The
security clearance request process is finalized during the adjudication period.
Here, decisions are made whether or not to grant a clearance based on investigation
results as related to the whole person concept and in the best interest of national security. The adjudicator evaluates results to determine whether or
not an applicant is suited to protect classified information.
There
are 13 categories of behavior that could prevent a person from getting a
clearance or prevent the continuance of a current clearance. Simply, the
adjudicator evaluates at the investigation results and makes a decision. If
there are indications that it is NOT in the best interest of national security
grant a clearance, then a clearance will be denied or revoked.
Sometimes
mistakes happen and investigations don’t provide a complete “whole person”
profile. So, what can a person do when they have been denied or has had a security
clearance revoked?
Executive
Order 10865 provides a process that allows an employee the opportunity to appeal
or turn around unfavorable security clearance adjudication. Where there was no
earlier process or consistency in policy, this order provided standards for addressing
security clearance denials or revocations.
Going
back to the decision making stage, the adjudicator reviews the investigation
and focuses on thirteen criteria. The goal is to determine whether or not an
applicant can be trustworthy to adequately protect classified information. Here
are the 13 topics:
- Allegiance to the United States
- Foreign influence
- Foreign preference
- Sexual behavior
- Personal conduct
- Financial considerations
- Alcohol consumption
- Drug involvement
- Emotional, mental, and personality disorders
- Criminal conduct
- Security violations
- Outside activities
- Misuse of Information Technology Systems
- The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct
- The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation
- The frequency and the time elapsed since the conduct
- The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct
- The willingness to participate
The
applicant can appeal. Perhaps all the information wasn’t provided, the
investigation missed some mitigating circumstances. The applicant did not
provide enough information or other oversight or omission occurred. If so, the
applicant has another chance to present their case.
The
process allows the applicant to go to court or have an administrative judge
make a decision. In both cases, the adjudicator and applicant can present their
cases for a judge’s decision. The judge will make a determination based on what
is best for national security.
For
those currently holding clearances, undergoing investigations or considering
working in an industry where background investigations are conducted, act
accordingly. If it is necessary to explain or mitigate questionable past or
current behavior, gather information, witnesses and evidence that will support
a decision to grant the clearance. The final decision will be made in the
interest of national security and the applicant influence that decision.
Jeffrey W. Bennett, ISP is the owner of Red Bike Publishing Red Bike Publishing . Jeff is an accomplished writer of non-fiction books, novels and periodicals. He also owns Red bike Publishing. Published books include: "Get Rich in a Niche-Insider's Guide to Self Publishing in a Specialized Industry" and "Commitment-A Novel". Jeff is an expert in security and has written many security books including: "Insider's Guide to Security Clearances" and "DoD Security Clearances and Contracts Guidebook", "ISP Certification-The Industrial Security Professional Exam Manual", and NISPOM/FSO Training" See Red Bike Publishing for print copies of: Army Leadership, The Ranger Handbook, The Army Physical Readiness Manual, Drill and Ceremonies, The ITAR,and The NISPOM
No comments:
Post a Comment