrapper will be marked: "POSTMASTER: Address Correction Requested/Do Not Forward." Double envelopes or wrappings are not required. The envelope or wrapping will be opaque and will not reveal that the package contains RESTRICTED FGI. Receipts are not necessary unless required by the originating government or international organization.
(2) The international transmission of documents or other media containing RESTRICTED FGI will be through government to government channels (including approved hand carriage), except as may be agreed otherwise in writing by the responsible security official of the originating government or international organization.2/ Receipts are required.
2/ The U.K. has agreed that U.K. RESTRICTED information need not be transmitted through government to government channels.
(3) When transmitting RESTRICTED FGI by telephone or telefacsimile within the United States, secure communications should be used; commercial security systems are acceptable. If secure communications are not reasonably available, and there is an urgent contract-related need to transmit the information, non-secure communications may be used with the consent of the FSO.
The intended recipient must be notified prior to transmission to ensure his/her presence at the intended location when the nonsecure means of communication is used.
(4) RESTRICTED FGI transmitted internationally by telephone or telefacsimile will be by secure communications unless authorized otherwise in writing by the responsible security official of the originating government or international organization.
Documents or other media containing RESTRICTED FGI will be destroyed by any method approved for the destruction of classified information. There is no requirement for a record of destruction.
e. Security Violations
Violations of procedures that result in the likely loss of or unauthorized access to RESTRICTED FGI will be investigated. If loss or unauthorized access cannot be ruled out, the CSA will be notified of the incident, following the procedures described in the NISPOM, Chapter 1.
(1) Upon receipt, documents or other media containing RESTRICTED FGI will be marked with the classification level and country or international organization of origin in English on the front and back, unless otherwise so marked.
(2) U.S. documents or other media that contain RESTRICTED FGI will be marked as described above. Additionally, each individual paragraph or segment will be marked to identify the RESTRICTED FGI (e.g. UK-R).
The reproduction of RESTRICTED FGI will be limited to that which is necessary in support of a contract of the originating government or international organization or a component of the U.S. Government. More stringent requirements may be imposed by the originating government or international organization.
h. USE IN AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS (AIS)RESTRICTED FGI will be processed and stored in AIS accredited for classified information.
4. Continued use of DD Forms 398, 398-2 and 1879
On June 28, 1995, Mr. John Donnelly, Director, Defense Investigative Service (DIS) announced the recipients of the Department of Defense's 1995 James S. Cogswell Outstanding Industrial Security Achievement Awards during the National Classification Management Society's National Training Seminar in Orlando, Florida. Fifty-three facilities were selected for the 29th annual award, which is presented to contractors who demonstrate a commitment to industrial security excellence through the maintenance of exemplary security programs. Congratulations to the following facilities:
AEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Lansdale, PA
CEO: Dr. Leon Riebman
FSO: James Daneker
ANDREW SCICOMM, INC., Garland, TX
President: Alfred M. Collado
FSO: Pamela J. Campbell
ARINC RESEARCH CORPORATION, SAN ANTONIO OFFICE, San Antonio, TX
CEO: James L. Pierce
Manager/FSO: Roger H. Larsen
ATLANTA AEROSPACE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, NEW ENGLAND OFFICE,
VP/GM: Dr. Theodore Bially
FSO: William A. Senst
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, JET PROPULSION LABORATORY,
Director: Dr. Edward C. Stone
Manager, Security & Plant Protection: Dick Welby
FSO: Steven J. Wells
CHARLES EVANS & ASSOCIATES, Redwood City, CA
President: Charles A. Evans, Jr.
