Few areas of security clearance law generate more misinformation than the security clearance process. Over the years, I have heard countless applicants and clearance holders repeat the same advice from coworkers, internet forums, and well-meaning friends, and much of it simply isn’t true.
Unfortunately, believing these myths can lead individuals to make poor decisions that actually increase their risk of losing a clearance.
In our practice representing security clearance holders, we have found that many of the commonly held beliefs about security clearances are not always true.
Security Clearance Myths That Refuse to Die
Here are a few of the common myths that we hear.
Myth #1: Going to Counseling Will Cost You Your Clearance
This is perhaps the most damaging myth I encounter.
Many people avoid seeking counseling or mental health treatment because they fear it will automatically disqualify them from obtaining or maintaining a security clearance.
The opposite is often true.
The government has repeatedly emphasized that seeking mental health treatment is generally viewed as a sign of responsibility rather than weakness. In many cases, obtaining appropriate treatment actually helps mitigate security concerns by demonstrating sound judgment and a willingness to address personal issues. It is often the case that not seeking counseling or medical treatment when mental health issues are present is more damaging.
Simply seeking counseling, by itself, is rarely an issue.
Myth #2: Any Debt Means You’ll Lose Your Clearance
Financial issues remain one of the most common reasons individuals face security clearance concerns. However, having debt does not automatically result in a denial or revocation. The government evaluates the debt.
For instance, clearance adjudicators evaluate questions such as:
- Why did the debt occur?
- Is there a pattern of financial irresponsibility?
- Has the individual taken reasonable steps to resolve the problem?
- How long ago did the debt occur?
Medical expenses, divorce, job loss, or other unexpected hardships often can be mitigated when the individual acts responsibly. Ignoring a debt, not the debt itself, is frequently what creates the greatest concern for adjudicators.
Myth #3: Marrying a Foreign National Automatically Prevents You From Holding a Clearance
Many clearance holders worry that marrying someone from another country means they will automatically lose their clearance.
That simply is not how the adjudicative process works.
Foreign spouses, relatives, and contacts are evaluated under the Foreign Influence guidelines. Adjudicators consider the nature of the relationship, the country involved, potential foreign interests, and the individual’s overall circumstances.
Thousands of Americans with foreign-born spouses successfully hold security clearances. The key is proper disclosure and demonstrating that any potential concerns have been mitigated.
Myth #4: Prior Marijuana Use Means You Can Never Get a Clearance
Another common misconception is that any past marijuana use permanently disqualifies an applicant.
While recent or ongoing drug use can present significant challenges, prior marijuana use is evaluated within the context of the whole person.
Factors such as recency, frequency, age at the time of use, whether it occurred while holding a security clearance, and evidence that the behavior has stopped all play an important role.
Perhaps most importantly, applicants should be honest about prior drug use. In many cases, attempting to conceal marijuana use creates a far greater problem than the use itself.
Myth #5: If You Admit a Mistake, You’ll Lose Your Clearance
Some applicants believe that admitting mistakes during the investigation is the fastest way to receive a denial.
In my experience, the opposite is often true.
Security clearance adjudicators understand that people make mistakes. They are generally looking for evidence of honesty, accountability, rehabilitation, and sound judgment moving forward.
Attempting to hide information, however, can create separate concerns under the Personal Conduct guidelines (SEAD 4, Guideline E) that are often much more difficult to overcome. Issues of candor often end up being more difficult to deal with than the underlying issue.
Myth #6: A Security Clearance Denial Is Permanent
Receiving a denial or revocation does not necessarily mean an individual will never again be eligible for a security clearance.
Many security concerns can be mitigated over time through changed circumstances, rehabilitation, financial responsibility, treatment, or simply the passage of time. For many agencies, the denial will last a year until you can reapply. Sometimes, though, even when you are eligible to apply for a security clearance again, it makes sense to wait a bit longer to reapply. I advise individuals to seek counsel on the best time to reapply.
Each agency has its own process for individuals seeking a new clearance after losing one. Most agencies ask you to reapply as normal after at least a year. Other agencies, such as DoW/DCSA/DOHA and DoE use a separate reconsideration process for individuals who have lost their clearances before these agencies.
Every case depends on its own facts, and many individuals who have experienced adverse clearance decisions have later been successful in obtaining eligibility.
A Common Hypothetical
Consider an applicant who experimented with marijuana several years ago while in college, later experienced financial difficulties after losing a job, and recently began seeing a counselor to manage stress.
After reading online discussions, the applicant becomes convinced there is no chance of obtaining a security clearance and considers leaving these issues off the SF-86.
In reality, each of these concerns may be mitigable if fully disclosed and properly explained. The greater risk would be attempting to conceal them. It is best to get legal advice on these issues.
Final Thoughts
The security clearance process is based on evaluating the whole person, not applying automatic disqualifiers. Many of the myths surrounding clearances persist because people focus on isolated issues instead of how those issues are actually analyzed under the adjudicative guidelines. It is better to get the advice of counsel if you are uncertain about an individual security clearance issue.
When you hear someone say, “You’ll automatically lose your clearance if…,” it is worth remembering that the security clearance process is rarely that simple.
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Security clearance rules, adjudicative guidelines, and agency policies may change, and readers should consult counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
