Security Clearance Revocation - SOR Response

What is a Department of Defense Issued Security Clearance?

A DOD (Department of Defense) issued security clearance refers to a security clearance granted by the United States Department of Defense. It is a formal authorization that allows individuals to access classified information and work on sensitive projects related to national security.  Security clearances are granted based on a thorough background investigation, which includes a review of an individual’s personal, criminal, and financial history, as well as interviews with references and coworkers. The purpose of the investigation is to determine an individual’s trustworthiness, loyalty, and suitability to handle classified information. There are several levels of security clearances issued by the DOD, including: 1) Confidential: This is the lowest level of security clearance. It grants access to information that could cause damage to national security if disclosed without authorization; 2) Secret: The Secret clearance allows access to information that could cause serious damage to national security if disclosed without authorization. It is a higher level than Confidential; and 3) Top Secret: This is the highest level of security clearance. It grants access to highly sensitive information that could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed without authorization.  In addition to these levels, there are also special access programs (SAPs) that require an even higher level of clearance beyond Top Secret. These programs involve highly sensitive and compartmentalized information related to specific projects or programs.  Security clearances are typically granted to military personnel, government employees, and contractors who need access to classified information for their job roles. The granting of security clearances is subject to periodic reinvestigations and security clearance revocation can occur if an individual no longer meets the necessary criteria or if there are concerns about their trustworthiness or reliability.

What are the Criteria Used to Issue a DOD Security Clearance?

The criteria used to issue a DOD security clearance are comprehensive and aim to assess an individual’s suitability to access classified information. The criteria typically include the following factors: 1) Citizenship: Generally, only U.S. citizens are eligible for a DOD security clearance. Dual citizenship may have certain restrictions and could require additional scrutiny; 2) Background Investigation: A thorough background investigation is conducted to assess an individual’s character, trustworthiness, and reliability. It involves reviewing personal, criminal, and financial records. Investigators may also interview references, coworkers, and acquaintances to gather information; 3) Loyalty and Allegiance: An individual’s loyalty to the United States is an important consideration. Any factors that may indicate a potential for foreign influence or divided allegiance are carefully evaluated.  There are 13 Guidelines utilized to evaluate an individual’s access to classified information that are discussed in detail below.  It’s important to note that the criteria may vary depending on the specific clearance level and the nature of the position or project requiring access to classified information. The granting of a security clearance is ultimately determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the individual’s circumstances.

 

 

What is a Suspension of a DOD Issued Security Clearance?

A suspension of a DOD issued security clearance refers to a temporary revocation or withdrawal of the individual’s security clearance privileges. It means that the individual is no longer authorized to access classified information or work on projects requiring a security clearance for the duration of the suspension.  A suspension can occur for various reasons, typically due to concerns or allegations that have emerged regarding the individual’s suitability or reliability to hold a security clearance. Some common reasons for a suspension may include: 1) Adverse Information: The discovery of new adverse information about the individual, such as criminal activities, financial improprieties, or associations that raise concerns about loyalty or potential for compromise; 2) Misconduct or Violations: If the individual is found to have violated security protocols, mishandled classified information, or engaged in conduct that compromises the integrity of the security clearance process; 3) Insider Threats: Concerns about the individual’s behavior or actions that suggest a potential insider threat, such as unauthorized disclosures, suspicious contacts, or indicators of disloyalty; 4) Ongoing Investigations: If an individual becomes a subject of an ongoing investigation related to national security matters, their security clearance may be suspended until the investigation is complete; and 5) Administrative Reasons: There may be administrative reasons for suspending a security clearance, such as failure to complete required training, failure to report changes in personal circumstances, or failure to comply with clearance-related obligations.  During a suspension, the Soldier is typically notified of the reasons for the suspension and MAY have an opportunity to respond to the concerns or allegations. However, there are no due process rights for the suspension of a security clearance, especially while pending notification from the adjudication facility.  The suspension may be subject to further review and investigation to determine if the clearance should be reinstated, revoked, or if other actions are necessary.  It’s important to note that a suspension is a temporary measure, and the individual’s security clearance status can be reevaluated and potentially reinstated based on the outcome of the investigation or resolution of the concerns that led to the suspension.

What Federal Regulations or DOD Instructions Govern a DOD Issued Security Clearance Revocation?

The issuance and revocation of DOD issued security clearances are governed by several regulations and instructions. The key regulatory framework for security clearances within the DOD includes: 1) Department of Defense Directive 5200.2-R (DOD Personnel Security Program): This directive establishes the policies and procedures for personnel security within the DOD. It outlines the requirements for granting, denying, and revoking security clearances, as well as the investigative standards and adjudicative guidelines; 2) Executive Order 12968 (Access to Classified Information): This executive order, issued by the President of the United States, establishes the framework for access to classified information. It provides guidance on the granting and revocation of security clearances across government agencies, including the DOD; 3) Defense Security Service (DSS) Industrial Security Regulation (DoD 5220.22-M): This regulation primarily focuses on the security clearance process for contractors and industry personnel working on classified contracts with the DOD. It outlines the requirements and procedures for granting, denying, and revoking security clearances within the defense industry; 4) DOD Manual 5200.01 (Volume 3): This manual provides detailed guidance for safeguarding, storage, destruction, transmission, and transportation of classified information, and identifies security education and training requirements and processes for handling of security violations and compromise of classified information; and 5) DOD Manual 5200.02, Procedures for the DOD Personnel Security Program (PSP): This manual provides detailed guidance on the adjudication and clearance process for access to classified information. It outlines the criteria, standards, and procedures for determining eligibility for a security clearance, as well as the processes for revocation and appeal. These regulations and instructions ensure consistency and standardization in the granting and revocation of security clearances across the DOD. They establish the framework for conducting background investigations, evaluating eligibility criteria, and maintaining the integrity and security of classified information.  It’s important to note that while these regulations provide overarching guidance, individual branches of the military and defense agencies may have their own supplementary policies and instructions that further detail the specific procedures and requirements for security clearances within their respective organizations, such as appealing to the Service Component Personnel Security Appeal Board (PSAB).

 

 

What Army Regulations Govern a Security Clearance Revocation?

The United States Army has its own set of regulations that govern the issuance and revocation of security clearances. The primary regulation is Army Regulation 380-67, titled “Personnel Security Program.” This regulation provides detailed guidance on the Army’s personnel security program, including the processes and procedures for granting, denying, and revoking security clearances. It’s important to note that while AR 380-67 is the primary regulation governing security clearances in the Army, there are additional Army policies, field manuals, and instructions that provide supplementary guidance and procedures specific to certain units or situations. AR 380-70 was last updated on January 24, 2014, and many of its provisions have been superseded by DoD Instructions and Manuals, including DOD Manual 5200.02, Procedures for the DOD Personnel Security Program (PSP) effective on April 3, 2017, and last updated on October 29, 2020.  Specifically, the U.S. Army Central Clearance Facility (CCF) was replaced by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Consolidated Adjudication Service (CAS) as the Army’s adjudication agency for evaluating security clearance issuance and revocation.

What Air Force Regulations or Instructions Govern a Security Clearances Revocation?

The issuance and revocation of security clearances for the United States Air Force are governed by a number of regulations. The primary regulation is Air Force Instruction 31-501, Personnel Security Program Management, which provides the overall guidance for the personnel security program of the U.S. Air Force.  Other key regulations and guidelines include: 1) Department of Defense Manual 5200.02, Procedures for the DOD Personnel Security Program (PSP): This manual establishes policies and procedures for personnel security programs and clearances throughout the Department of Defense; 2) Defense Security Service Industrial Security Letter 2009-02: This letter provides specific guidance on the procedures and criteria for granting, denying, or revoking security clearances for defense contractors.; and 3) Intelligence Community Directive 704: This directive establishes uniform policies and procedures for the award and maintenance of security clearances for intelligence community personnel requiring SCI level of clearance. It is important to note that the specific procedures and requirements for security clearances can vary depending on the specific type of clearance, level of sensitivity, and job requirements.

What Navy and Marine Corps Regulations or Instructions Govern a Security Clearance Revocation?

In addition to DOD Manual 5200.02, the issuance and revocation of security clearances for the United States Navy are governed by several regulations and instructions. Here are a few key regulations and instructions: 1) SECNAVINST 5510.36A, Department of the Navy Information Security Program: This instruction establishes the Department of the Navy’s policies and procedures for safeguarding classified and sensitive information; 2) SECNAVINST 5510.30C, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY PERSONNEL SECURITY PROGRAM: This instruction applies to all Navy personnel and provides guidelines for the security of classified and controlled unclassified information, including the issuance and revocation of security clearances; and 3) SECNAV M-5510.30, Personnel Security Program: This manual authorizes initial and continued access to classified information and/or initial and continued assignment to sensitive duties to those persons whose loyalty, reliability and trustworthiness are such that entrusting them with classified information or assigning them to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security. It is important to note that security clearances are also subject to continuous evaluation and can be revoked at any time if the clearance holder is deemed to pose a security risk.

