If you have a question of about your security clearance or received a Statement of Reasons, then you are at the right place. 'A decision on eligibility for access to classified information, assignment to duties that have been designated national security sensitive, and SCI access is a discretionary security decision based on judgments by appropriately trained adjudicative personnel. Pursuant to DoDM 5200.02, Procedures for the DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP), April 3, 2017
eligibility shall be granted only where facts and circumstances indicate eligibility for access to
classified information is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States,
and any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the national security.'
The security clearance adjudicative process involves an examination and weighing of a number of different variables of an individual's life to make an affirmative determination that the individual is an acceptable security risk. This is known as the whole-person concept. The goal is to consider all available, reliable information about each applicant, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.
In order to make a determination as to whether granting or continuing national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security, the following guidelines will be reviewed in the context of the whole person concept:
Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States
Guideline B: Foreign Influence
Guideline C: Foreign Preference
Guideline D: Sexual Behavior
Guideline E: Personal Conduct
Guideline F: Financial Considerations
Guideline G; Alcohol Consumption
Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
Guideline I: Psychological Conditions
Guideline J; Criminal Conduct
Guideline K; Handling Protected Information
Guideline L: Outside Activities
Guideline M: Use of Information Techology
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors:
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
(2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;
(3) the frequency and recency of the conduct;
(4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
(5) the extent to which participation is voluntary;
(6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes;
(7) the motivation for the conduct;
(8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and
(9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE;
CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THE LAWYER
Former service member received a statement of reasons (SOR) relating to the general court-martial (GCM) conviction concerning financial fraud and false statements. Action: Developed persuasive and compelling evidence in rebuttal, mitigation and extenuation. Result: Former service member maintained eligibility for access to classified information.
Federal employee received a statement of reasons (SOR) concerning time fraud over an extended period of time. Action: Developed extensive evidence in mitigation and extenuation and also highlighted special circumstances under the whole-person concept. Specific focus was applied to facts in mitigation. Result: The employee was allowed to maintain access to classified information.
Service member received a statement of reasons (SOR) concerning his misuse of the Government Travel Credit Card (GTC) and overpayments. Action: Developed extensive documentary evidence to show Service member was compliant with his financial obligations. Result: Service member was allowed to maintain his eligibility for access to classified information.
Service member received a statement of reasons (SOR) based on multiple civilian arrests and violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Action: Investigated the arrests and obtained strong and compelling extenuation evidence supported by witness statements. Result: Service member was allowed to continue his service because he maintained his eligibility for access to classified information.