With the expansion of continuous vetting, security clearance holders sometimes ask a seemingly reasonable question: If the government already knows about an arrest, financial problem, foreign travel, or other issue, why do I still need to report it?
The answer is important: continuous vetting generally does not eliminate your self-reporting responsibilities. In fact, not reporting a security incident can lead to the loss of a security clearance.
After many years of representing security clearance holders and applicants, we have seen how failing to report an issue can sometimes create a second security concern beyond the original conduct. An arrest might be mitigated. A financial problem can be explained. But when the government discovers a security issue before the clearance holder reports something they were required to disclose, questions about judgment, reliability, and compliance with security requirements (and Security Executive Agent Directive 3) can follow.
Continuous Vetting Changed Detection Speed but Not Self-Reporting Obligations
As technology and information systems have advanced, the federal government has increasingly moved away from relying primarily on periodic reinvestigations and toward continuous vetting. Continuous vetting allows the government to review information relevant to an individual’s continued eligibility rather than waiting years for the next investigation.
That understandably creates a misconception:
“If continuous vetting will report it anyway, I don’t have to report it.”
That is almost always the wrong approach.
SEAD 3 contains self-reporting requirements for covered individuals with access to classified information or who hold sensitive positions. Continuous vetting does not relieve covered individuals of their separate reporting obligations.
What Types of Events May Need to Be Reported?
The precise requirements can vary depending on the individual’s clearance, agency, position, and applicable security policies. Reportable matters can include issues such as:
- Arrests, charges, or detentions.
- Significant financial problems, including certain delinquent debts, bankruptcy, tax problems, or foreclosure.
- Certain foreign contacts and foreign activities.
- Foreign travel when required.
- Changes in marital or cohabitation status.
- Certain drug- or alcohol-related issues.
- Security violations or potential compromises of classified information.
- Other circumstances presenting potential security or counterintelligence concerns.
Why Self-Report When the Government will Automatically Find out?
Suppose a clearance holder is arrested over the weekend. The individual knows that the arrest will eventually appear in government databases and assumes there is no reason to tell the Facility Security Officer (FSO) or agency security office. This is not the right approach. It is important to report the incident immediately to your FSO or security office before they are notified.
Self-reporting gives the individual an opportunity to show candor in self-reporting. Waiting for continuous vetting to discover the event can create an unnecessary question about why the person failed to report it. We often see Guideline E security concerns raised by the government because a person failed to report an incident before the government found out.
Example of What Can Happen When You Don’t Report
Consider a government contractor who experiences significant financial difficulties and becomes more than 120 days delinquent on several debts. The employee assumes that because continuous vetting includes financial information, the government will eventually see the debts anyway. The employee therefore says nothing to the FSO. Several months later, the financial issues are identified through the government’s vetting process.
As a result, the government then asks the individual not just about the financial issues under Guideline F but also why the person didn’t report the issues earlier under Guideline E. Had the employee timely reported the financial difficulties and explained the circumstances and efforts to resolve them, the case might have resolved quickly. With both issues, it is likely to take longer to adjudicate, and the individual’s clearance could be denied where it might not have been.
Self-Reporting Can Matter to Mitigation
There is another reason proactive reporting matters. Security clearance adjudication examines the whole person. When reviewing security clearance cases, adjudicators may consider whether an individual voluntarily reported the issue before it was known.
Prompt reporting doesn’t eliminate the underlying concern. But it can help demonstrate the type of judgment and reliability expected from someone entrusted with classified information.
Conversely, failing to report required information can turn an otherwise manageable issue into a more complicated clearance problem.
What About Clearance Holders with Access in Two Different Agencies?
Clearance holders may have multiple reporting obligations if they have multiple security clearances with different agencies. This is important and something that we are seeing a lot more of lately. For example, suppose an individual is seeking an SCI with the National Security Agency but also holds a Top-Secret security clearance through DoW. Presumably, the government is on notice of the NSA denial. However, it is often important to report the denial to your FSO or security officer at DoW.
In this type of situation, it is also important to determine whether or not you need to report the clearance denial to the other federal agency. The answer is usually yes. Recently, we have had clients asked, in the clearance appeals process, whether they reported the denial they are appealing to the other federal agency holding their other clearance. You want to be able to answer that question affirmatively.
Final Thoughts
The fact that the government may already know about an event does not necessarily eliminate a clearance holder’s obligation to report it. Continuous vetting has made it easier for the government to identify arrests, financial problems, and other potentially relevant information. But technology has not replaced the clearance holder’s responsibility to comply with applicable reporting requirements. Keep in mind that timely reporting a matter, instead of waiting for it to be reported can potentially help you keep your security clearance.
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Reporting obligations, agency-specific requirements, continuous vetting procedures, and security clearance policies may change or differ depending on the agency and position. Readers should consult their security office or counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
