Peruse the security clearance denial and revocation cases on the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals or Energy Office of Hearings and Appeals website and you’ll see some clear trends. The first – something we talk a lot about here at ClearanceJobs: just how prominently personal finances play in administrative judge decisions. The second: how many security clearance applicants claim they did or didn’t do something extremely relevant to their case but lack any proof.
Interestingly, the second point extends far beyond just the ever-present financial cases. The-dog-ate-my-homework excuse has equal applicability in areas like substance abuse (“I’ve been clean for a year, I promise!”), employment misconduct (“they told me I was being laid off, not fired”), and even security violations (“I self-reported that immediately!”).
To be fair, not every applicant who lacks supporting documentation is lying. Credibility can also be assessed, at least in part, by body language, manner of speech, and responses to probing questions. That’s why the government views in-person hearings as such a valuable component of the security clearance denial / revocation appeals process.
But some of these take-my-word-for-it applicants are undoubtedly either massaging the facts or outright lying – and even the most seasoned security officials and administrative judges can’t always tell the difference. The result is that any applicant hoping to win their case on credibility alone has a steep climb ahead.
Fortunately, there is a simple way to avoid this problem besides the obvious of not having your security clearance denied or revoked in the first place: pre-emptively keeping good records. That doesn’t require being a pack-rat and keeping every scrap of paper you’ve ever generated; rather, if you encounter a scenario that you believe has the potential to become a problem, start keeping a paper trail immediately.
Of course, I realize it can sometimes be difficult to guess which scenarios have the potential to become problematic, but there is some obvious (or hopefully obvious) low-hanging fruit. Let’s take a look at some of the examples I provided above.
In the case of the drug abuser-turned-clean, the government will often look favorably on things like a series of periodic, negative hair strand or toenail drug tests (which can test back significantly further than a regular drug test), regular attendance records at Narcotics Anonymous meetings signed by a facilitator, documentary evidence that the applicant has completed a rehabilitation program and aftercare, and letters or testimony regarding lifestyle changes from people who know the applicant well.
Similarly, the applicant accused of employment misconduct may benefit enormously from contemporaneous emails, correspondence, signed witness statements, and any other documents that help corroborate things like whistleblower reprisal or employer malfeasance – provided the employee isn’t absconding with classified or otherwise legally protected information.
As for the hypothetical security violator, prompt evidence of self-reporting, remedial security training, and positive compliance changes can go a long way. This is particularly true where a more senior employee (or, worse yet, the Facility Security Officer) is complicit in the violation due to bad advice or poor communication. Those situations often result in convenient cases of hazy memory or outright denials that don’t bode well for the unfortunate scapegoat.
In all these scenarios, and many more, keeping good records will make your life – and your attorney’s life – a whole lot easier if you ever encounter problems. Hopefully, it’s all for naught; but the extra preventative effort is far less stressful than scrambling for evidence while facing down the government.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although the information is believed to be accurate as of the publication date, no guarantee or warranty is offered or implied. Laws and government policies are subject to change, and the information provided herein may not provide a complete or current analysis of the topic or other pertinent considerations. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