 

 

Does Having a Foreign Spouse Trigger a Soldier’s Security Clearance Revocation?

Having a foreign spouse can potentially affect a Soldier’s security clearance in the Army. The security clearance process considers different factors, including a person’s personal conduct, foreign preference, and foreign influence.  If a Soldier has a foreign spouse, the military will scrutinize the spouse’s background thoroughly. The security clearance process will consider the spouse’s country of origin and whether they have any connections to that country’s government, military, or intelligence agencies. If the Soldier’s spouse’s connections or activities raise any red flags, this can lead to a delay in the security clearance process or even a denial of clearance. Additionally, having a foreign spouse may limit a Soldier’s access to certain types of classified information.  It’s important to be transparent and forthcoming about your spouse’s background and connections during the security clearance process to avoid any complications or delays. If a Soldier is unsure how their foreign spouse may affect their clearance, it’s best to consult with a military security clearance lawyer or a security clearance specialist.  Contact the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon for further information regarding your specific questions regarding a foreign spouse’s potential effect on your security clearance.

Does Titling by CID in an Investigation a Security Clearance Revocation in the Army?

The term “titling” by CID (Criminal Investigation Command) refers to the process in which a Soldier becomes a subject of a criminal investigation conducted by CID. When a Soldier is titled by CID, it can have implications for their security clearance in the Army. However, it’s important to note that being titled by CID does not automatically result in the revocation of a security clearance. The impact on the security clearance will depend on the specific circumstances and the outcome of the investigation. Here are some factors to consider: 1) Adverse Information: If a Soldier is titled by CID, it means there are allegations or suspicions of potential criminal activity involving the Soldier. Adverse information related to criminal behavior, if there is a finding of probable cause, can have a negative impact on a security clearance. This is because criminal conduct raises concerns about a person’s trustworthiness, reliability, and potential for compromising classified information; 2) Investigation Process: CID will conduct a thorough investigation to gather evidence and determine whether the allegations against the Soldier are valid. The investigation may involve interviews, evidence collection, and collaboration with other law enforcement agencies. During this process, the Soldier’s security clearance may be suspended or limited to prevent any potential compromise of classified information; 3) Adjudication Decision: After the investigation is completed, the findings will be reviewed, and a determination will be made regarding the Soldier’s security clearance. The adjudication process considers the severity of the alleged misconduct, the Soldier’s cooperation during the investigation, and any mitigating factors presented. The adjudicator will assess whether the Soldier’s continued access to classified information poses a risk to national security; and 4) Clearance Revocation or Mitigation: If the investigation confirms the allegations and the Soldier is found guilty of a crime, or if there is probable cause that the Soldier committed the crime, it is likely to result in efforts to revoke their security clearance. However, if the investigation does not find sufficient evidence or the allegations are not supported by probable cause, the security clearance may be maintained. In some cases, if the misconduct is minor or mitigating factors are present, the clearance may be reinstated or granted with conditions.  It’s important to emphasize that each case is evaluated individually, considering the specific circumstances and the Soldier’s overall suitability to hold a security clearance. The revocation or retention of a security clearance will depend on the severity and nature of the alleged misconduct, as well as any mitigating factors that may be present. Soldiers who have been titled by CID should consult with the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon for guidance on the specific impact on their security clearance and any available recourse or mitigation options.

 

 

Does a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) Trigger a Security Clearance Revocation in the Army?

Receiving a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) filed in a Soldier’s official file can potentially affect their security clearance in the Army. The security clearance process considers factors like honesty, integrity, and personal conduct, and a GOMOR may be a reflection of an integrity or conduct issue.  If a Soldier receives a GOMOR, it is highly likely that it will be reported to the DCSA CAS that is responsible for adjudicating the security clearance. An adjudicator will review the facts surrounding the reprimand and decide on whether or not it impacts one’s eligibility for access to classified information.  The impact of a GOMOR on a Soldier’s security clearance will vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the incident for which they received the reprimand.  Cases where the issues that led to the GOMOR relate to dishonesty, trustworthiness, or a disregard for established policies, procedures and regulations could lead to the revocation of a security clearance.  If a Soldier receives a GOMOR, it’s important that they take steps to mitigate the damage and work to improve your standing. This may include accepting responsibility for their actions, developing a plan for improvement, or reassessing one’s professional goals to do better.  It would be best to consult a military security clearance lawyer or a security clearance specialist for guidance on what steps to take. Contact the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to develop a strategy to prevent a GOMOR from adversely effecting your security clearance.

Does Receiving an Article 15 or Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) Trigger a Security Clearance Revocation?

Receiving non-judicial punishment (NJP) can potentially affect a Soldier’s security clearance. The security clearance process considers factors like honesty, integrity, and personal conduct. If the offense for which the Soldier received NJP involves issues within these areas, it may raise concerns about whether they can be trusted with sensitive information.  Offenses such as drug use, alcohol-related incidents, domestic violence, or sexual misconduct could lead to a security clearance revocation. Also, repeated or severe NJP could lead to increased scrutiny of a Soldier’s conduct and behavior, and potentially impact the their eligibility for a security clearance.  However, the impact of receiving NJP on one’s security clearance will depend on various factors, such as the specific offense, the severity of the punishment, the circumstances surrounding the offense, and the characteristics of the individual.  When a security clearance investigation is underway, the Soldier is required to report any NJP that they receive. They must report it and be forthcoming about the facts concerning the incident. Failure to report a disciplinary action or unreported incidents could result in an unfavorable adjudicative determination. If a Soldier received NJP and has concerns about how it could affect their clearance, it’s best to consult with a military lawyer at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon. They can provide guidance and help mitigate any adverse impacts nonjudicial punishment on your security clearance.

 

 

Does Being Involuntarily Separated from the Army Trigger a Security Clearance Revocation?

Being separated from the Army can potentially affect a Soldier’s security clearance, as maintaining a clearance requires that you maintain eligibility for military service. The security clearance process considers different factors, including a person’s personal conduct, foreign preference, and financial responsibility. If a Soldier separates from the Army under less than honorable conditions, this may impact their security clearance. For example, if a Soldier is separated due to a disciplinary action or criminal activity, they would likely receive an unfavorable suitability determination that could lead to the revocation of their security clearance.  However, if a Soldier is separated honorably, then the separation itself would not necessarily impact their clearance. The eligibility for a security clearance would be evaluated on its own merits based on the factors mentioned earlier. It’s important to note that once a Soldier is separated, they are no longer under the Army’s purview. Any new issues that arise could impact one’s security clearance and their ability to maintain eligibility for classified information access. Therefore, it’s essential to maintain one’s personal conduct, foreign preference, and financial responsibility, even after separation. If a Soldier has concerns about how their separation could affect their clearance, it’s best to consult with a military lawyer at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon. They can provide guidance and advice on how to protect your clearance and maintain eligibility for future employment opportunities that may require one.

Does Getting a Divorce Trigger a Security Clearance Revocation in the Army?

In the Army, getting a divorce alone does not directly affect a Soldier’s security clearance. The mere act of getting a divorce is generally not considered a disqualifying factor for maintaining a security clearance. However, certain circumstances related to the divorce, or its aftermath, could potentially impact a Soldier’s security clearance depending on the specific details and how they relate to the criteria for holding a clearance. Some factors that may be considered include: 1) Financial Concerns: Divorce can sometimes lead to financial challenges or disputes, such as significant debt, failure to meet financial obligations, or disputes over assets. If these financial issues are severe and create potential vulnerabilities or pressures that could compromise a Soldier’s judgment or reliability, they could raise concerns during the security clearance review process; 2) Emotional Stability and Personal Conduct: Divorce can be a stressful and emotionally challenging experience. If a Soldier’s emotional well-being or personal conduct is significantly affected by the divorce, resulting in behavioral changes, reckless behavior, or a deterioration of their mental health, it could raise concerns about their ability to maintain the necessary stability and reliability to hold a security clearance; 3) Foreign Connections or Influence: If a divorce involves a foreign spouse or if there are significant foreign connections or relationships associated with the divorce, it may trigger additional scrutiny regarding potential foreign influence or vulnerabilities to exploitation.

It’s important to note that each security clearance review is conducted on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances and the individual’s overall suitability to hold a clearance. The focus is on assessing the Soldier’s character, loyalty, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.  If a Soldier is going through a divorce or has recently finalized a divorce, it is advisable for them to report the change in personal circumstances to their unit’s security manager or personnel security office. This allows the relevant authorities to be informed and to address any potential concerns or issues proactively. Being open and transparent about the situation is generally seen as a positive step. It’s worth mentioning that the impact of a divorce on a security clearance can vary depending on the individual’s specific circumstances, the severity of any associated issues, and other factors that may be relevant to the overall evaluation of the Soldier’s suitability to hold a security clearance.