FSO: James E. Plank
DCS CORPORATION, Alexandria, VA
COB: Carl H. Dubac
President: James Wood
FSO: Alice T. Weadon
DELCO SYSTEMS OPERATION DELCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Goleta, CA
President: Michael G. Johnston
FSO: Allan R. Johnson
EMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Norcross, GA
President: Jeffrey A. Leddy
FSO: Harry C. Smith
GENERAL DYNAMICS ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION, NEWPORT ENGINEERING OFFICE, Middletown, RI
Facility Manager: Jane E. Steele
FSO: Martha S. Carter
GENERAL RESEARCH CORPORATION, Danvers, MA
General Manager: Dr. Thomas L. Murdock
FSO: Alison M. Zweil
GLEASON RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., Columbia, MD
President/FSO: Dr. Thomas J. Gleason
GRUMMAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION, GRUMMAN MELBOURNE SYSTEMS,
A Subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, Melbourne, FL
Vice President: Martin E. Dandridge
FSO: William D. Tate
GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Chantilly, VA
Vice President: John R. Messier
FSO: Robert Bogdanchik
H. F. HENDERSON INDUSTRIES, West Caldwell, NJ
President: Henry F. Henderson
FSO: Paula B. Davis
HONEYWELL, INC., HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Minneapolis, MN
Vice President: Ben E. Simmons
FSO: Susan A. Snyder
HONEYWELL, INC., MILITARY AVIONICS DIVISION, Minneapolis, MN
Vice President: Jerry Holman
FSO: Susan A. Snyder
HRB SYSTEMS, INC., State College, PA
President: Michael D. Keebaugh
FSO: David P. Fryer
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CONTROL, INC., Virginia Beach, VA
President: Howard F. Sparks
FSO: Steven K. Anderson
KAMAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION, Bloomfield, CT
President: Walter Kozlow
FSO: Richard Sheridan
KBM ENTERPRISES, INC., Huntsville, AL
President: James D. Knight
FSO: Amanda J. Morris
LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSILES & SPACE COMPANY, INC., AUSTIN OPERATIONS, Austin, TX
General Manager: David H. Penrose
FSO: Diane R. Gallatin
LOCKHEED MARTIN TECHNICAL OPERATIONS, Sunnyvale, CA
President: Richard Dessling
FSO: Shirley A. Coffman
LOGICON EAGLE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Dumfries, VA
Operations Manager: Robin Cobble
FSO: Sharon Carr
LOGICON R&D ASSOCIATES, Chievres Air Base, Belgium
Vice President: Randall D. Peat
FSO: Dennis McCartney
LORAL AERONUTRONIC, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
President: W. Shelly Buttrill
FSO: Harold A. Zander
LORAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, Salt Lake City, UT
Vice President: Curtis Brunson
FSO: Joseph B. Cotton
LORAL FEDERAL SYSTEMS, Boulder, CO
General Manager: Barry D. Macalady
FSO: Guy R. Sheets
LORAL INFRARED & IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC., Lexington, MA
President: John S. Dehne
FSO: Roy Murphy
MAGNAVOX ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS COMPANY, EAST COAST DIVISION, Mahwah, NJ
General Manager: Charles J. Arduini
FSO: Lucille Redman
MARTIN MARIETTA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ASTRONAUTICS GROUP, Vandenberg AFB, CA
Director: Michael F. Gaughen
FSO: Delma W. Ward
McDONNELL DOUGLAS AEROSPACE, SPACE SYSTEMS BUSINESS UNIT, Cape Canaveral, FL
Program Manager: Charles G. White
FSO: Bryan G. Buckley
METRIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Ft. Walton Beach, FL
President: Coy J. Scribner
FSO: Bonita S. Deck
MISSION RESEARCH CORPORATION, Nashua, NH
Director: Russell A. Armstrong
FSO: Marilyn A. Martin
NICHOLS RESEARCH CORPORATION, Huntsville, AL
CEO: Chris H. Horgen
FSO: Teresa F. Garland
ONTRACK DATA RECOVERY, INC., Eden Prairie, MN
CEO: Michael W. Rogers
FSO: Nancy C. Riley
PRB ASSOCIATES, INC., Hollywood, MD
President: Lawrence M. Schadegg
FSO: Carletta Ashby
RAYTHEON COMPANY, ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS DIVISION, Goleta, CA
Vice President: John L. Gressingh
FSO: Donald R. Gallagher
SAGE LABORATORIES, INC., Natick, MA
President: Carl A. Marguerite
FSO: Anthony Pierannunzi
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., Albuquerque, NM
Facility Manager: Mark J. Duff
FSO: Donna K. Amdor
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Stratford, CT
President: Eugene Buckley
FSO: Thomas C. Fischer
SRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Arlington, VA
VP/General Manager: James Allburn
FSO: Robert Patchett
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORPORATION, Syracuse, NY
President: Robert U. Roberts
FSO: John P. Walker
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORPORATION, San Antonio, TX
Director: Merlin T. Livesay
FSO: Darlene K. Stroup
TEC-MASTERS, INC., Huntsville, AL
President: Marvin P. Carroll
FSO: Richard L. Grandey
TIBURON SYSTEMS, INC., San Jose, CA
President: Jere W. Patterson
FSO: George W. Glaush
TRIDENT DATA SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Los Angeles, CA
President: Frederick Lukas
FSO: Joyce Belardi
TRW AVIONICS & SURVEILLANCE GROUP, Sunnyvale, CA
Manager: Arthur L. Money
FSO: Kenneth R. Moore
U.S. MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC., Norfolk, VA
President: Bradford F. Sauer
FSO: Robert L. Smith
VECTOR RESEARCH, INC., Ann Arbor, MI
President: Dr. Seth Bonder
FSO: Cynthia J. Sorensen
VEDA, INC., Lexington Park, MD
Manager: Dennis England
FSO: Donna Farrish-Carter
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Huntsville Engineering Center,
VP/Facility Manager: William J. Harris
FSO: Julian A. Berry, Jr.
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION, Simi Valley,CA
President: Clint W. Deisenroth
FSO: Gregory B. Smith
9. Submission of Disco Form 562 by Facsimile Transmission
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has granted an extension to allow the DoD components to continue to use the current version of the Electronic Personnel Security Questionnaire (EPSQ) and the March 1990 version of DD Forms 398, 398-2 and 1879 until August 31, 1995. The Defense Investigative Service (DIS) is currently updating the EPSQ software to accommodate the new SF 86 and SF 85P. It is expected that this new software will be available for use by September 1, 1995. If not, a subsequent 90 - 120-day extension may be necessary. It is anticipated that the new forms will be available no later than the end of the year.
Contractors must ensure that all DD Forms 398, 398-2 and 1879 completed subsequent to March 31, 1995, contain the new expiration date in the upper right hand corner of the form prior to being mailed to DIS. This provision does not apply to electronic transmission of the EPSQ.
4. Revision to Instructions for completion of the DD Forms 398 and 398-2
5. Incomplete DD Forms 398-2 for Secret Periodic Reinvestigations
The following instructions for completing the DD Forms 398 and 398-2 have been amended for immediate implementation.
DD FORM 398, "Personnel Security Questionnaire" A. Item 6.b. "Physical Characteristics" (Race): Enter one of the following, as appropriate. Sex and Race are requested for identification purposes only and are not a factor in determining eligibility.
* AI/AN - American Indian or Alaskan Native. Persons originating in North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
* ASN/PI - Asian or Pacific Islander. Persons originating in the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This includes China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
* Black. Persons originating in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
* HISP - Hispanic. Persons originating in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central or South America, or any other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
* White. Persons originating in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
B. Item 8.b. "Citizenship" (United States National):
For personnel security purposes, includes persons born in American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
C. Item 23. "Organizations": Do not answer questions (a) and (c).
DD FORM 398-2, "National Agency Questionnaire"
A. Item 6.b. "Physical Characteristics" (Race): Same as above.
B. Item 8.b. "Citizenship" (United States National):
Same as above.
C. Item 21. "Organization": Do not answer questions (a) and (c).
6. Emergency Higher Level Access
There continues to be confusion between a SECRET periodic reinvestigation (PR) and a revalidation or reinstatement. DISCO has to reject many of the SECRET PR requests because Block 12 of the DD Form 398-2, "Family/Associates" is left blank. Please remember to complete the entire DD Form 398-2 for a SECRET PR.
