Security clearance cases involving Guideline E: Personal Conduct can be particularly serious because they often concern an applicant’s honesty, judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, or willingness to follow rules and regulations. Unlike some of the other adjudicative guidelines, Guideline E is broad enough to encompass many different types of conduct, including alleged falsification of security forms, lack of candor during an investigation, workplace misconduct, repeated rule violations, misuse of government resources, and other behavior that may raise questions about whether an individual can be trusted with classified or sensitive information.

Guideline E issues frequently arise during initial security clearance investigations, periodic or continuous vetting, clearance upgrades, and reviews of existing national security eligibility.

For individuals facing these concerns, the specific facts matter enormously. An allegation of misconduct does not automatically mean that a clearance will be denied or revoked. The government evaluates both the potentially disqualifying conduct and the circumstances that may explain, rebut, or mitigate it under the whole-person concept.

What Is Guideline E: Personal Conduct?

Guideline E is one of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines contained in Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4).

The central security concern is whether an individual’s conduct demonstrates questionable judgment, dishonesty, lack of candor, unreliability, or an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.

These concerns matter in the security clearance context because individuals entrusted with classified or sensitive information must be relied upon to provide truthful information and comply with security requirements.

Common Guideline E Security Clearance Issues

Guideline E can arise in many circumstances. Some of the most common cases involve the following.

1. Alleged Falsification or Omission on the SF-86 or Security Clearance Application

One of the most significant Guideline E allegations involves an accusation that an applicant deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified information on an SF-86, NBIS eApp submission, personnel security questionnaire, employment document, or related government form.

Typical disputes may concern the failure to disclose:

• prior employment problems;
• disciplinary actions or terminations;
• arrests or criminal matters;
• drug involvement;
• financial problems;
• foreign contacts or interests;
• previous security clearance problems; or
• other information requested by the applicable questionnaire.

The critical issue in many of these cases is intent.

There can be an important difference between deliberately concealing information and making an innocent mistake, misunderstanding a question, forgetting information, or interpreting a question differently from an investigator or adjudicator.

For example, the fact that information was omitted from an SF-86 does not by itself answer the separate question of whether the omission was intentional. The applicant’s explanation, the wording of the question, prior disclosures, surrounding circumstances, subsequent corrections, and consistency of the applicant’s statements may all become important evidence.

2. Lack of Candor During a Background Investigation

Guideline E concerns are not limited to the information placed on a security questionnaire.

An applicant may also face allegations that he or she gave false, misleading, incomplete, or evasive information during an interview with an investigator, security official, adjudicator, employer, or other authorized government representative.

These cases can be especially difficult because investigators and adjudicators may compare statements made at different stages of the clearance process.

An inconsistency does not necessarily establish intentional dishonesty. Memory, misunderstanding, poorly phrased questions, passage of time, ambiguity, and differences in context can sometimes explain apparently inconsistent statements.

Nevertheless, unexplained inconsistencies can create significant credibility problems. A response to a Guideline E concern should therefore identify and reconcile material differences whenever possible rather than simply ignoring them.

Why Intent Matters in Falsification Cases

Intent is frequently one of the most important issues in a Guideline E falsification case.

If the government alleges a deliberate omission or false statement, an effective response should ordinarily address not merely whether the underlying information was incorrect, but why the incorrect answer was given.

Relevant evidence may include:

• what the applicant understood the question to mean;
• whether similar information was disclosed elsewhere;
• whether the applicant volunteered the information during an interview;
• whether the applicant attempted to correct the answer before being confronted;
• whether records available at the time were confusing or incomplete;
• how long ago the underlying event occurred;
• whether the applicant had difficulty remembering dates or details;
• whether the applicant sought guidance regarding how to answer the question; and
• whether the surrounding circumstances are consistent with intentional concealment.

A detailed explanation supported by documents is usually more persuasive than a conclusory statement that the applicant “did not intend to lie.”

Prompt Correction Is Important

SEAD 4 expressly recognizes mitigation when an individual makes prompt, good-faith efforts to correct an omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts.

Timing therefore matters. This cannot be overstated.

Someone who independently realizes an answer was incorrect and promptly contacts the appropriate security official may be in a materially different position from someone who admits the information only after investigators produce contradictory evidence.