 

 

What is the Adjudicative Facility that Determines a Security Clearance Revocation in the Army?

The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Consolidated Adjudication Services (CAS) has replaced U.S. Army Central Clearance Facility (CCF) as the adjudicative facility for determining all U.S. Army security clearances.  In 2012, to improve efficiencies, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed all service central adjudication facilities (CAF), including the U.S. Army CCF, to be consolidated into the DoD Central Adjudication Facility (DoD CAF). After much deliberation and in concurrence with the service components, the non-intelligence CAFs (Army, Navy, Air Force, Joint Staff, Washington Headquarters Services, Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, and the adjudicative functions of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)) were consolidated, thereby creating the new DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF). On October 1, 2019, the DoD CAF was transferred to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DSCA), and was renamed on June 17, 2022, to the DCSA Consolidated Adjudication Services (CAS).  DCSA CAS now delivers informed and timely security clearance adjudicative decisions for DOD Components, including the U.S. Army.  If DCSA CAS intends to revoke a security clearance, then a Letter of Intent (LOI) is issued, usually in conjunction with a Statement of Reasons (SOR) and served to the individual.

What are the Specific Procedures by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Consolidated Adjudication Services (CSA CAS) for a Security Clearance Revocation?

No unfavorable national security eligibility determination (revocation of security clearance) will be rendered unless the civilian employee or military member concerned has been: (1) Provided an LOI; (2) Provided a Written SOR; (3) Afforded an Opportunity to Reply to the LOR and SOR; (4) Provided a Written LOD or LOR: 5) Afforded an Opportunity to Appeal the LOD or LOR; (6) Provided a Final Written Decision by the DoD Component PSAB; and (7) Provided New Information Considered by the DoD Component PSAB. Should the president of the DoD Component PSAB determine that information not contained in the adjudicative record, or the appeal material is needed to render a final determination (e.g., updated credit bureau report, information from the command) such information must be provided to the individual, who then must be provided a reasonable period of time to offer any rebuttal to this information, before it being considered by the DoD Component PSAB.

For a Security Clearance Revocation, What is a Letter of Intent (LOI) to Revoke and What Should be Included in the LOI?

The Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke a security clearance is notification from the adjudication facility (DCSA CAS) that they are in the process of reviewing the Soldier’s security clearance and intend to revoke it.  The LOI to revoke must accompany or include the SOR and contain: (a) A summary of the security concerns and supporting adverse information; (b) Instructions for responding to the SOR; (c) A copy of the relevant adjudicative guidelines; and (d) A list and description of the information relied upon to render the proposed unfavorable national security eligibility determination.

In a Security Clearance Revocation, What is a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for Revocation and What Should be Included in the SOR?

A Statement or Reasons (SOR) for revocation of a security clearance is a document that outlines the specific reasons for the intent to revoke the Soldier’s security clearance by the adjudication facility (DCSA CAS).  The SOR must state the basis for the proposed unfavorable national security eligibility determination. The SOR must be as comprehensive and detailed as national security and Section 552 of Title 5, U.S.C. (FOIA) and DoD 5400.11-R (Privacy Act) permit. The SOR must explain each security concern, state the specific facts that trigger each security concern, identify the applicable adjudicative guideline(s) for each concern, and provide the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions for each adjudicative guideline cited.

 

 

In a Security Clearance Revocation, What are the Rules Governing a Response to the LOI and SOR?

The response to the LOI and SOR must be in writing to the adjudication facility (DCSA CAS): (a) The individual must notify DCSA CAS in writing within 10 calendar days of receipt of the LOI and SOR whether they intend to reply to the LOI and SOR; (b) The individual’s reply to the LOI and SOR must be submitted no later than 30 calendar days from the date they received the LOI and SOR. An extension of up to 30 calendar days from the original deadline may be granted by the employing organization following submission of a written request from the individual before the expiration of the original deadline. Additional extensions may only be granted by the DCSA CAS when factors beyond the individual’s control (e.g., failure of the DCSA CAS or the investigative service provider (ISP) to provide records in a timely manner) warrant granting additional time; (c) DCSA CAS will not deny or revoke an individual’s national security eligibility without official documentation that the individual received the LOI and SOR.

What is the Role of the Local Commander or Organization in Processing a Security Clearance Revocation?

The head of the local organization of the individual receiving a SOR and LOI will designate a point of contact (POC) to serve as a liaison between the adjudication facility (DCSA CAS) and the individual. The duties of the POC will include but are not limited to: (1) Delivering the SOR and LOI and having the individual acknowledge receipt of the SOR and LOI. POCs and a witness will document the delivery if the individual refuses acknowledgement; (2) Determining whether the individual intends to respond within the time specified and reporting this information to DCSA CAS; (3) Explaining the consequences of the proposed action and the need to respond in a timely fashion; (4) Explaining how to obtain time extensions; (5) Explaining how to obtain copies of investigative records; (6) Explaining the procedures for responding to the SORs; and (7) Explaining individuals’ entitlement to obtain legal counsel or other assistance at their own expense within the relevant time periods.

What Should a Response to a Letter of Intent (LOI) and Statement of Reasons (SOR) for a Security Clearance Revocation Include?

The Soldier’s response must effectively address each issue raised in the Letter of Intent (LOI) and Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s Central Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS). To strengthen the response, it is advisable to include letters of recommendation from supervisory personnel. The Soldier should submit their response to DCSA CAS through the representative of the commander who provided the SOR and LOI. While it is typically recommended in Army Regulations for the response to be endorsed by at least one commander, such endorsement is not a requirement of DCSA CAS. However, it is essential that the commander, if endorsing the response, provides a rationale that directly addresses the issues outlined in the LOI and SOR.

It is common for Soldiers to be unprepared for the possibility of having their security clearance revoked and may not have considered how to respond to an SOR or LOI. The initial response to the SOR and LOI serves as the foundation for any potential appeal to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The DOHA will evaluate the appeal and submit a recommendation to the Service Component Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) for a final decision.

Considering the significance of the SOR as it provides the reasons for the proposed revocation, the following recommendations should be taken into account when formulating a response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR):

Know the Law Governing Security Clearance Revocations.

For Soldiers (including civilian GS employees), it is crucial to have a thorough understanding of the key regulations and directives governing the DoD Personnel Security Program. Familiarity with DoD Manual 5200.02, titled “Procedures for the DoD Personnel Security Program,” and Executive Order 12968, commonly known as “Access to Classified Information,’’ is paramount when responding to a proposed revocation. Similarly, government contractors must adhere to DoD Directive 5220.6, the “Defense Industrial Security Clearance Review Program,” and Executive Order 10865, referred to as “Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry.”

 

 

Having a comprehensive knowledge of these regulations is essential before attempting to respond to a Statement of Reasons (SOR). By becoming well-versed in the laws governing the issuance, revocation, and adjudication procedures employed by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s Central Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS) when assessing a Soldier’s clearance, one takes the first step in crafting a compelling response to a Statement of Reasons (SOR) and safeguarding their security clearance. It is imperative to develop a level of expertise in order to effectively navigate this process.

Immediately Begin Drafting the Response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) in a Security Clearance Revocation.

Timely response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) is crucial, as there are strict timelines associated with it. Upon receiving the SOR, the Soldier is required to acknowledge its receipt, typically by completing an acknowledgment form provided with the SOR and Letter of Intent (LOI). The clock starts ticking from the moment of acknowledgment, marking the deadline for the response to the SOR.

To provide some context, the Soldier has 10 days to inform the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s Central Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS) of receiving the LOI and SOR, as well as their intention to respond. Subsequently, the Soldier has 30 days from the receipt of the LOI and SOR to submit their response. However, it’s worth noting that the employing organization may grant an extension of up to 30 days if a written request is submitted before the original deadline expires. It is advisable to retain copies of all documents, including the acknowledgment, sent to DCSA CAS. For reference, the old DoD 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, contains a sample SOR and instructions in the Appendix that can aid in drafting a response.

Thirty (30) days may seem like a tight deadline to gather supporting documents, such as letters of recommendation and support, particularly for Soldiers. Government contractors face an even shorter deadline of 20 days. It is common for Soldiers to request an extension to ensure a comprehensive response, especially when seeking assistance from a military lawyer. An extension can be granted upon demonstrating “good cause,” often justified by the need to gather additional documentation supporting the response to the SOR. Failure to respond to the SOR can lead to the revocation of the Soldier’s security clearance without further action.  Ensuring prompt and thorough compliance with the timelines and requirements is essential to protect the Soldier’s security clearance and maximize the chances of a successful response.

