You’ve spent more than a decade building a career in national security, maintaining your clearance, and staying out of trouble. Then one mistake puts everything you’ve worked for into question. Does a single criminal charge erase 13 years of good judgment?
That’s the concern one security clearance holder recently brought to the ClearanceJobsBlog discussion forum. After 13 years of holding a Secret clearance, including eight years as a defense contractor, the individual found themselves facing a nonviolent felony charge for the first time. Original thread here.
“I’m sick. After 13 years of holding a secret clearance (first 8 as a ctr) and having a flawless reputation, i did something stupid and picked up a non-violent felony. I barely have a traffic violation. I immediately self-reported and have been regularly talking to my FSO. She is adamant that the whole-person-concept will void the chance of me losing my clearance. My job has opted not to discipline me. It’s been a few weeks and i’ve heard nothing from the Navy security personnel, or anyone else. FSO believes i’ll receive an SOR around end of year, we will fill it out, and that will be that. But i’m unable to rest on that. I’m uneasy. I’ve read through the discussions here and it doesn’t sound promising that it will be that quick and painless.”
The clearance holder immediately self-reported the incident, maintained communication with their Facility Security Officer (FSO), and received reassurance that their otherwise clean record would work in their favor.
Their employer even opted against disciplinary action. But six weeks later, there had been no contact from investigators or Navy security personnel. No interview. No Statement of Reasons (SOR). Nothing. And sometimes, the silence is more stressful than the investigation itself.
Does a Felony Automatically Disqualify You From Holding a Security Clearance?
The short answer is no. A felony charge is serious, but it does not automatically mean your security clearance will be revoked. Under Guideline J: Criminal Conduct of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, criminal behavior can raise concerns about an individual’s judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and willingness to comply with laws and regulations.
However, adjudicators aren’t simply checking whether someone has ever been arrested or charged with a crime. They’re evaluating the circumstances surrounding the conduct and whether those circumstances create an ongoing security concern.
Factors that may influence the outcome include:
- The nature and seriousness of the offense.
- Whether the conduct was isolated or part of a pattern.
- How recently the incident occurred.
- Whether the individual accepted responsibility.
- Evidence of rehabilitation or corrective action.
- The likelihood of the behavior happening again.
A single incident can absolutely be serious enough to jeopardize clearance eligibility. But an isolated offense, particularly when accompanied by evidence of rehabilitation and a long history of responsible behavior, may be viewed differently from repeated criminal activity.
The Whole-Person Concept: Does 13 Years of Good Behavior Matter?
Absolutely. But it isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. The whole-person concept requires adjudicators to evaluate an individual’s overall conduct and circumstances rather than relying on one isolated fact.
In this case, 13 years of maintaining clearance eligibility, a previously clean criminal history, immediate self-reporting, and continued cooperation with security personnel could all provide important context. The individual’s FSO reportedly expressed confidence that the whole-person concept would protect their clearance. While that reassurance may be encouraging, an FSO cannot guarantee an adjudicative outcome.
A lengthy record of trustworthy behavior matters, but so does the seriousness of the recent offense.
Depending on the circumstances, security officials may request additional documentation, conduct an interview, initiate further investigative activity, or refer the matter for an eligibility determination.
Not every self-reported incident results in an SOR, and not every SOR results in a final clearance denial or revocation.
It’s also important to distinguish between an employer’s decision to retain an employee and the government’s determination of security clearance eligibility. They are separate decisions.
What If the Felony Charge Is Dismissed Through a Diversion Program?
The original poster eventually shared some encouraging news: their defense attorney had negotiated an offer of a 12-month diversion program. If successfully completed, the program would allow the charge to be dismissed without a conviction. That’s potentially significant from both a criminal justice and security clearance perspective.
However, a dismissed charge does not automatically eliminate security clearance concerns.
Security adjudications can consider the underlying conduct, even when a criminal case doesn’t result in a conviction.
And when completing the SF-86, applicants must pay close attention to the wording of each question. The questionnaire includes questions about whether an individual has ever been charged with a felony, regardless of whether the charge ultimately resulted in a conviction.
A diversion program may provide evidence of accountability and rehabilitation, but the individual should retain all relevant court documentation and continue updating their security office as required.
The biggest takeaway from this discussion is that security clearance adjudications aren’t designed to evaluate people solely on their worst day. And hire an attorney if it calls for it.
Adjudication decisions are intended to determine whether granting or continuing access to classified information is clearly consistent with the interests of national security. For someone who has maintained a clearance for 13 years, a single criminal charge can feel like the end of a career. But there is a difference between a serious security concern and an automatic disqualification. The individual’s decision to self-report, cooperate with security personnel, and pursue a diversion program may all become relevant in evaluating the circumstances. The ultimate outcome remains uncertain, and no FSO, forum commenter, attorney, or me can promise a particular decision.
But one thing is clear: the whole-person concept means your history matters, even when your most recent chapter isn’t your best one.
Much about the clearance process resembles the Pirate’s Code: “more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules.” For this reason, we maintain ClearanceJobsBlog.com – a forum where clearance seekers can ask the cleared community for advice on their specific security concerns. Ask CJ explores questions posed on the ClearanceJobs Blog forum, emails received, and comments from this site. This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
