I dealt with the Federal civil service hiring rules at lot at my last command. It would take us weeks to hire someone to do routine military personnel administ

I dealt with the Federal civil service hiring rules at lot at my last command. It would take us weeks to hire someone to do routine military personnel administrative tasks. No clearance needed, no degree, no special skills beyond being trainable on a computer, etc. Weeks. I can only imagine the difficulty present in needing to run through the hiring process and having to run a security clearance. Especially in the wake of Snowden, Aaron Alexis, Manning, and USIS screening contractor scandals, which have all combined to help guarantee that no one tries to so much as streamline any part of the SF-86 and its background investigation. The military even has problems with this; it's not uncommon for new accessions to be delayed at their initial entry training schoolhouses due to "clearance issues". But they're at least already drawing a paycheck, and it's not as if the students waiting can just take a new job out of their frustration. And as the article mentions, it's in many ways much easier (as far as red tape goes) to join the military than to join the civil service. I hope DHS get better hiring authorities. It may seem weird in SV but "direct hire" is practically fighting words for many groups watching the government, who are concerned that it would just be abused for nepotism. However I do agree with the points about not needing people with a clearance. By definition DHS is not engaged in offensive cyber and defending critical network infrastructure is hardly a task that requires a year-long background check.