7. Local Agency Checks in Australia
Paragraph 2-208 of the Industrial Security Manual permitted contractors to grant emergency higher level access to classified information. Since the investigative basis for a CONFIDENTIAL and a SECRET personnel security clearance (PCL) is the same and a final SECRET PCL provides the basis for an interim TOP SECRET, there has not been much of a demand for granting emergency higher level access. Although the NISPOM is silent on this issue, it is recognized that there may still be a legitimate use for an emergency upgrade when it is necessary to meet an operational or contractual urgency. The following guidance is therefore provided:
Contractors must submit requests for emergency higher level access to the CSO for approval as a waiver to the requirements of the NISPOM. Requests must contain all relevant information including the compelling reason for granting the higher level access and approving documentation from the Government Contracting Agency whose material is to be disclosed. If the contractor anticipates that access will be in excess of 30 days, they should simultaneously process the employee for the higher level clearance. Access must be limited to information under the control or custody of the contractor making the request or a GCA installation. There are no restrictions against accessing "proscribed" information provided the GCA concurs in writing.
Your Industrial Security Representative should be contacted for additional information.
8. Pre-employment Clearance Processing Clarification
A local agency check (LAC) is conducted when a subject of a single scope background investigation (SSBI) has lived or worked outside the U.S. in excess of six months. (NOTE: There is no six-month time period for periodic reinvestigations (PRs)). LACs are conducted at all overseas places of residence, employment, and education during the period of investigation. When requesting a clearance on an employee meeting the above SSBI/PR criteria, contractors should ensure that necessary releases have been completed.
Because of an Australian government policy decision, Local Agency Checks (LACs) may no longer be conducted in Australia without the completion of an Australian Federal Police (AFP) consent form and questionnaire from the Subject. A copy of this release is attached and may be reproduced as needed.
DISCO will be rejecting contractor requests which do not have the necessary Australian release.
ISL 94L-2, dated July 13, 1994 and NISPOM paragraph 2-204 extends the time frame for pre-employment clearance processing from 30 to 180 days provided a written commitment for employment has been obtained. However, instructions on how to mark these clearance requests for investigation have not been provided.
Contractors are to instruct Subjects who have been offered employment and whose paperwork is being submitted prior to their actual starting date to include the statement "Offer of Employment With (Name and Address of Company) Beginning On (Date) Has Been Accepted" in the "Remarks" section of the DD Form 398 or DD Form 398-2 as appropriate.
Contractors may now submit all DISCO 562 actions
to DISCO via FAX (this includes the ISL 94L-2 change which permits
of requests for conversions, revalidation, reinstatements
and concurrent clearances on the DISCO Form 562). Only the
following fax number should be utilized:
DISCO FORM 562 FAX NUMBER: (614) 692-1410
When contractors report an employment termination,
they may also send the SF 312, "Classified Information Nondisclosure
by FAX. Care should be taken to ensure that both
sides of the SF 312 are transmitted.
If the DISCO Form 562 or SF Form 312 are submitted
by FAX, contractors should NOT send the originals to DISCO.
10. Requests for Conversions, Revalidations, Reinstatments and Concurrent Clearances
Until the DISCO Form 562 is revised, contractors
should comply with the following guidance when requesting conversions,
revalidations, reinstatements and concurrent clearances:
11. The importance of Annoting Forms "OODEP"
13. The Facility Security Officer Program Managemenr Course
The Personnel Clearance Division at DISCO was recently restructured into several teams. One team, the Facilities/OODEP Branch, processes all key management (owners, officers, directors or executive personnel (OODEPs)) actions with the remaining teams processing all non-OODEP personnel according to Social Security Number (SSN). NOTE: Although the term "OODEP" is no longer used in the NISPOM, it should continue to be used to annotate all key management personnel clearance actions.
Approximately 9,000 pieces of mail are received weekly in DISCO, e.g., Personnel Security Questionnaires with attachments, correspondence, foreign travel reports, adverse reports, certificates of foreign representatives, DISCO Form 562, etc.
When the appropriate forms dealing with the key management personnel at cleared facilities are not properly annotated OODEP, these forms will be routed according to SSN, not to the Facilities/OODEP Branch, which could significantly delay the processing of key management personnel forms.