Applicants who discover an error on a security form should carefully evaluate the appropriate reporting or correction process rather than simply waiting to see whether the issue is discovered.

Guideline E Can and Does Overlap With Other Adjudicative Guidelines

Another important feature of Guideline E is its potential overlap with other security concerns.

For example, alleged drug use may principally implicate Guideline H, while a failure to disclose the drug use on an SF-86 may independently create Guideline E concern.

Similarly:

• criminal conduct may implicate Guideline J while concealment of the conduct raises Guideline E;
• financial problems may raise Guideline F while false statements about those problems create Guideline E concerns;
• foreign contacts may implicate Guideline B while deliberately concealing them may raise Guideline E; and
• alcohol-related misconduct may implicate Guideline G while inaccurate statements regarding the events may generate an additional Personal Conduct allegation.

This distinction is important because resolving the underlying conduct does not necessarily resolve a separate allegation that the applicant was dishonest about it.

Guideline E Mitigating Conditions

SEAD 4 contains several circumstances that may mitigate Personal Conduct concerns.

Among them are situations in which:

• the individual promptly and in good faith corrected an omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted;
• a failure to cooperate or disclose information resulted substantially from advice by legal counsel or another professional responsible for advising the individual about the security process, followed by full cooperation once the requirement became clear;
• the conduct was minor, occurred long ago, was infrequent, or occurred under unusual circumstances and is unlikely to recur;
• the individual acknowledged the behavior and took counseling or other positive steps to address the circumstances contributing to it;
• the individual took steps to eliminate vulnerability to coercion, manipulation, or duress;
• the adverse information was unsubstantiated or came from a source of questionable reliability; or
• an association with persons involved in criminal activity was unwitting, has ended, or otherwise occurred under circumstances that do not raise doubts about the individual’s reliability, judgment, or willingness to follow rules.

Evidence That Can Help Mitigate a Guideline E Case

One of the most common mistakes in responding to a security clearance concern is submitting a lengthy explanation without supporting evidence.

Whenever possible, important factual statements should be corroborated with other evidence.. Depending on the allegations, useful evidence can include:

• contemporaneous emails and correspondence;
• personnel and employment records;
• SF-86 or prior security questionnaire submissions;
• investigative records;
• performance evaluations;
• awards and commendations;
• disciplinary records;
• training certificates;
• counseling or treatment documentation where relevant;
• records showing repayment or restitution;
• policies or instructions that clarify what the applicant was told;
• sworn declarations or affidavits;
• statements from witnesses with firsthand knowledge;
• character letters from supervisors and colleagues;
• evidence of successful subsequent employment;
• evidence of compliance with security requirements; and
• documentation showing corrective or rehabilitative measures.

The strongest evidence will depend on the particular allegation.

Common Mistakes in Guideline E Responses

Several recurring mistakes can make Personal Conduct cases more difficult when you respond to a Letter of Intent or Statement of Reasons.

Providing Only a General Denial

I don’t recommend general denials in security clearance responses. Every material allegation should generally be addressed specifically. We often see responses in cases that we have not handled that are very short or just state “deny” or “admit” without providing more information. These are generally not very helpful and can help to drag out the process.

Failing to Produce Supporting Evidence

A detailed narrative is important, but documentary evidence can substantially strengthen an individual’s case.

Ignoring Intent

In falsification cases, explaining what happened is not enough. The response should often explain why the evidence does or does not establish an intent to hide information.

Attacking Investigators or Former Employers

Challenging facts is far more effective than accusing or attacking an investigator or former employer. Often, attacking an investigator will hurt a case, n0t help it. Where a source is inaccurate or unreliable, explain why and present contradictory evidence.

Minimizing Clearly Established Conduct

Where misconduct did occur, acknowledging the conduct and demonstrating rehabilitation is often more effective than advancing an explanation inconsistent with objective records. Do not minimize misconduct that you will be admitting to. It is almost always not helpful.

Waiting Until an Appeal to Develop Evidence

Whenever possible, favorable evidence should be developed at the earliest meaningful stage of the adjudicative process. Oftentimes, waiting to include information until a final appeal can be too late. For example, some individuals seek to wait to provide additional information in Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals cases at the appeals stage (post-Administrative Judge). However, by the time you file with the DOHA Appeal Board, new evidence generally cannot be added.

