Read the security clearance denial and revocation cases published by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) or Energy Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), and you’ll notice some obvious themes: financial irresponsibility, substance abuse, and other indicia of questionable judgment, among the most common.
Less obvious, perhaps, is the subtext in many of these same cases: the Administrative Judge’s frustration with the applicant’s inability or unwillingness to own up to their past.
Ego, Bravado, and Clearance
Call it ego or bravado, many applicants assume a defensive or even combative posture when questioned by the government in an adversarial proceeding like a security clearance hearing. The worst offenders lead with that approach, adding argumentative or tone-deaf commentary to their security clearance application before a human ever reviews it.
I can only speculate why people self-sabotage like this, but the overlap between cases of questionable judgment and applicants who reject personal responsibility is no coincidence. To the applicant’s detriment, the government sees the latter as nothing more than reinforcing its assessment of the former.
Of course, there are times when taking umbrage with the government’s position is warranted; for example, where the applicant’s procedural rights are being trampled, the security allegations are demonstrably false, or the case is brought for retaliatory or other improper purposes. But those situations are the outliers, not the norm, and successful applicants understand that demonstrating humility and owning up to past mistakes is frequently the first step in winning one’s case.
The Case for Clearance
With that in mind, here are a few common examples I encountered over my career that may be instructive:
- The applicant who angrily insists they can continue drinking in moderation despite being diagnosed by a medical professional with an alcohol use disorder. This is rarely, if ever, successful, but many applicants try it to their detriment. No amount of arguing or puffery is likely to outweigh a medical professional’s opinion in the eyes of security officials.
- The applicant who uses their security clearance application as a forum to wax philosophical about state marijuana legalization and opine about the stupidity of federal law. The ban on clearance-holders using marijuana is well-settled federal policy and not likely to change anytime soon (if ever, given that the mind-altering properties are an issue entirely separate from legalization). The government views argumentative statements on the topic as the applicant hedging on their future intentions to use marijuana, which immediately raises suspicions. Lying is never an option, but applicants should understand that any equivocation about future intent to use drugs, including marijuana, is an almost guaranteed ticket to a clearance denial – regardless of one’s personal feelings about that.
- The applicant with unpaid delinquent debts who, when called to account for their finances, makes dismissive statements like “you have to live” to justify frivolous spending. The government doesn’t expect a delinquent debtor to be homeless or begging for food, but the opposite extreme – driving luxury cars, attending concerts, and taking expensive vacations while failing to pay creditors – is highly problematic for an applicant’s clearance prospects. Security officials encounter this scenario constantly, and the worst offenders are also often the most combative and egotistical when called out on their financial irresponsibility.
Security clearance adjudicative guidelines aim to mitigate potential security concerns, not punish an applicant for past behavior. That said, security officials are human, and an applicant who comes in hot is damaging whatever sympathy (and potentially favorable exercise of discretion) they may have otherwise garnered. Ego and bravado don’t impress any adjudicators I’ve met, and combativeness typically doesn’t help one’s cause. Absent unusual scenarios involving a violation of rights, demonstrably false allegations, or a case brought for improper purposes, applicants are generally better off checking their egos and personal feelings and focusing on objectively mitigating the government’s concerns. That can be a challenge for some applicants, so knowing one’s limitations – and when to hire professional help – is equally important.
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.