These delays can be reduced by assuring the appropriate forms for key management personnel are clearly annotated OODEP in the designated place depending upon the type of security request.
12. Electronic Personnel Security Questionnaire (EPSQ) Reminder
Contractors who are submitting their EPSQs electronically are reminded that they must retain the original signed copy of the printed EPSQ and Authority for Release of Information and Records until the clearance process has been completed. Additionally, it is requested that the Security Office include their phone and FAX numbers on both the DD Form 1879 and Certification Notice.
The Department of Defense Security Institute (DoDSI)
has replaced the Industrial Security Management Course (ISMC)
Facility Security Officer Program Management Course
(FSOPMC) commencing in January 1995. The newly designed four-day
will be presented at various locations throughout
the U.S. and will cover the requirements of the NISPOM. Space
will be limited
to 100 students per class, so you are encouraged
to enroll as early as possible.
1995 FSOPMC SCHEDULE
Date, Loocation, To Enroll Call:
Jul 31-Aug 4, 1995 Central Region (312) 886-7737
Aug 21-25, 1995 Washington DC Area (703) 325-9395
Sept 11-15, 1995 Cherry Hill, NJ (609) 482-650
9 Sept 18-22, 1995 Los Angeles, CA (310) 595-7666
14. Defense Contractor use of Class 7 Security Containers
15. The Availability of U.S. VisitsHE AVAILABILITY OF U.S. VISITS
The General Services Administration (GSA) approved containers submitted by both Mosler, Inc. and the Hamilton Products Group that meet Federal Specification AA-F-2815, Class 7 Security Filing Cabinets. The container was designed to reduce both cost and weight. Advertising and product information available from the vendors and the Federal specification note that these containers are approved only for the storage of SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL material.
However, within the United States, Puerto Rico and the trust territories, Defense contractors may use GSA-approved Class 7 Security Containers to safeguard TOP SECRET material, provided that the usual NISPOM supplemental control requirements for TOP SECRET storage are in place.
Article 3 of ISL 93L-1 announced the availability of U.S. VISITS, an automated system to process international visit requests. It
has been brought to our attention that many contractors are of the understanding that, in order to utilize this software,
requests must be transmitted electronically. Although the system is principally designed to prepare and forward the requests
electronically to the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO), the software format may also be utilized to
prepare international visit requests which will then be processed in hard copy. The software may be obtained by contacting John
Cosenza, DISCO, at (614) 692-2878.
16. COMPLETION OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE DSP-85
Items 17 and 19 on the DSP-85 require the name and address of the foreign end-user and foreign consignee respectively. In
addition, the blocks ask for the FSC, level and date of clearance. Foreign firms do not have FSC numbers and therefore
are not required in blocks 17 and 19. Applicants may obtain facility clearances (FCL's) and safeguarding capability for
foreign companies by contacting DIS HQs, International Programs Branch, S0414, at (703) 325-6034/9453 or fax (703) 325-6033/1329.
When FCL's and safeguarding are available before the DSP-85 application is filed with the State Department, they should be
listed with their alphabetical letter designator divided by a slash, e.g., a facility with a SECRET FCL with CONFIDENTIAL
safeguarding would be listed as S/C. The requested dates of FCL's in sections 17 and 19 will be the date of the verification
letter from DIS. In those cases where a foreign FCL verification is not obtained prior to application, please indicate
"Application Pending" in the lower portion of blocks 17 or 19.
17. OVERSEAS ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES
Please note that the assignment of all cleared personnel outside the U.S., Puerto Rico, Guam or the Virgin Islands for a period in
excess of 90 days must be reported to DISCO. It is essential that this information include a local telephone and facsimile
number, complete overseas mailing address and the identity of the U.S. or foreign military installation where the individual(s) is
assigned to include the "XX" number assigned by DISCO if assigned to an existing duty station (Reference ISM 12-106, NISPOM 10-
605). Additionally, any significant change(s) affecting the status of your overseas location, i.e., office disestablishment,
personnel change(s), mailing or physical address changes, etc. should be promptly reported.