Helpful Examples

Example 1: Workplace Misconduct and Terminations

Suppose an applicant receives a Guideline E allegation based on several former employers reporting repeated rule violations and terminations.

The response should examine each employment incident individually.

If one termination actually resulted from a reduction-in-force, another involved a disputed supervisor relationship, and only one involved substantiated misconduct, the evidence should make those distinctions clear.

Helpful documents might include personnel records, positive performance evaluations, emails, witness statements, grievance records, positive letters from former co-workers or supervisors and evidence showing several years of successful employment after the incidents.

The applicant should also address the government’s broader concern about whether the events demonstrate a continuing pattern of poor judgment.

Example 2: Alleged SF-86 Falsification

Assume an applicant failed to list an adverse employment event on a security questionnaire.

A strong response would examine the precise wording of the question, what the applicant understood at the time, whether the employment event actually fell within the scope of the question, what the applicant disclosed elsewhere, and whether the individual later volunteered or corrected the information.

Where applicable, contemporaneous documents can be critical in demonstrating that an omission resulted from confusion or mistake rather than an intent to conceal. It is also often the case that an individual who checked no in a box, discussed the underlying issue in the substantive comments on the SF-86.

Example 3: Misconduct Combined With a Candor Issue

Suppose an employee engaged in prohibited conduct, like the use of an illegal drug, but initially gave an incomplete explanation when questioned about it.

The government may raise both the original conduct under Guideline H and a separate Guideline E concern regarding candor.

The response should therefore address both issues. Even if the underlying misconduct can be mitigated because it was isolated and occurred years earlier, the applicant may still need to explain the later statement and demonstrate why it does not indicate continuing dishonesty or unreliability.

Example 4: False or Unreliable Allegations

Not every allegation contained in a clearance investigation is accurate.

Guideline E expressly permits consideration of whether adverse information is unsubstantiated or comes from a questionable source.

Where an allegation is false or exaggerated, it may be important to identify inconsistencies in the source’s account, contradictory documents, witnesses with firsthand knowledge, motives affecting the source’s reliability where legitimately supported, and objective records establishing what occurred.

The focus should remain on evidence rather than speculation about the source.

Reach out to a Security Clearance Lawyer if you Have Guideline E Issues

Guideline E is one of the broadest provisions of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. It can encompass alleged dishonesty, lack of candor, rule violations, workplace misconduct, misuse of resources, questionable judgment, vulnerability to exploitation, and other conduct affecting an individual’s reliability or trustworthiness.

A Guideline E allegation, however, is not evaluated in isolation. Security clearance adjudicators consider the specific circumstances, the reliability of the evidence, the individual’s explanation, mitigating conditions, evidence of rehabilitation, the likelihood of recurrence, and the individual’s record as a whole.

For applicants and clearance holders facing a Letter of Intent, Statement of Reasons, proposed revocation, or other Guideline E concern, a comprehensive response supported by credible documentation can be critical. Berry & Berry, PLLC represents federal employees and government contractors in security clearance matters, including Guideline E Personal Conduct cases.

📞 Call us: (703) 668-0070
🌐 Visit: https://www.berrylegal.com

Security Clearance and Foreign Preference (Guideline C): What You Need to Know

For many security clearance applicants and holders, having connections to another country is simply part of modern life. Individuals may have been born overseas, possess dual citizenship, own property in another country, or have family members living abroad. These circumstances do not automatically prevent someone from obtaining or maintaining a security clearance. However, they can raise questions under Guideline C – Foreign Preference of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (Security Executive Agent Directive 4 or SEAD 4).

At Berry & Berry, PLLC, we regularly represent federal employees, military personnel, and government contractors facing security clearance issues involving foreign preference. One of the biggest misconceptions we encounter is that having foreign citizenship or overseas ties automatically disqualifies someone from holding a clearance. In reality, security clearance adjudicators focus on whether an individual’s actions demonstrate a preference for a foreign country over the interests of the United States.

This article explains how Guideline C works, what conduct may trigger a review, and how many cases can be successfully mitigated.

