Looks like the FCC is hiring for an opening(s) in their HFDF Center in Columbia, MD. "The incumbent performs "watch duty" and serves as a technical authority providing technical assistance and guidance to communication systems users to resolve radio interference complaints and problems; and collects radio signal analysis information." Further details, requirements, and how to apply all covered in the announcement: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/617826400
DAVE, THANK YOU FOR THE HEADS UP. I HAVE POSTED THE ABOVE INFO ON OUR CLUB SITE. 73 ES KEEP SMILING https://groups.google.com/g/Chicken-Fat-Operators-Club/c/PA5Lk1SqjbU
Fascinating to read a US Job advertisement, that would be a great job for someone here I think. I wonder if your new licence fee is going to pay for it, however it seems to be a very far reaching position. Thank you, that was very interesting.
A solid job with solid pay. Security clearance required, but they didn't say which type (there are more than DoD and DoE clearances out there).
That would be a great job for me if I wanted to move to Maryland. I did similar work in the USAF, and while I didn't work in the DF section I used them a lot and understand how it worked. Plus I had a security clearance and could easily pass the check again.
Not at all. A simple Google search, and this is just one such site: https://clearedjobs.net/security-clearance-faqs One excerpt: "The amount and detail of information required on a clearance application (SF86) is the same for all levels of security clearance. It includes personal identifying data; history of employment, residence and education; character references, marital and family information; foreign connections and travel; criminal, drug, and alcohol problems; financial delinquencies; and more. Some questions require information covering the past seven or ten years and some questions cover an applicant’s entire life. Some positions may require an additional financial disclosure form and/or supplemental foreign national contact forms."
If you can't extrapolate that, then your analysis skills are definitely lacking. . Seriously though, it is rather obvious: if you have no issues, then you'll be assessed as qualified and you'll get cleared. Some issues in the past, it depends upon things like timelines and personal input during interviews. Chronic and ongoing issues and you'll be denied. That's the way it has been for the past 30+ years that I've been going through the process. So much of the process is automated these days which eliminates a lot of the variability in the process.
Me too. The only real obstacle is if they already know who they're going to hire (they probably do) and are just going through the motions to show an appearance of following the letter of the law in the Federal Acquisition Regulations to make it look like it was a fair selection process. (What? Civil servants violate the law while hiding behind their black budgets? No way! ... ) I believe witnessing this was the feather that broke my camel's back and got me started on applying for retirement a few years before I was planning to do so.
I dealt with that when working as a police dispatcher and wanting to move laterally to a different department within the city. It's not fun.
Knowing the Director personally and professionally, I will readily state that this is not the case and that all applicants get a fair shot and consideration for the job.
Having held clearances in two different executive branch agencies I know exactly what is involved... and there is zero transparency in the process. There is no rubric governing the assessment of these applications that is available to apply.
Having held a clearance, you should understand that you can't have a black or white rubric for these kinds of judgements. Ultimately it comes down to an opinion: "Is this person trustworthy?" That is not something that can be rated against a set rubric. I've known very few people (1 or 2 tops!) in 30+ years that couldn't get a clearance despite being clean with no issues. I've known several dozen who have had clearances granted that never should have had them, or have had them revoked after violating the trust. It is not the deep conspiratorial mystery that you seem to think it is, with or without obvious transparency. And, if in the end your clearance is denied, you always have the right (with only a couple of exceptions) to request to review your investigation and to see exactly why, in the opinion of the investigators, it was denied.
