One of the most common myths in the security clearance community is that reporting a security concern can somehow jeopardize your own clearance. Whether the issue involves fraud, misuse of classified information, insider threats, or other security violations, many clearance holders worry that speaking up could make them a target.
As a result, some individuals choose to remain silent when they see reportable issues. However, if you remain silent, you can also get into trouble if it is later found out that you knew about security concerns or criminal behavior but did not disclose them. We have represented many individuals over the years who have tried to remain neutral or avoid reporting security concerns, only to later find themselves in clearance or employment trouble. In many situations, reporting a legitimate security concern is not only the right thing to do, but it may be required.
Security Clearance Holders Have Reporting Responsibilities
Holding a security clearance comes with reporting obligations that extend beyond protecting classified information.
Many agencies and contractors require employees to report concerns involving:
- Security violations
- Insider threat activity
- Fraud against the government
- Mishandling of classified information
- Foreign influence concerns
- Significant misconduct affecting national security
As I mentioned above, the failure to report serious concerns can sometimes create greater problems than the underlying issue itself. Security Executive Agent Directive 3 (Reporting Requirements) requires reporting by clearance holders. In fact, not reporting an issue could potentially lead to a Guideline E, Personal Conduct security clearance issue for the person that did not report.
Protected Disclosures and Whistleblower Protections
Federal law and regulation provides certain protections for individuals who make protected disclosures regarding fraud, waste, abuse, violations of law, or threats to public safety. These can include disclosures made by clearance holders.
While individual protections vary depending on the agency and circumstances involved, Congress has enacted several measures designed to prevent retaliation against employees who report legitimate security and other concerns through appropriate channels. Former President Obama issued one anti-retaliation clearance-specific provision in Presidential Policy Directive-19, to offer some protections for those suffering from retaliation in the clearance process.
Reporting Fraud and Misconduct
Employees sometimes fear (with justification) that reporting these issues will cause them to be labeled as troublemakers and lead to job or clearance loss.
In my experience, the greater risk often arises when individuals become aware of serious misconduct and choose not to take action. Security clearance holders are frequently expected to act when they encounter conduct that threatens the integrity of government operations.
Reporting Security Violations
Security violations can present even more direct reporting obligations.
Examples may include:
- Unauthorized disclosures
- Improper storage of classified information
- Unauthorized system access
- Insider threat concerns
- Circumvention of security procedures
When such issues arise, clearance holders often worry about becoming involved. Some individuals are reluctant to report a supervisor or friend. However, reporting a legitimate security concern through appropriate channels is part of the responsibilities associated with holding a clearance. It may be uncomfortable, but it may be required.
One Example
Consider a contractor employee who discovers that a coworker is repeatedly taking classified materials into an unauthorized area without approval. The coworker is a friend, making the disclosure difficult.
The employee reports the concern to security personnel. Shortly thereafter, workplace tensions arise with the coworker, and the employee also begins to worry that management views the report negatively because it reflects negatively on them.
Many individuals assume that such circumstances will harm their clearance. In reality, the security clearance process generally focuses on whether the employee acted responsibly and in accordance with security requirements. Properly reporting a legitimate security concern is usually viewed as evidence of reliability, not a security risk.
The Reality of Retaliation Concerns
Retaliation does occur.
Federal employees and contractors sometimes experience workplace friction, strained relationships, or other adverse consequences after reporting misconduct. Those issues can become complex and may involve employment law, whistleblower protections, inspector general investigations, or other legal remedies.
However, retaliation concerns should not be confused with security clearance concerns.
A properly made report of fraud, waste, abuse, or a security violation is generally not the type of conduct that creates clearance eligibility problems.
Final Thoughts
Security clearances are built on trust, reliability, and sound judgment. Reporting legitimate concerns involving fraud, security violations, or threats to national security is often required. Doing so is not always easy. Sometimes it is important to obtain legal counsel in such matters.
While concerns about retaliation are understandable, clearance holders should recognize the important distinction between making a protected disclosure and engaging in misconduct. In many cases, responsibly reporting a concern is not a clearance problem, it is evidence that the individual takes security responsibilities seriously.
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Security clearance procedures, whistleblower protections, and agency policies may change, and readers should consult counsel regarding their specific circumstances
