Security Clearance Denial

When reading through case summaries and Report of Investigations (ROI), I always look for what a security clearance applicant’s motivation was for committing a crime, doing illegal drugs, or just plain lying about stuff. In most cases, the motivation is easy to figure out: financial difficulties, alcohol or drug dependency,

Many security clearance applicants mistakenly believe that entering into a pretrial intervention (PTI) program with the court in order to get charges dismissed exonerates them and has no bearing on eligibility for a security clearance. This may be so in the private sector or in a criminal law context, but

In most security clearance denial cases the adjudicative decision is based on one or two areas of concern that are disqualifying in accordance with the adjudicative guidelines. However, in a recent Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) case the applicant was issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) that invoked

There are many behaviors and disqualifying conduct under Guideline E: Personal Conduct that cover a multitude of areas which do not fit under other adjudicative guidelines. These include dishonesty, anger issues, employment history, falsification, vulnerability to coercion, and rules violations just to name a few. Here is the primary extract