What Is Guideline C – Foreign Preference?

Guideline C addresses conduct that may indicate an individual has placed (or may place) the interests of another country ahead of those of the United States.

The government’s concern is not an individual’s heritage, ethnicity, or family background. Rather, adjudicators evaluate whether a person’s conduct demonstrates divided allegiance or raises concerns about their judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, or willingness to safeguard classified information.

Why Foreign Preference Matters in Security Clearance Cases

The security clearance process is designed to identify and manage national security risks, not to penalize individuals for having international backgrounds.

The key question is:

Have the individual’s actions demonstrated a preference for another nation over the United States?

Clearance adjudicators examine whether foreign citizenship or privileges have been exercised in a way that could call an individual’s allegiance into question.

Common Guideline C Issues

Several situations commonly trigger a Guideline C review during a background investigation:

• Exercising rights associated with foreign citizenship
• Voting in a foreign election
• Using a foreign passport after becoming eligible for a U.S. security clearance
• Accepting benefits that require an acknowledgment of allegiance to another country
• Serving in a foreign military or foreign militia
• Actively pursuing new foreign citizenship
• Accepting government privileges from another nation

Not every one of these circumstances will result in a clearance denial. However, each may require additional explanation and documentation.

Dual Citizenship Does Not Automatically Disqualify You

Perhaps the most common misconception surrounding Guideline C is that dual citizenship automatically prevents someone from obtaining or keeping a security clearance. That is incorrect.

Many individuals who possess U.S. security clearances also hold dual citizenship. The government generally focuses less on whether you have dual citizenship and more on how you exercise the rights that accompany it.

For example, adjudicators may scrutinize:

• Continued use of a foreign passport
• Voting in foreign elections
• Accepting free health benefits tied to foreign citizenship
• Previous employment for a foreign country
• Taking actions that affirm allegiance to another nation

By contrast, simply acquiring dual citizenship at birth because of your parents or birthplace is often viewed much differently.

Guideline C vs. Guideline B: Understanding the Difference

Many applicants confuse Guideline C (Foreign Preference) with Guideline B (Foreign Influence).

Although they frequently arise together, they address different concerns.

Guideline B – Foreign Influence

Focuses on outside pressures that may affect an individual, including:

• Family members overseas
• Foreign financial interests
• Business relationships
• Close foreign contacts

The concern is whether another country could potentially influence or coerce the applicant.

Guideline C – Foreign Preference

Focuses on the applicant’s own conduct.

The government evaluates whether an individual has voluntarily taken actions suggesting a preference for another country’s interests over those of the United States.

Understanding this distinction is important because different legal standards and mitigation strategies apply.

How to Mitigate Guideline C Concerns

The good news is that many Guideline C issues are fully mitigable.

Security clearance adjudicators understand that international ties are increasingly common in today’s global society.

Some of the most important mitigating factors include:

• Dual citizenship resulted solely from birth or family circumstances.
• Foreign citizenship does not conflict with U.S. national security interests.
• Foreign rights or privileges were exercised before becoming a U.S. citizen.
• The individual is willing to renounce foreign citizenship if necessary to protect U.S. national security interests.
• The exercise of foreign citizenship presents little or no security risk.

Each case is unique, and mitigation depends on the specific facts involved.

The Importance of Honesty During the Clearance Process

One of the most significant mistakes applicants make is attempting to minimize or conceal foreign ties.

Security clearance investigators routinely verify:

• Foreign travel
• Citizenship records
• Passport usage
• Overseas property ownership
• Foreign family relationships

Attempting to hide these issues often creates Guideline E (Personal Conduct) concerns that can be more damaging than the underlying Guideline C issue.

Being truthful, complete, and cooperative throughout the investigation is often one of the strongest mitigating factors available.

Real-World Examples of Guideline C Issues

While every case is different, Guideline C issues commonly arise when applicants:

• Continue using a foreign passport after obtaining U.S. citizenship.
• Voting in foreign elections while holding a security clearance.
• Accept government benefits requiring allegiance to another country.
• Maintain dual citizenship without understanding how exercising certain rights could affect their clearance.

In many of these situations, favorable outcomes are possible when applicants demonstrate loyalty to the United States and provide appropriate mitigating evidence.