Immediately Request a Copy of the Entire Investigative File Supporting a Security Clearance Revocation.

It is imperative for Soldiers to promptly request a copy of the complete investigative file pertaining to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) and Letter of Intent (LOI) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s Central Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS). The investigative file encompasses both the background investigation and the adjudication records. To initiate this process, Soldiers should visit the DCSA CAS website and complete a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request form for the background investigation, as well as a separate FOIA request form for the adjudication records. These completed forms should be submitted to the FOIA office of DCSA CAS.

 

 

It is crucial to initiate these requests as soon as possible, considering that it may take several weeks to obtain the requested records. Obtaining these records in a timely manner is vital as they serve as essential resources for Soldiers when crafting a comprehensive response to the SOR. By having access to the complete investigative file, Soldiers can gather the necessary information to address the allegations and present a well-informed and thorough response.

Demand Personal Appearance Before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge for Appealing a Security Clearance Revocation.

By electing to appeal the case to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), the Soldier automatically requests a personal appearance before an administrative law judge. Department of Defense Manual 5200.02, Appendix 10B, Procedures for the DOD Personnel Security Program (PSP), outlines that once the adjudication facility receives the Notice of Intent to Appeal (NOIA) through personal appearance, it must provide DOHA with a copy of the appeal and the individual’s adjudicative record within 2 calendar days through the Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS) portal. Within 2 workdays of receiving the NOIA, DOHA assigns the case to an Administrative Judge, who then schedules a personal appearance typically within 30 calendar days from the request and arranges for a verbatim transcript of the proceedings.

By opting for the DOHA appeal option, the case proceeds before an administrative judge. The judge reviews the evidence, makes findings, and formulates recommendations, which are subsequently forwarded to the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) for a final decision. The PSAB receives the complete record of the DOHA hearing, including the verbatim transcripts. During the hearing, the Soldier, assisted by counsel, can present documentary evidence, call witnesses, cross-examine government witnesses, and make arguments. Notably, both the military lawyer and the Soldier can directly respond to questions posed by the administrative judge, providing explanations and clarifications that go beyond the limitations of a written response. Written responses and answers alone often have constraints and may not fully allow for thorough explanations. If a Soldier solely submits a written response to the PSAB without the support of counsel, there is a risk of providing an incomplete response and failing to include all relevant evidence, including crucial mitigating factors.

 

 

By availing themselves of a personal appearance before the administrative judge and leveraging the expertise of a military lawyer at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon, Soldiers can enhance their ability to provide a comprehensive response to the SOR, ensuring all relevant evidence is presented and appropriate mitigating factors are duly considered.

Thoroughly Respond to Each Allegation in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) Supporting a Security Clearance Revocation.

The Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s Central Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS) provides specific grounds for the intended revocation of a Soldier’s security clearance. To effectively respond to each reason cited in the SOR, the Soldier should aim to refute the allegations where possible and provide the necessary context and background for each claim. Furthermore, it is essential to present extenuating circumstances and mitigation evidence pertaining to each reason mentioned in the SOR. A helpful approach is to consider the mitigating factors outlined in the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines as a guide when formulating the mitigation argument for each allegation.

Additionally, if there are potential fact witnesses who were not previously interviewed but possess information that can challenge the allegations in the SOR, the Soldier should make efforts to contact them and obtain witness statements. These efforts should be made through counsel to avoid any perception that the Soldier is trying to influence witnesses to testify in a particular manner. It is advisable to gather as many character witnesses as possible who are acquainted with the Soldier’s good character and can affirm their suitability for maintaining a security clearance, while refuting the concerns outlined in the Guidelines. This thorough approach should be applied to address EACH allegation mentioned in the SOR.

Importantly, the entire response to the SOR should be framed within the concept of the “whole person.” The “whole person” concept recognizes the need for a comprehensive evaluation, considering a sufficient period of time and carefully weighing various aspects of an individual’s life to determine their acceptability as a security risk. The adjudicative process examines all available and reliable information, both favorable and unfavorable, past and present, in reaching a decision on national security eligibility.

It is crucial to avoid providing a generalized denial of the allegations as a whole and offering a vague response justifying the retention of the clearance. Such a response lacking specificity may indicate a lack of specific arguments against the allegations raised in the SOR. A general, non-specific response is unlikely to persuade the DCSA CAS adjudicator, potentially leading to the issuance of a final decision revoking the Soldier’s clearance. Therefore, a focused and specific response tailored to each allegation is essential to strengthen the defense and maximize the chances of retaining the security clearance.

Avoid Partial Admissions at All Costs When Responding to the SOR for a Security Clearance Revocation.

Life rarely presents situations in clear-cut black or white terms, and the same applies to the factual accuracy of allegations stated in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s Central Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS). It is important for a Soldier to understand that not every allegation in the SOR is entirely true, and they should not admit to such claims. In a revocation case, the burden is on the government to demonstrate that it is not in the national security interest for the Soldier to retain their security clearance. If the Soldier were to admit to the allegations, the government would satisfy its burden without needing to present any additional evidence. In legal terms, there is no stronger form of proof than a guilty plea or an admission.

Therefore, if there is any doubt, argument, or refutation regarding the allegations, it is crucial not to admit to them. Instead, the Soldier should seek guidance from a knowledgeable military lawyer, such as those at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon, who has experience in representing Soldiers facing security clearance revocation. These lawyers can assist in accurately crafting a response to the SOR.

In many cases, there may be some elements of truth in the allegations, but not the complete truth. It is important for the Soldier’s response to acknowledge this “partial truth” by providing context and considering the response within the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding each allegation.

 

 

It is worth noting that the facts presented in the SOR are often inaccurate. If there is any doubt regarding the validity of an allegation or the accuracy of specific details such as debt amounts or dates, it is appropriate to deny the allegation. For example, in Germany, a driver can receive a DUI for driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of .05, which is well below the .08 requirement in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and in most states. If a Soldier received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for driving with a .06 BAC, and this GOMOR was filed in the Soldier’s official file (AMHRR), the adjudicator may include an allegation of DUI in the SOR. However, it would be inappropriate to admit to this allegation for several reasons. First, the essential requirement for most DUI cases, operating a motor vehicle with a BAC over .08, was not met. It should be explained that the Soldier’s BAC was well below the threshold for action under the UCMJ, and the GOMOR does not reflect any prohibited behavior. Second, the surrounding circumstances should be explained, such as the random checkpoint stop lacking probable cause, as there was no traffic infraction or suspicion of intoxication before the stop. This type of checkpoint stop would not be legal under many circumstances in the United States. Finally, evidence from individuals who were with the Soldier at the time should be presented to demonstrate that they did not appear intoxicated and were fully capable mentally and physically. In this case, the allegation is denied while simultaneously admitting to the stop that resulted in a breath test reading of .06 BAC. Simply admitting the allegation would be misleading and not serve the Soldier’s best interests in formulating a response that offers the highest chance of retaining their security clearance.

Ensure that the Response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) for a Security Clearance Revocation is Concise and to the Point.

The adage “less is more” often holds true, especially when responding to a Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s Central Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS). A response should not be unnecessarily lengthy for the sake of length. In many cases, a focused and concise response is more effective than one that beats around the bush. A direct response allows for clear and direct answers to the allegations. If a particular allegation can be adequately addressed in a concise and straightforward manner, there is no need to include unnecessary verbiage or comments that may distract from the essence of the answer.

However, there are instances where responding to an allegation in the SOR requires a thorough, well-written, and logical lengthy explanation. Some situations cannot be adequately addressed with brevity. This is particularly true when there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the same conditions or conduct. Depending on the perspective, the behavior could be viewed as criminal or prohibited, or it could be considered justified and lawful. For example, if a Soldier received nonjudicial punishment for assaulting another Soldier, the fact that they physically hit the other person would be considered assault on the surface. However, if there was a justification such as self-defense or defense of others, the assault would be deemed justified and lawful. In such cases, a brief and straightforward answer would not suffice. The Soldier would need to explain the circumstances surrounding the assault that led to a reasonable belief in self-defense or defense of others. This explanation would require a more detailed and comprehensive response, which cannot be condensed into a concise statement. When determining the best approach to responding to the allegations in the SOR, it is advisable for a Soldier to consult with the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon. They can help maximize the persuasiveness of the response and increase the likelihood of retaining the security clearance.

Never, under any Circumstance, be Untruthful in the Response to the SOR for a Security Clearance Revocation.

Knowingly providing false information in a response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency’s Central Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS) can itself serve as grounds for revoking a Soldier’s security clearance. History has shown that individuals have been convicted and imprisoned not for the original crime under investigation, but for misleading and lying to investigators. If false information is included in a response, such as misrepresenting what witnesses would say, adjudicators may uncover this discrepancy, which could further justify the revocation of the security clearance.