Home Office Facility (HOF) security officers are encouraged to have their cleared employees assigned to newly-established or
one-person overseas offices contact their cognizant OISI office soon after their arrival.
This action will allow for an accurate accounting of overseas duty stations and provide for timely security assistance to your
overseas staff. To assist in this matter, the following OISI mailing addresses and telephone numbers are provided for your
OISI-Europe (OISI-E) OISI-Far East (OISI-FE)
PSC 79, Box 003 Unit 45005
APO AE 09724 APO AP 96343-5005
COMM: 011-322-725-0884 COMM: 011-81-3117-63-3619
FAX: 011-322-725-0116 DSN: 263-3619
OISI-Central and South America (OISI-CASA)
c/o DIS, Industrial Security FO (S41ME)
1600 Sarno Road, Suite 201
Melbourne, FL 32935-4992
COMM: (407) 255-5185
FAX: (407) 255-5192
18. CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO GUAM
Contractors having cleared visitor groups assigned to Guam for an extended period, i.e., in excess of 90 days, are requested to
contact the Office of Industrial Security International, Far East (OISI-FE) at the address/telephone numbers listed above. This
action will ensure that your personnel receive timely and recurring security assistance. Please note that assignments to
Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are not required to be reported to DISCO.
19. REJUSTIFICATION OF OVERSEAS CLEARANCES
Just a reminder to all defense contractors with cleared personnel assigned overseas. In the past, we have suggested that the
attached reporting format be used to rejustify the need for an overseas clearance when requested by DISCO. Since this format
remains current and satisfies the requirement of NISPOM paragraph 10-605b(1), we strongly encourage its continued utilization.
20. CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
Since 1991, the U.S. has been active in the negotiations of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a multilateral treaty banning
the production and use of chemical-warfare agents. The treaty will impact the chemical industry and could affect the defense
industry as well. More than 159 countries have committed to participating in the treaty which could be implemented as soon as
However, the U.S. Senate has not yet ratified the CWC.
Implementation provisions of the CWC will require signatories to declare current CW stockpiles and production facilities to
include activities that have produced CW since January 1, 1946. In addition, certain laboratories and test and development sites
will also be declared along with facilities that currently produce, consume, or store a number of general use chemicals.
In order to achieve the mandate surrounding the prohibition and elimination of chemical weapons, the agreement calls for a
verification regime to oversee the chemical activities of treaty signatories. Like other recent arms control agreements, one
element of verification will be through on-site inspections.
A number of U.S. companies could find foreign inspection teams, made up of representatives from countries that are signatories to
the CWC, on their sites, for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of chemical data or resolving compliance concerns. The
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is notifying firms most likely to be inspected.
In exceptional cases, compliance concerns may be satisfied through a challenge inspection regime. These inspections have
the potential to be intrusive and are not restricted to just facilities involved in chemical activity. A challenge inspection
may be implemented on the basis of a credible compliance concern registered by other treaty signatories to a counsel within the
CWC organizational structure. Challenge inspections are not expected to occur until some years after the CWC enters into
force and even then should be very rare and few in number.
This brief article is designed to stimulate thought as to whether or not the Convention may impact your facility. The CWC text
includes a number of chemicals prohibited under the agreement and a large list of dual use chemicals that are either controlled or
monitored. Lists are available upon request. For additional information, consult your area or regional Director of Industrial
21. ERRATA - 1994 COGSWELL AWARD RECIPIENTS ANNOUNCED
The Facility Security Officer (FSO) at GTE Government Systems Corporation, Electronic Defense Military Center Systems
Directorate, Colorado Springs, Colorado, was incorrectly identified in ISL 94L-2, dated July 13, 1994. The FSO is John M.
Springer. Our apologies, Mr. Springer.
22. National Industrial Security Bulletin Board (NISB) Update
Although the purpose of the NISB was fully explained and instructions for accessing the board were included in article 24
of ISL 95L-1, ISLs will continue to be utilized to update resources posted on the NISB.