How We Can Help

At Berry & Berry, PLLC, we understand that foreign preference cases often involve complicated legal and personal circumstances.

Our attorneys help clients:

• Respond to Statements of Reasons (SORs)
• Prepare mitigation evidence
• Navigate security clearance hearings
• Appeal adverse clearance decisions
• Develop legal strategies tailored to Guideline C allegations

Whether you are applying for your first clearance or defending an existing one, early legal guidance can make a significant difference.

Contact an Experienced Security Clearance Lawyer

If you are facing a Guideline C – Foreign Preference issue, don’t wait until your clearance is denied before seeking legal advice.

Berry & Berry, PLLC represents federal employees, military members, intelligence professionals, and government contractors throughout the security clearance process.

📞 Call: (703) 668-0070
🌐 Visit: https://www.berrylegal.com

The earlier you address potential concerns, the better positioned you may be to protect your career and your security clearance.

Security clearance issues involving sexual behavior (Guideline D) are among the most sensitive and misunderstood concerns faced by federal employees, military personnel, and government contractors. While deeply personal, these matters can have serious implications for your ability to obtain or maintain a security clearance.

At Berry & Berry, PLLC, we regularly represent individuals navigating these complex situations with professionalism. This guide explains how Guideline D works, what adjudicators look for, and how concerns can be mitigated.

What Is Guideline D – Sexual Behavior?

Guideline D is part of the Adjudicative Guidelines under Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4). It addresses situations where sexual behavior may raise concerns about an individual’s:

• Judgment
• Reliability
• Trustworthiness
• Susceptibility to coercion or blackmail

As outlined in SEAD 4:

Sexual behavior is a concern when it involves criminal activity, poor judgment, or creates vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress.

Importantly, sexual orientation alone is never a basis for denial. The government is focused on risk, not identity.

Why Sexual Behavior Matters in Security Clearance Cases

Security clearance determinations are fundamentally about risk management. Adjudicators are not moral arbiters, they assess whether your conduct could:

• Expose you to blackmail or coercion
• Reflect poor decision-making
• Indicate dishonesty or lack of candor
• Violate laws or regulations

Even private conduct can become relevant if it creates security vulnerabilities.

Common Sexual Behavior Issues That Trigger Clearance Concerns

While every case is unique, some recurring issues include:

• Undisclosed extramarital affairs
• Solicitation or payment for prostitution
• Viewing or possession of illegal pornography
• Inappropriate workplace conduct
• Secretive or undisclosed relationships
• Online sexual behavior (including messaging or content sharing)

These issues may arise during:

• Background investigations
• Polygraph examinations
• Self-reporting requirements
• Workplace complaints or incidents

Because these matters are highly personal, we approach every case with discretion, confidentiality, and empathy.

How Security Clearance Adjudicators Evaluate Sexual Behavior

Adjudicators look at the “whole person concept”, meaning they evaluate:

• The nature and seriousness of the conduct
• Frequency and recency
• Whether the behavior was voluntary or coerced
• Whether it was disclosed honestly
• Evidence of rehabilitation or change

The key question is not simply what happened, but:

👉 Does this behavior still pose a security risk today?

How to Mitigate Sexual Behavior Security Clearance Concerns

The good news is that many Guideline D cases are successfully mitigated. The goal is to demonstrate that the concern:

• Is no longer ongoing
• Does not reflect your current judgment
• Cannot be used to coerce or exploit you

Common Mitigation Strategies

Depending on the situation, mitigation may include:

• Demonstrating the conduct was isolated or occurred long ago
• Showing transparency (e.g., disclosure to spouse or employer)
• Providing evidence of counseling or treatment
• Obtaining evaluations from mental health professionals
• Proving there is no risk of blackmail or coercion
• Submitting character references and supporting documentation

For example:

• In extramarital affair cases, disclosure and counseling may help
• In prostitution-related cases, rehabilitation and time since the conduct are key
• In online conduct cases, demonstrating changed behavior and accountability is critical

Official Mitigating Factors Under SEAD 4

SEAD 4 provides specific mitigating conditions that may apply:

• The behavior occurred during adolescence and did not continue
• The conduct is remote in time or unlikely to recur
• The individual is not vulnerable to coercion or exploitation
• The behavior was private, consensual, and discreet
• The individual has completed or is engaged in treatment with a favorable prognosis

These factors are often central to building a successful defense.