Moreover, information provided to adjudicators is subject to verification, particularly in the context of security clearance investigations. Few background investigations hold greater significance than those conducted to ensure national security. Security clearance background checks are thorough and often reveal previously unknown information about individuals. If there is a possibility of being caught in a lie, it is most likely to happen during a security clearance background check. It is always a safer approach to be truthful and prepared to justify or mitigate any negative facts rather than resorting to falsehoods, which can easily be exposed.

 

 

In summary, providing false information in response to the SOR not only risks the revocation of a Soldier’s security clearance but can also lead to legal consequences. With the extensive verification process involved in security clearance investigations, honesty and transparency should always be prioritized over dishonesty, as the truth will ultimately provide the best foundation for defending and retaining the clearance.

Maximize the use of Mitigation in a Response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) for a Security Clearance Revocation.

A Soldier should provide compelling documentary evidence that disproves or partially disproves any allegation presented in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) issued by DCSA CAS. For example, if there is an allegation that the Soldier failed to file their Federal Income Tax Return for three years, but they have actually filed those returns recently, including the tax returns as evidence will substantiate that the taxes have indeed been filed.

In cases where the Soldier’s statements in the response to the SOR contradict the statements or conclusions provided by other witnesses, it is crucial to provide affidavits or letters from reliable sources that attest to the Soldier’s character for truthfulness. These affidavits and letters should include specific examples of times when the Soldier demonstrated honesty despite facing adverse consequences. Such “truthfulness” affidavits and letters significantly aid the adjudicator in reconciling contradictory statements.

Additionally, the Soldier should include character statements and letters from individuals who can attest to their sound judgment, credibility, reliability, and the absence of risk to national security. These character statements should highlight the Soldier’s positive accomplishments and their instrumental role in fulfilling their unit’s mission to protect the interests of the United States. It is essential that the individuals providing the character statements have a deep familiarity with the Soldier, and should include their supervisors, peers, and subordinates, as they can draw well-founded conclusions about the Soldier’s character. Statements from unbiased individuals carry more weight than those who may have a vested interest in the outcome of the security clearance adjudication, such as spouses, parents, siblings, or other family members.

Furthermore, the Soldier should present evidence of their good military character, also known as good Soldier evidence. While the adjudicator should have access to the Soldier’s official file (AMHRR), it is crucial to highlight all military awards and decorations, supported by their corresponding recommendations and narratives, as well as positive evaluations, especially those spanning the period in question with allegations mentioned in the SOR. Statements from fellow military members attesting to the Soldier’s good military character should also be included. Noteworthy acts of bravery, valor, and major accomplishments within the Soldier’s military occupational specialty (MOS) should be emphasized. If the Soldier has served in combat zones, their tours of duty should be documented, along with statements from those who served alongside them, highlighting their performance in challenging conditions.

 

 

Lastly, if the Soldier has a history of selflessly helping others through volunteering or participating in charitable events, it is essential to document these actions. Statements from pastors, volunteers, directors, missionaries, and charity organizers should reflect the Soldier’s contributions to serving others without personal gain. This comprehensive approach aligns with the “whole person” concept that adjudicators employ when evaluating whether to recommend revocation of a security clearance. Developing and organizing a well-structured mitigation strategy can significantly enhance the Soldier’s chances of retaining their security clearance. Seeking advice from an experienced military lawyer at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon is recommended to effectively develop and compile a strong mitigation strategy.

Avoid Emotional Appeals and Provocative Language in the Response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) for a Security Clearance Revocation.

When a Soldier’s career hangs in the balance, encompassing the potential loss of significant retirement pay over their lifetime, it is understandable that emotions may run high when crafting a response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR). However, it is crucial to remain composed and avoid letting these passions seep into the response. The utmost priority should be on presenting a response that is grounded in facts. Maintaining a professional and respectful tone throughout the response is paramount. It is imperative to refrain from using disrespectful, disparaging, or insulting language under any circumstances. Criticizing the government, its agencies, or the U.S. Army should be avoided entirely. Special care should be taken to ensure that no personal attacks are directed towards individuals who may have provided negative or derogatory information. While it is acceptable to challenge their conclusions or perspectives, resorting to personal attacks will not in any way benefit the response to the SOR. Although the Soldier may experience anger, frustration, and irritation at the prospect of having their security clearance revoked, it is crucial to keep these emotions from surfacing in the response. The response to the SOR will set the tone for all subsequent actions, including potential appeals, and will create a lasting first impression on those reviewing the response, including administrative judges and members of the PSAB in the event an appeal becomes necessary.

Keep a Copy of all Documents and Correspondence Relating to the Security Clearance Revocation Process.

It is crucial for the Soldier to maintain a well-organized file in a secure location that includes all documents received or submitted in connection with the security revocation process. This comprehensive file should encompass letters, correspondence, and emails pertaining to the revocation process. The accessibility of these documents is of utmost importance for individuals assisting the Soldier in responding to the Statement of Reasons (SOR). Furthermore, should there be future proceedings such as an appeal, reconsideration, or application to the Board of Correction of Military Records, the complete file will serve as an invaluable resource for preparing for those actions. It is essential to share all relevant documents with the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon, enabling them to gain a thorough understanding of the facts and provide the Soldier with the most effective representation possible.

Call the Law Office of Will M. Helixon for Assistance in Preparing a Response to a SOR for a Security Clearance Revocation.

While it is not mandatory for a Soldier to be represented by a lawyer experienced in handling security clearance revocations, it is important to note that the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service is unable to assist in preparing a response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR). The availability of a legal assistance attorney at the local installation legal assistance office to aid in the response to the SOR may vary depending on workload and personnel. However, it is worth mentioning that legal assistance attorneys, typically first tour Captains, may lack experience in preparing such responses or possess knowledge about the security clearance adjudication process.

Preparing a response to an SOR is a highly individualized task that relies on the specific allegations, supporting evidence, the Soldier’s response, accompanying documents, and potential mitigating factors. Utilizing the guidance of experienced military lawyers who have dealt with security revocation cases is crucial in developing a well-researched, well-written, and persuasive response that maximizes the chances of retaining the security clearance.

It is essential to recognize that the government’s objective is to revoke the Soldier’s security clearance, thereby preventing access to classified information and potentially leading to job loss, separation from the Army, and a significant financial impact, including the loss of retirement benefits. The government’s focus is to demonstrate that granting the Soldier access to classified information is not in the best interest of the United States. It is important to keep in mind that the DCSA CAS, the DOHA, and the PSAB do not prioritize the Soldier’s individual interests.

 

 

By engaging the services of a military lawyer with experience in security clearance revocations from the Law Office of Will M. Helixon, the Soldier can ensure their best interests are well represented. Our team can provide valuable assistance in navigating regulations, crafting a persuasive response to the SOR, appealing adverse findings to the DOHA, and ensuring the PSAB has access to the strongest evidence available when making the final decision on the security clearance revocation.

What is the Adjudicative Process and Factors to Consider by the DCSA CAS or a Reviewing Authority When Evaluating a Security Clearance Revocation?

The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudication process is the careful weighing of several variables known as the “whole-person concept.” Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable, and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. In evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors: 1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; 2) The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; 3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; 4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; 5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; 6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; 7) the motivation for the conduct; 8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and 9) the likelihood of continuation or remain.

What is the Adjudicative Procedure for a Security Clearance Revocation by the Adjudicative Facility (DCSA CAS)?

No unfavorable national security eligibility determination, including a revocation of a security clearance, will be made without first providing the individual with a comprehensive and detailed written explanation of the basis for the unfavorable determination as the national security interests of the United States and other applicable law permit. The Letter of Revocation (LOR) must include each security concern, the applicable adjudicative guideline(s) related to each concern and provide an explanation of the kinds and types of information they could provide to support their appeal. The Letter or Revocation (LOR) will inform the Soldier of their right to: 1) Be represented by counsel or other representative at their own expense; 2) Request the documents, records, and reports upon which the unfavorable national security determination was made. The Soldier will be granted an extension to the set timeline by the Component PSAB if requested documents, records, and reports are not provided promptly.  The Soldier will be provided with a reasonable opportunity to reply in writing and to request review of the unfavorable determination.  The LOR will provide the Soldier written notice of reasons for the determination, the determination of each adjudicative guideline (listed below) that was provided to the individual in the statement of reasons (SOR) that accompanied the letter of intent (LOI) to revoke, the identity of the determination authority, and written notice of the right to appeal unfavorable determinations to the PSAB or DOHA.

What are the Standards of Review and Guidelines to Consider in the Adjudicative Process When Evaluating a Security Clearance Revocation by DCSA CAS?