To date, the following resources are currently posted:
- National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), dated January 1995
- NISPOM Index
- Electronic Personnel Security Questionnaire
- Industrial Security Letter - ISL 95L-1
Changes to these documents will be placed on the board as soon as they happen which will make the information available
significantly faster than the normal distribution by mail. In addition to official publications, postings on the board contain
information on computer security, export controls, and general counterintelligence information.
The board is also designed to serve as a communication tool for organizations other than the Defense Investigative Service. There
is a feature on the board which allows anyone who might be looking at it to automatically send information to an electronic
mail box for review and posting on NISB. This has allowed postings of meeting announcements for Industrial Security
Awareness Councils, National Classification Management Society and other security related activities. We look forward to using
this board to field questions and provide answers to questions and concerns relating to the National Industrial Security
Program. The success of this venture will come through the active interaction with the whole security community.
23. Q&A - SF 312
QUESTION/STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Paragraph 3-105b of the ISM empowered the FSO to act on behalf of the U.S. Government and
sign the Acceptance portion of the SF 312. Paragraph 3-105 of the NISPOM is silent regarding the Acceptance portion of the SF
312. Does this change mean that the FSO is no longer authorized to accept the SF 312 on behalf of the government?
ANSWER/GUIDANCE: No. The FSO is still empowered to sign the Acceptance portion of the SF 312 and we strongly encourage them
to do so. If they do not, that portion of the form will be completed at DISCO; however, this will place a tremendous burden
on DISCO and will detract from their primary clearance mission. We strongly encourage the FSO to complete the form prior to
submitting it to DISCO due to the volume of forms DISCO will receive.
24. Q&A - CONVERSION OF ROTC CLEARANCES
QUESTION/STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Do ROTC clearances qualify as clearance conversions?
ANSWER/GUIDANCE: Yes. ISM paragraph 2-214a permits the conversion of clearances for members of the National Guard and
U.S. Army Reserve in both the Ready Reserve and Standby Reserve status. Paragraphs 2-319c, DoD 5220.22-R, Industrial Security
Regulation, permits conversion for any prior federal government investigation that meets the current clearance standards.
25. Q&A - DoD/SCI VISITS
QUESTION/STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: When an individual visits a facility for SCI purposes and then has to have access to
collateral information, does the contractor have to wait for a separate certification of the individual's DoD clearance?
ANSWER/GUIDANCE: No. The important issue here is the clearance status of the visitor and not the channel used to certify the
clearance. The SCI access certification sent to the facility includes the individual's collateral clearance status and a
separate letter is not necessary.
This response concerns incoming visits to DoD contractors only and does not affect outgoing visit procedures to GCA activities
that may require two separate visit requests, one for SCI and another for collateral.
26. Q&A - USE OF S&G PADLOCK, MODEL 8077, TO PROTECT CLASSIFIED AA&E
QUESTION/STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Can the Sargent & Greenleaf (S&G) combination padlock, Model 8077, be used to protect classified
DoD arms, ammunition, and explosives (AA&E) stored at contractor facilities?
ANSWER/GUIDANCE: No. The S&G padlock does not meet the standards of a high security padlock and should not be used on
doors to structures where AA&E is being stored (regardless of security classification). AA&E must be secured in either a GSA-
approved Class 5 container, a vault equipped with a GSA-approved Class 5 or 8 vault door and built-in combination lock, or a fixed
or portable magazine with a high security key operated padlock meeting Military Specification 43607 (MIL-P-43607) and a high
security hasp meeting Military Specification 29181/1 (MIL-H- 29181/1).
Keys to the high security padlock must be secured in containers of at least 20-gauge steel, or material of equivalent strength,
and equipped with a built-in GSA-approved changeable combination padlock or a GSA-approved Class 5 security container (see DoD
5100.76-M, "Physical Security of Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives," Chapter 3, Paragraph H.1.b.).
27. Q&A - DoD HOTLINE TELEPHONE NUMBER
QUESTION/STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Are the Defense Hotline telephone numbers listed in the NISPOM correct?
ANSWER/GUIDANCE: The local number, (703) 693-5080, which is listed in the NISPOM is no longer a working number. All contacts with the Defense Hotline should be made on (800) 424-9098.
GREGORY A. GWASH