The Facilities Protection Officer (FSO) will order a security clearance review anytime an uncleared employee is hired to work on confidential contracts. If a prospective hire still has a legitimate security clearance, the action is solely administrative; it is merely a transfer.
When applying for a security clearance, the candidate filled out and submitted the SF-86 with the aid of the security officer, and the investigation begins. Following that, adjudicators use the “whole person” definition to test the suitability and make a security clearance determination.
My independent analysis into whether “unpardonable behaviour” occurs, or to respond to particular concerns about what actions will often disqualify someone for a security clearance, has led me to believe that it depends on the case and how the candidate shows a shift in behaviour. However, the following are some examples of candidate conduct that has resulted in security clearance denials:
They have a casual attitude about their acts. To put it another way, the philosophy of “take me as I am and don’t make me change for you.”
Providing misleading facts on the document. These lies include omitting vital facts and saying the incident never existed.
The event in question took place during the last year. Aside from the situations that led to the incident in question, recency is a significant aspect to consider; the more recent the incident, the more complicated it is to minimise.
When the claimant takes the effort to plan ahead of time for all of the references required to answer questions correctly and absolutely, they have more influence over the timeliness of the application and the length of the inquiry. They should also obtain references that will help adjudicators decide whether or not any unfavourable facts can be resolved.
Any responses to the questions that suggest a danger should be clarified as thoroughly as possible. Wherever there is uncertainty or a problem, the respondent should over-explain rather than under-explain responses. Aside from objects that clarify circumstances, the claimant may obtain legal counsel to help with the document’s completion.
Suppose an individual is worried that previous events can result in the refusal of a security clearance. In that case, they should offer as much detail as possible justifying or showing that the events are in the past, will not be replicated, have been completely resolved by recovery, and are no longer an issue in terms of incentive to do it again, willingness to be coerced or abused, or a tendency to protest.
When determining whether or not a candidate poses a national security risk, adjudicators take into account the following considerations. They make security clearance choices based on national security concerns. As a result, the claimant must show that they are not a national security danger and can have artefacts showing that, while they could have been a national security concern in the past, the risk has been mitigated.
Our forthcoming novel, tentatively titled Insider’s Guide to Security Clearances, provides Steps to Obtaining the Facility and Staff Security Clearance. You can put a pre-order right now.