Real Case Examples from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)

Understanding how these cases are decided can be helpful. Here are a few real-world examples:

❌ Clearance Denied

• Individual paid for prostitution multiple times over decades, including while holding a clearance
• Insufficient evidence of rehabilitation
• Subject to coercion because spouse is unaware
• Ongoing concerns about judgment

✅ Clearance Granted

• One-time solicitation of prostitution
• Immediate disclosure to employer
• Strong evidence of rehabilitation and good character

✅ Clearance Granted

• Accidental download of illegal content many years prior
• No pattern of behavior
• Successfully mitigated under other guidelines

❌ Clearance Denied

• Attempted non-consensual workplace misconduct
• Lack of mitigation and poor judgment

These cases show that context, honesty, and rehabilitation matter greatly.

The Importance of Honesty and Early Legal Guidance

One of the biggest mistakes individuals make is:

❌ Failing to disclose conduct
❌ Minimizing or misrepresenting facts
❌ Waiting too long to seek legal help

In many cases, the cover-up is worse than the conduct itself.

Working with an experienced security clearance attorney early in the process can significantly improve your outcome.

How We Can Help

At Berry & Berry, PLLC we understand how difficult and personal these cases can be. We provide:

• Confidential, judgment-free legal advice
• Strategic guidance tailored to your situation
• Representation in responding to the Statement of Reasons
• Representation in security clearance hearings and appeals
• Assistance with mitigation evidence and documentation

We have helped many clients retain or obtain their security clearances, even in challenging cases involving Guideline D.

Contact a Security Clearance Lawyer Today

If you are facing a security clearance issue involving sexual behavior, it is critical to act quickly and strategically. Early intervention can make a significant difference in protecting your career and clearance. Sexual behavior concerns under Guideline D are highly personal, but they are also legally manageable in many cases. With the right approach, documentation, and legal strategy, many individuals are able to successfully mitigate these concerns.

📞 Call us: (703) 668-0070
🌐 Visit: https://www.berrylegal.com

If you are a government contractor or federal employee facing an adverse security clearance decision by the National Security Agency (NSA) — including denial, revocation, or loss of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access — you need experienced legal representation to protect your career and reputation. You need an experienced NSA security clearance lawyer.

NSA Security Clearance Appeals — Legal Help for Contractors & Employees

At Berry & Berry, PLLC, our security clearance attorneys help contractors and NSA federal employees appeal NSA security clearance decisions and navigate the complex NSA appeals process with confidence. We frequently represent individuals in security clearance appeals before the NSA. The NSA is part of the Intelligence Community group of agencies and have a unique security clearance appeals process.

Why Appeal an NSA Security Clearance Decision?

A security clearance denial or revocation can disrupt your employment, contract eligibility, and future job prospects in national security, defense contracting, and intelligence roles. The NSA has its own clearance process and standards under Executive Order 12968 and Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4) — meaning appeals must be precisely prepared and timely.

Failing to respond correctly, or missing strict deadlines,  can result in a final decision that leaves you without a security clearance and without options for months or longer.

Of note, there are some changes in the NSA security clearance appeals process that have been implemented. We explain the current process below.

NSA Security Clearance Appeal Process — Step by Step

The NSA security clearance appeal process moves quickly and requires strategic preparation. The following is the process followed for government contractors. NSA federal employees have a slightly different process.

1. NSA Issues a Statement of Reasons/Clearance Decision Statement

When an individual has a security clearance or SCI access denial or revocation from the NSA (referred to as the Statement of Reasons (SOR)), it will list the security concerns at issue under SEAD 4. In addition, the NSA will typically provide what they believe to be the most pertinent documents from the Investigative File. Keep in mind that the NSA will have other documents, including a transcript of any polygraph examinations, on hand but likely will not provide these. They often provide a summary report.

