We’ve entered into a new era in the security clearance process, and many aspect of the process that traditionally always took place in person can now be conducted via phone or secure video teleconferencing (VTC). The use of those new technologies means some individuals who find themselves facing a security clearance decision they disagree with may be tempted to use the technology as a scapegoat.
You Could Hear the Denial from Turkey
A recent applicant for a security clearance was denied based on Guideline B, foreign influence issues. The applicant immigrated to the U.S. on a student Visa in the 1980s. He traveled back to his home country of Turkey and completed a two-month military obligation and worked for the Turkish government. His father also worked as a contractor for the Turkish government. The applicant’s brother and parents both remain in Turkey.
Despite these foreign influence issues, the applicant was granted a clearance in 1996. His clearance access was suspended in 2017. No details about the suspension were provided, so we’re left to assume that it was related to employment or contract causes rather than security violations or issues – particularly since those weren’t indicated in the government’s case for denial.
Appealing a security clearance denial is a complex process, and that’s why an attorney is recommended in most cases. It’s not as simple as saying ‘you were wrong’ to the government. They only consider appeals based on “whether Applicant was denied due
process, whether the Judge’s decision contained factual errors, whether the Judge erred in concluding that Applicant’s circumstances raised security concerns, and whether the Judge’s analysis was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Applicants are unable to bring new information into the appeals process, either, and must argue that the initial decision itself was made incorrectly – not incorrect based on a change in circumstances or information since the denial.
That’s why blaming the process seems like a solid approach.
The applicant in this case participated in a VTC hearing – a much more frequent phenomenon post-COVID. The applicant argued that audio quality was poor during the hearing, and that at several times the judge couldn’t understand what was being said. The court records supported that claim, but the transcriber also noted they were able to fully transcribe the hearing. In order to support the claim of the audio being an issue, the applicant should have pointed out specific areas where the transcript and statements didn’t match – but the applicant didn’t do so.
They Can Hear You Now
This is a clear example of a borderline clearance case – for some reason, the applicant was granted an initial security clearance in 1996 despite having the same foreign influence concerns. But because security clearances are granted on a case-by-case basis, a clearance that is granted in one season (or time of foreign policy history), doesn’t mean it will be granted again in the next. And this is also why if you’re going to blame the process, or judge, you’d better have a very solid legal understanding. In this case the denial was upheld