Final security clearance determinations for Army personnel remain the responsibility of the DCSA CAS or the Army PSAB, as appropriate.  The Command may provide supporting documentation for DCSA CAS or Army PSAB consideration. Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security. The ability to develop specific thresholds for action under these guidelines is limited by the nature and complexity of human behavior. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that security clearance normally will be granted only if it is “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.” A reviewing board, however, reviews adverse actions under a preponderance of the evidence standard. These two standards seem inconsistent. It is difficult to see how the board would be able to review security clearance determinations under a preponderance of the evidence standard without departing from the “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security” test. Hence, the “clearly consistent with the interests of national security” standard is lower than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.  The ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of eligibility for security clearance eligibility is “clearly consistent with the interests of national security” must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the following guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the “whole person:” 1) Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States; 2) Guideline B: Foreign Influence; 3) Guideline C: Foreign Preference; 4) Guideline D: Sexual Behavior; 5) Guideline E: Personal Conduct; 6) Guideline F: Financial Considerations; 7) Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption; 8) Guideline H: Drug Involvement; 9) Guideline I: Psychological Conditions; 10) Guideline J: Criminal Conduct; 11) Guideline K: Handling Protected Information; 12) Guideline L: Outside Activities; and 13) Guideline M: Use of Information Technology Systems.  The Guidelines listed in AR 380-67 were updated in 2017 by the Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.  The updated 2017 guidelines provided in Security Agent Directive 4, are listed below.

Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States. 

The concern is that the willingness to safeguard classified or sensitive information is in doubt if there is any reason to suspect an individual’s allegiance to the United States. There is no positive test for allegiance, but there are negative indicators. These include participation in or support for acts against the United States or placing the welfare or interests of another country above those of the United States. Finally, the failure to adhere to the laws of the United States may be relevant if the violation of law is harmful to stated U.S. interests. An individual who engages in acts against the United States or provides support or encouragement to those who do has already demonstrated willingness to compromise national security. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) involvement in, support of, training to commit, or advocacy of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, or sedition against the United States; (b) association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts; and (c) association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or use any other illegal or unconstitutional means, in an effort to: (1) overthrow or influence the U.S. Government or any state or local government; (2) prevent Federal, state, or local government personnel from performing their official duties; (3) gain retribution for perceived wrongs caused by the Federal, state, or local government; and (4) prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.

Guideline B: Foreign Influence.

The concern is that foreign contacts and interests, including, but not limited to, business, financial, and property interests, are a national security concern if they result in divided allegiance. They may also be a national security concern if they create circumstances in which the individual may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way inconsistent with U.S. interests or otherwise made vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Assessment of foreign contacts and interests should consider the country in which the foreign contact or interest is located, including, but not limited to, considerations such as whether it is known to target U.S. citizens to obtain classified or sensitive information or is associated with a risk of terrorism.  Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; (b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect classified or sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information or technology; (c) failure to report or fully disclose, when required, association with a foreign person, group, government, or country; (d) counterintelligence information, whether classified or unclassified, that indicates the individual’s access to classified information or eligibility for a sensitive position may involve unacceptable risk to national security; (e) shared living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; (f) substantial business, financial, or property interests in a foreign country, or in any foreign owned or foreign-operated business that could subject the individual to a heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation or personal conflict of interest; (g) unauthorized association with a suspected or known agent, associate, or employee of a foreign intelligence entity; (h) indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; and (i) conduct, especially while traveling or residing outside the U.S., that may make the individual vulnerable to exploitation, pressure, or coercion by a foreign person, group, government, or country.

 

 

Guideline C: Foreign Preference.

The concern is that when an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States, then he or she may provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States. Foreign involvement raises concerns about an individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness when it is in conflict with U.S. national interests or when the individual acts to conceal it. By itself, the fact that a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country is not disqualifying without an objective showing of such conflict or attempt at concealment. The same is true for a U.S. citizen’s exercise of any right or privilege of foreign citizenship and any action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country; (b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, to an appropriate security official, the possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the United States; (c) failure to use a U.S. passport when entering or exiting the U.S.; (d) participation in foreign activities, including but not limited to: (1) assuming or attempting to assume any type of employment, position, or political office in a foreign government or military organization; and (2) otherwise acting to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization, or government in any way that conflicts with U.S. national security interests; (e) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country in violation of U.S. law; and (f) an act of expatriation from the United States such as declaration of intent to renounce U.S. citizenship, whether through words or actions.

Guideline D: Sexual Behavior.

The concern is that sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense, reflects a lack of judgment or discretion; or may subject the individual to undue influence of coercion, exploitation, or duress. These issues, together or individually, may raise questions about an individual’s judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Sexual behavior includes conduct occurring in person or via audio, visual, electronic, or written transmission. No adverse inference concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted; (b) a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the individual is unable to stop; (c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (d) sexual behavior of a public nature or that reflects lack of discretion or judgment.

 

 

Guideline E: Personal Conduct.

The concern is that conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility: (a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph examination, if authorized and required; and (b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.  Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; (b) deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official government representative; (c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; (d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or government protected information; (2) any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior; (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and (4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer’ s time or resources; (e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct includes: (1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing; (2) while in another country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country; (3) while in another country, engaging in any activity that, while legal there, is illegal in the United States; (f) violation of a written or recorded commitment made by the individual to the employer as a condition of employment; and (g) association with persons involved in criminal activity.

 

 

Guideline F: Financial Considerations.

The concern is that failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; (d) deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, expense account fraud, mortgage fraud, filing deceptive loan statements and other intentional financial breaches of trust; (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means or frivolous or irresponsible spending, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-payment, or other negative financial indicators; (f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required; (g) unexplained affluence, as shown by a lifestyle or standard of living, increase in net worth, or money transfers that are inconsistent with known legal sources of income; (h) borrowing money or engaging in significant financial transactions to fund gambling or pay gambling debts; and (i) concealing gambling losses, family conflict, or other problems caused by gambling.

 

 

Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption.

The concern is that excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder; (b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the welfare and safety of others, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder; (c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder; (d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder; (e) the failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed; (f) alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and (g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.

Guideline H: Drug Involvement.

The concern is that the illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Controlled substance means any “controlled substance” as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed above. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) any substance misuse (see above definition); (b) testing positive for an illegal drug; (c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia; (d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of substance use disorder; (e) failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional; (f) any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive position; and (g) expressed intent to continue drug involvement and substance misuse, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse.

 

 

Guideline I: Psychological Conditions.

The concern is that certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information under this guideline and an opinion, including prognosis, should be sought. No negative inference concerning the standards in this guideline may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) behavior that casts doubt on an individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, not covered under any other guideline and that may indicate an emotional, mental, or personality condition, including, but not limited to, irresponsible, violent, self-harm, suicidal, paranoid, manipulative, impulsive, chronic lying, deceitful, exploitative, or bizarre behaviors; (b) an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness; (c) voluntary or involuntary inpatient hospitalization; (d) failure to follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a diagnosed psychological/psychiatric condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, including, but not limited to, failure to take prescribed medication or failure to attend required counseling sessions; and (e) pathological gambling, the associated behaviors of which may include unsuccessful attempts to stop gambling; gambling for increasingly higher stakes, usually in an attempt to cover losses; concealing gambling losses; borrowing or stealing money to fund gambling or pay gambling debts; and family conflict resulting from gambling.

 

 

Guideline J: Criminal Conduct.

The concern is that criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness; (b) evidence including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted; (c) individual is currently on parole or probation; (d) violation or revocation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-mandated rehabilitation program; and (e) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces for reasons less than “Honorable.”

 

 

Guideline K: Handling Protected Information.

The concern is that deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for handling protected information—which includes classified and other sensitive government information, and proprietary information—raises doubt about an individual’s trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of protected information to unauthorized persons, including, but not limited to, personal or business contacts, the media, or persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences; (b) collecting or storing protected information in any unauthorized location; (c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling protected information, including images, on any unauthorized equipment or medium; (d) inappropriate efforts to obtain or view protected information outside one’s need to know; (e) copying or modifying protected information in an unauthorized manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings; (f) viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual’s need-to-know; (g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or sensitive information; (h) negligence or lax security practices that persist despite counseling by management; and (i) failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the national security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.

 

Guideline L: Outside Activities.

The concern is that involvement in certain types of outside employment or activities is of security concern if it poses a conflict of interest with an individual’s security responsibilities and could create an increased risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified or sensitive information. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) any employment or service, whether compensated or volunteer, with: (1) the government of a foreign country; (2) any foreign national, organization, or other entity; (3) a representative of any foreign interest; and (4) any foreign, domestic, or international organization or person engaged in analysis, discussion, or publication of material on intelligence, defense, foreign affairs, or protected technology; and (b) failure to report or fully disclose an outside activity when this is required.

Guideline M: Use of Information Technology Systems.

The concern is that failure to comply with rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, calling into question the willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive systems, networks, and information. Information Technology includes any computer-based, mobile, or wireless device used to create, store, access, process, manipulate, protect, or move information. This includes any component, whether integrated into a larger system or not, such as hardware, software, or firmware, used to enable or facilitate these operations. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) unauthorized entry into any information technology system; (b) unauthorized modification, destruction, or manipulation of, or denial of access to, an information technology system or any data in such a system; (c) use of any information technology system to gain unauthorized access to another system or to a compartmented area within the same system; (d) downloading, storing, or transmitting classified, sensitive, proprietary, or other protected information on or to any unauthorized information technology system; (e) unauthorized use of any information technology system; (f) introduction, removal, or duplication of hardware, firmware, software, or media to or from any information technology system when prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations or when otherwise not authorized; (g) negligence or lax security practices in handling information technology that persists despite counseling by management; and (h) any misuse of information technology, whether deliberate or negligent, that results in damage to the national security.

 

 

What Factors of the Individual Soldier Should be Considered in the Adjudication Process when Determining Whether to Revoke a Soldier’s Security Clearance?

The DCSA Consolidated Adjudication Services determines security clearance eligibility in accordance with Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 4 “National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.” The decision to grant or deny an individual security clearance eligibility is based on a review of information that they supply and information that is gathered during the background investigation and other available, reliable information. All the information, both positive and negative, is considered against a set of adjudicative guidelines, which are standards promulgated by the ODNI as implementing documents for Executive Order 12968. Each guideline covers a broad security concern, the issues that may arise under that concern, and the information that may mitigate the security concern. Personnel security specialists receive training and are professionally certified to make decisions based on the guidelines. They must document those decisions and their rationale when granting or denying eligibility to an individual.

 

 

What Rules Govern a Letter of Denial (LOD) and a Letter of Revocation (LOR) in a Security Clearance Revocation?

A Letter of Denial (LOD) is to give notice to the Soldier that the original application for a security clearance was denied.  A Letter of Revocation (LOR) is to give notice to the Soldier that the adjudicative facility (DCSA CAS) has decided to revoke the Soldier’s current security clearance: (a) When a favorable determination cannot be rendered, DCSA CAS will provide the individual via the appropriate Component or command security office, a written LOD or LOR stating the final determination of each adjudicative guideline that was provided to the individual in the statement or reasons (SOR) that accompanied the LOI to deny, or revoke was mitigated or unmitigated and reason(s) for denying or revoking national security eligibility; (b) The LOD or LOR will include clear instructions on how to appeal the unfavorable determination; (c) DCSA CAS will provide the written LOD or LOR as promptly as individual circumstances permit but no more than 60 calendar days from the date of receipt of the individual’s reply to the SOR and LOI, provided no additional information is deemed necessary to render the national security eligibility determination; (d) When an LOD or LOR is based on the failure of the individual to reply to the SOR and LOI, the LOD or LOR will include all of the security concerns, adjudicative guidelines, and mitigating factors contained in the SOR and LOI and the reason(s) for denying or revoking national security eligibility; (e) If an LOD or LOR cannot be completed within the time frame allowed, the individual will be notified in writing of this fact, the reasons why, and the date the written LOD or LOR is expected to be completed, which will not normally exceed a total of 90 calendar days from the date of receipt of the reply to the SOR and LOI; (f) The DoD Component or command security professionals will notify DCSA CAS within 10 calendar days if they are unable to deliver the LOD or LOR to the individual. The notification will include information as to why the LOD or LOR could not be delivered (e.g., illness or death in the family, deployment) and when it is expected the individual can receive a copy of the LOD. Security professionals must deliver the LOD immediately upon the individual’s return. The Soldier must acknowledge the receipt of the LOD or LOR and indicate in writing if they will submit an appeal. If the individual refuses to acknowledge receipt or indicate whether an appeal will be submitted, the security professional will make a written record of the refusal and submit it to the adjudication facility.  The Soldier will be provided with an opportunity to appeal by appearing in person and presenting relevant witnesses, documents, materials, and information.  The Soldier will be provided with a written decision on appeal.

Can a Soldier Appeal a Security Clearance Revocation Letter of Revocation (LOR) by the DCSA CAS?

Yes. No final unfavorable personnel security clearance or access determination shall be made on an individual without granting them an opportunity to appeal to a higher level of authority as set forth in DOD 5200.02-R when such determination results in unfavorable administrative action. An individual who has received a final revocation or denial of their security clearance from the DCSA Consolidated Adjudication Services (CAS) may appeal a decision through the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) of the associated military service branch or the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), the legal entity managing the case. Specific guidance for appealing a decision is provided directly to the applicants within the final decision packages.  If the person intends to appeal, it should be in writing directly to the Army’s Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) or request a personal appearance to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The DOHA will review the facts of the case and make a recommendation to the PSAB. If, upon review of the in person or written appeal, a determination by PSAB is considered the final security clearance eligibility determination, no further appeal is authorized. All requests for appeal must be returned within 60 days of receipt of the letter.

 

 

How Does a Soldier Appeal the Final Decision in the LOD or LOR for a Security Clearance Revocation by Adjudication Facility (DCSA CAS)?

Within 10 calendar days of receipt of LOD or LOR, the individual will sign and return the notice of intent to appeal (NOIA) to the adjudication facility (DCSA CAS) via their security office. The individual must state whether he or she intends to appeal, and if so, whether he or she requests a personal appearance (DOHA) or will appeal in writing (PSAB). The local security professionals may grant a single 10 calendar day extension upon request from the individual. The grant of a 10-calendar day extension must be annotated in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS). All other requests for extension must be granted by DCSA CAS; (b) Within 4 calendar days of receipt of the individual’s Notice of Intent to Appeal (NOIA), security offices will forward the NOIA to the DCSA CAS; (c) The adjudication facility (DCSA CAS) will store signed statements acknowledging receipt of LOD and NOIA electronically in the subject’s adjudicative record; (d) If the individual elects to appeal the LOD or LOR, DCSA CAS will forward a copy of the NOIA within 2 calendar days to the appropriate PSAB and to DOHA if a personal appearance is requested. DCSA CAS will also forward the individual’s adjudicative record within 2 calendar days to the appropriate PSAB for direct appeals or to DOHA if a personal appearance is requested. The adjudicative record will contain all of the materials the DCSA CAS relied upon to render its determination as well as the LOI, SOR, LOD or LOR, the commander’s recommendation, and any rebuttal materials the individual provided in response to the LOI/SOR; (e) If a decision is made to appeal the LOD or LOR, individuals may do so by: 1) Written appeal directly to the applicable DoD Component PSAB. Individuals must, within 30 calendar days of receipt of a LOD or LOR, write to the applicable DoD Component PSAB stating reasons why the denial or revocation should be overturned and provide any additional relevant information that may have a bearing on the case. The appeal and supporting documentation will be transmitted to the DoD Component PSAB via the individual’s security office. The DoD Component PSAB president or designee may grant a 30-calendar day extension of time for good cause demonstrated by the appellants (e.g., illness or death in the family, deployment); 2) Appendix 10B to the Department of Defense Manual 5200.02, Procedures for the DOD Personnel Security Program (PSP), explains the personal appearance process before a DOHA Administrative Judge.

What is the Process for Obtaining a Final Decision by the PSAB for a Security Clearance Revocation?

The DoD Component PSAB will review the adjudicative file and any appeal materials (including the DOHA Administrative Judge recommendation, if applicable), and render a final decision. If the DoD Component PSAB agrees with the administrative judge’s written recommendation, the DoD Component PSAB may adopt the AJ’s written recommendation in lieu of providing a DoD Component PSAB written determination. The individual will be notified of the DoD Component PSAB’s final determination via the subject’s security professional, generally within 45 calendar days of the receipt of a direct appeal or 30 calendar days from receipt of the Administrative Judge recommendation. The DoD Component PSAB’s written decision will identify each adjudicative guideline issue stated in the LOD or LOR that formed the basis of the denial or revocation that remains unmitigated after the appeal and the rationale for the final disposition of the appeal.

 

 

What Notifications Does the PSAB Make Regarding its Final Decision for a Security Clearance Revocation?

DoD Component PSABs will provide electronic copies of all final decisions to the adjudication facility that made the initial unfavorable determination. The adjudication facility (DCSA CAS) will update JPAS within 2 calendar days to reflect current eligibility and append the DoD Component PSAB decision to the individuals’ adjudicative records.

Can a Soldier Request Reconsideration of a Final Decision by the PSAB?