For NSA security clearance cases, individuals with unresolved security concerns will receive a Statement of Reasons (SOR).  Under this process, the individual will usually have 10 days to elect to appeal a denial and notify the agency about whether or not a Personal Appearance is being requested. It is important to request a Personal Appearance, along with submitting a written appeal. This deadline for electing these options is strict. Individuals in this process will have the ability to request an abbreviated Personal Appearance of no more than 30 minutes in-person in addition to submitting their written review.

There is ongoing discussion about transition to a virtual platform for the PA process, but they are often held onsite. You usually have 30 days to submit your written response to the NSA when notified of your SOR, but they often add time if the receipt occurred after the date of the SOR (which is in most cases). If you have elected an in-person meeting that will take place at the NSA after the written response is received. You may have counsel represent you in this process. Having an experienced security clearance lawyer is important in the NSA process to protect a contractor’s rights.

2. Contractor Response to the NSA SOR

If the individual elects to reply to the SOR they will need to respond to the NSA’s security concerns by written submission. A thorough response must be prepared to address all of the security issues. It is critical to also provide exhibits, such as relevant evidence, declarations, character letters, declarations, affidavits, and other documentation related to the NSA’s security concerns or the character of the individual. It is also important to address mitigation and the Whole-Person Concept.

Our security clearance lawyers typically represent individuals starting with this first step. The written submission can often involve submitting a 10-15 page response, plus exhibits. It is not unusual for a submission to be 30-60 pages when exhibits are included. As a result it is important to consult with an attorney that is familiar with the NSA security clearance process.

3. First Level Personal Appearance

Once the individual’s response to the SOR is received by the NSA within the deadline, they will be contacted to schedule the Personal Appearance, if that option has been requested. The individual and their attorney will then travel to the NSA for the Personal Appearance. You should build in time to get through security in order to make your appointment on time. In the future, it is likely that this may be transitioned into a virtual (remote) appearance. During the Personal Appearance, the individual and their attorney will sit across from the adjudicator and an NSA attorney. They will very well have a large binder in front of them with information about your case that you have not yet seen.

The security official will then start the Personal Appearance. Typically, at this point, the individual’s lawyer begins the discussion about the security concerns. In most cases, lawyers ask the individual questions about the case in order to present evidence to the security personnel present. The meeting has a fixed time of 30 minutes. Usually, you will be notified when you have 5 minutes of presentation time left.

It is important to be prepared for the Personal Appearance given the amount of time that is allotted. Usually, when the presentation is finished, the security official present will ask some clarifying questions. It is common to expect 5-15 questions about your case depending on the issues raised. by the security official in the Personal Appearance. Once finished, the security official will let you know that they will submit their notes to the adjudicator and a decision at the first step will then be rendered when that occurs.

4. First Level Decision

Once the adjudicator reviews the security officials notes, the written response and their own internal file, a decision will be rendered. The decisions include permitting an individual to continue in the security process, reversing the denial, and a first-level denial. If the decision is favorable there is nothing further to be done and the matter should be resolved. If a negative decision is made, the individual will receive a new notice with the option to elect an appeal with the NSA Access Appeals Panel (AAP). Then the individual will have additional time to file an appeal. However, in this case, you will not meet directly with the NSA AAP, but rather submit a written appeal for their review and final vote. At this point a decision is rendered and is final.

5. Other Considerations for Appealing NSA Decisions

If an adverse clearance decision is rendered by the NSA, it is important to plan for the reapplication process with the NSA. It is also important to determine any impact that a final NSA clearance denial might have on other security clearances held by the contractor. Separate security clearances may require representation before other agencies. It is often important to challenge the security concerns with the NSA as if your security clearance is denied, any other agencies that you hold security clearances with will have your side of the story before they review the security concerns separately. NSA often notifies other federal agencies about their security clearance decisions.

For example, a negative NSA decision could affect an individual with a Department of War/Defense security clearance. In those types of circumstances, it is critical to respond to the NSA SOR. The response will remain in NSA security files and will be potentially available to other federal agencies in other security clearance evaluations. Other agencies will review their decision, your response and then decide whether to follow (or not follow) the NSA security clearance decision.

Common Reasons NSA Clearances Are Denied or Revoked

Security clearance decisions are based on trustworthiness and reliability factors. Common issues include:

• Financial problems or unexplained debts

• Criminal history or misconduct

• