The National Adjudicative Guidelines for Security Clearances are not-so-creatively categorized by letter: “A” (Allegiance to the United States) through “M” (Use of Information Technology Systems). Sandwiched between “A” and “M” are 11 other categories covering every aspect of the human experience that could conceivably raise a national security concern. Lest they forgot something, Guideline “E” (Personal Conduct) is thrown in as a catch-all.
If you work in security, read ClearanceJobs regularly, or even just pay attention in your annual security refresher trainings, you probably have a decent sense of which categories ensnare the most clearance-holders and applicants. It varies by federal agency, but generally the guidelines encompassing financial issues, personal conduct (the catch-all!), substance abuse, and foreign influence top the charts.
The Mystery of Guideline “L”: Outside Activities
Interestingly, however, there is one category that impacts almost no-one: Guideline “L,” or Outside Activities. Over a decade of defending people in security clearance denial and revocation cases, I recall seeing only a single case brought under this Guideline. It was such a surprise that I almost couldn’t believe my eyes.
A big part of the reason for this scarcity is found in the language of the Guideline itself. As enumerated, 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 the individual’s security responsibilities and could create an increased risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified or sensitive information.”
Specific disqualifying activities include any service, paid or unpaid, with a foreign government, entity, or national, or a representative of any foreign interest – or any foreign, domestic, or international organization or person engaged in analysis, discussion, or publication of material on intelligence, defense, foreign affairs, or protected technology…”[1] (Emphasis added).
Taken literally, this suggests that an applicant who has previously worked for an organization like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – for whom the U.S. Government grants security clearances for U.S. citizens – would be disqualified from obtaining a U.S. Government security clearance. Similarly, an individual working for an open-source corporate intelligence company or a national security correspondent like this author could also be denied a clearance.
Why Guideline “L” Has Been Largely Ignored
If this sounds like a problem, it is. I have no idea what the writers of the Adjudicative Guidelines were thinking when they drafted this language, but it seems that they failed to consider some obvious scenarios. The invitation for legal challenge, combined with the fact that most involvement with foreign persons or entities can easily be covered under other Guidelines, is likely why federal agencies have chosen to all-but ignore Guideline “L.”
So, there you have it: an obscure piece of trivia that may just be more interesting than whatever you were supposed to be reading at work. File this one away for the next time your security office decides to play everyone’s favorite – a rousing office game of Security Jeopardy.
I’ll be on the lookout for a cut of the winnings.
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.
[1] Also included as a disqualifying condition is a failure to report or fully disclose an outside activity when required.