No.  Only Commanders may request reconsideration of unfavorable national security determinations for individuals within their command to address specific mission needs after the passage of 1 year following a denial or revocation. The year is counted from the date of the denial or revocation decision by DCSA CAS; or, if the individual elected to appeal, 1 year from the date of the final appeal determination. Individuals who terminate their affiliation with DoD for 24 months or more after a unfavorable national security determination are not subject to the reconsideration process. When attempting to re-affiliate with DoD these individuals will be submitted for a new investigation. DoD Components’ requests for reconsideration will be examined only when forwarded and recommended by officials of the employing Component. Not all cases meet the test for reconsideration, and passage of time alone is not a sufficient criterion. Occasionally, the issues in a case will be so recent or serious that a longer time may be appropriate to resolve the issues or to establish an affirmative track record to minimize the probability of recurrence. If a denial or revocation is based on significant derogatory information that has been reported to a CI or law enforcement authority, the DCSA CAF should consult with the counterintelligence (CI) or law enforcement authority before reconsideration to ensure it has all relevant information.

 

 

For a Security Clearance Revocation, What are the Requirements for a Request for Reconsideration of the Final Decision of the PSAB by the Command?

The requirements for DoD Component requests for reconsideration are: (1) The individual’s eligibility has been denied or revoked for at least 1 year. The year is counted from the date of the denial or revocation decision by the DCSA CSA, or, if the individual elected to appeal, 1 year from the date of the final appeal determination; (a) When 2 years or more have passed, the DoD Component will determine what checks or investigations are required to support the reconsideration; (b) A new national security investigation must be conducted by the ISP and the report of investigation adjudicated to determine if eligibility will be granted when there has been a 2-year break in service or the last investigation is out of scope; (2) Cases will not be resubmitted or reassessed solely based on an individual’s personal desire to acquire eligibility. Reconsideration is not a personal right or entitlement; (3) DoD Component requests for reconsideration must be made to DCSA CAS from security office(s) and must meet an operational need of the DoD Component. The individual must be selected or tentatively selected for a national security position. Requests for reconsideration will include explicit statements of DoD Component support; (4) Security offices will ensure DoD Component requests for reconsideration are complete. The request must include evidence that the issues which caused the denial or revocation have been resolved; (5) Once security offices submit their DoD Components’ request for reconsideration, no supplemental information will be accepted or considered unless requested by the adjudication facility (DCSA CAS). Information requested by DCSA CAS will be submitted within the time specified by the adjudication facility; (6) A DoD Component’s request for reconsideration does not reopen or otherwise affect the denial or revocation decision.

What are the Responsibilities of the Command and When are they Notified Regarding the Decision to Request Reconsideration of the Final Decision by the PSAB?

Commands seeking reconsideration are responsible for providing documentation that the circumstances or conditions that resulted in the final adverse eligibility determination have been rectified or sufficiently mitigated to warrant reconsideration, which will be forwarded to the adjudication facility (DCSA CAS) by the DoD Component. DCSA CAS has the authority to grant or deny the reconsideration based on a review of the DoD Component documentation to determine the extent to which circumstances or conditions have been rectified or sufficiently mitigated. When a reconsideration determination is denied, DCSA CAS will provide notification through the command to the DoD Component in writing, generally within 30 days from receipt of request for reconsideration. The Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) will be annotated accordingly. No due process is afforded for denial of a DoD Component’s request for reconsideration. Commands may determine the submission of a new background investigation is merited rather than a request for reconsideration. For reconsideration cases involving NISP contractor personnel, see DoDD 5220.6.

What are the Consequences to a Soldier for a Security Clearance Revocation in the Army?

The revocation of a security clearance in the Army can have several consequences for a Soldier. These consequences may impact the soldier’s job responsibilities, career progression, and potential future assignments. Some of the common consequences include: 1) Access to Classified Information: With the revocation of a security clearance, the Soldier will lose access to classified information. They will no longer be authorized to handle, view, or work on projects involving classified information. This can significantly impact their ability to perform certain duties and assignments that require access to sensitive or classified material; 2) Job Assignments and Duties: Revocation of a security clearance may affect the Soldier’s current job assignment or duties. They may be reassigned to a different position or unit that does not require a security clearance. This can result in a change in job responsibilities and potentially impact their career progression or professional development opportunities; 3) Career Advancement: A revoked security clearance can hinder a Soldier’s career advancement prospects within the Army. Certain positions, promotions, or special assignments may require a security clearance as a prerequisite. Without a clearance, the Soldier may be ineligible for these opportunities or may face challenges in competing for positions that require access to classified information; 4) Security-Related Disciplinary Actions: Depending on the circumstances surrounding the revocation, there may be additional disciplinary actions or administrative consequences. This could include reprimands, loss of privileges, or other security-related penalties as deemed appropriate by the chain of command; and 5) Future Employment Opportunities: Revocation of a security clearance can have implications beyond the Soldier’s military career. It may impact their prospects for future employment, particularly in positions that require a security clearance. Many government agencies, defense contractors, and private organizations that work on classified projects may consider the revocation as a disqualifying factor when evaluating job applications.  Additionally, since the revocation will be reported to the DASEB and a determination is made whether to include the information serving as the basis for the security clearance revocation in the Soldier’s official file (AMHRR), it could trigger a QMP Board, Administrative Separation Board, or a Board of Inquiry, ultimately resulting in the Soldier’s involuntary separation from the Army.  It’s important to note that the consequences of a revoked security clearance can vary depending on the specific circumstances, the soldier’s rank, the nature of their job, and other factors.

 

 

Can a Soldier Appeal the Final Decision of the PSAB for a Security Clearance Revocation to the Army Board of Correction for Miliary Records (BCMR)?

Yes. AR 15–185 establishes the Army Board for Correction of Military Records; the highest level of administrative review within the U.S. Army to correct errors in or remove injustices from Army military records. All Soldiers have the right to apply for a correction of error or injustice in their official Army military records.  Soldiers can appeal the final decision of the PSAB to revoke a their security clearance to their appropriate service component Board of Correction for Military Records.  The BCMR has broad powers to review the findings of the PSAB and evaluate whether the Soldier should have had their security clearance revoked.  The Army BCMR’s jurisdiction under 10 USC 1552 extends to any military record of the Department of the Army.

How can the Law Office of Will M. Helixon Assist a Soldier Facing a Security Clearance Revocation?

In most cases, the Soldier has some indication that they may be facing a Letter of Intent (LOI) to Revoke and Statement of Reasons (SOR) regarding their security clearance.  They are aware of derogatory items placed in their official file (AMHRR) that could generate a security clearance review.  Sometimes, their local commander and S2 shop will suspend the clearance while a determination is made by DCSA CAS whether to pursue a security clearance revocation.  Regardless of how or why a Soldier may anticipate a security clearance issue, they should at the very first opportunity engage the services of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to begin preparing matters to respond to any future LOI and SOR.  Once the LOI and SOR is served on the Soldier, strict timelines are triggered, and it becomes imperative to work fast on developing a comprehensive response to the SOR.  If you want an experienced, dedicated, military attorney, who has decades of experience working on military law issues including security clearance matters, contact one of the military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon for an immediate consultation.  We will analyze your SOR and LOI, and develop the best possible response to maintain your security clearance, and refute the revocation effort.  When your retirement, worth millions of dollars over your lifetime, is on the line, don’t gamble on your legal representation.  Call the Law Office of Will M. Helixon today.  Will M. Helixon and John Caulwell, with over 45 years of combined military experience, are ready to assist you today.  We will develop a strategy to fight the security clearance revocation effort, protect your reputation, and work to save your hard-earned military retirement pay.

 

 

More about the Law Office of Will M. Helixon.

Will M. Helixon established the Law Office of Will M. Helixon in February of 2016.  Originally headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, the firm’s original mission was to defend members of the military in courts-martial, adverse administrative proceedings and other criminal proceedings. Today, the firm has worked as military lawyers in multiple complex and high-profile military cases.  The firm now handles most military matters, including medical issues involving the MEB/PEB process, adverse administrative matters, military justice matters including Nonjudicial Punishment, Administrative Separation Boards, and Boards of Inquiry, and legal assistance matters, including rebutting GOMORs, responding to QMP Boards and submitting matters for the correction of military records.  The firm also assists officers navigate the minefield of findings of adverse information (AAIP) in AR 15-6 Investigations (command directed investigations), Selection Boards (Promotion Boards), Special Selection Boards, and Special Selection Review Boards (SSRB).  No longer in Kansas City, the firm now has a European office physically located in Vilseck, Germany and in Wiesbaden, Germany.  Call us today to assist with your legal issue in Germany or the United States.  All military lawyers at the Law Office of Will M. Helixon maintain licenses to practice before all military trial courts.