The clearance process consists of three key phases – initiation, investigation, and adjudication. And while significant time is typically taken to consider the aspects of clearance investigations, adjudications, including understanding due process rights and opportunities to appeal an adverse decision are critical aspects of the personnel vetting process. Perry Russell-Hunter, Director of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), gave a full update at Connect 2024 in Reston earlier this year, shedding light on the evolving landscape of security clearance adjudication, highlighting crucial reforms aimed at fairness and transparency.
Gone are the days when clearance decisions could be based on inaccessible information, as shown in Oppenheimer. Instead, today’s clearance process is designed to ensure individuals have the chance to respond to allegations before final determinations are made.
This approach stems from landmark cases such as Green v. McElroy (1959) and subsequent Executive Order 10865 by President Eisenhower, which require that denial or revocation of a clearance cannot happen until the person has had the chance to see the reasons and present a defense. More recently, continuous evaluation (CE) and continuous vetting (CV) have transformed the clearance landscape. These methods allow real-time, ongoing assessments of eligibility and can highlight potential issues early, offering individuals a chance to address concerns before facing formal clearance jeopardy.
Russell-Hunter also discussed conditional clearances, which permit individuals to maintain their status while undergoing additional scrutiny. For example, guideline updates under Security Executive Agent Directive 4 now emphasize assessing risks holistically, considering mitigating factors, such as life circumstances that may impact credit. This nuanced approach helps to better protect those in the trusted workforce who might otherwise face unjust denials.
Additionally, policies around marijuana use, dual citizenship, and foreign travel have adapted to modern realities, focusing on assessing real security risks rather than overly restrictive measures. These changes reflect a commitment to balancing national security with the rights of clearance holders, aiming to uphold fairness and transparency as central tenets of the clearance process.
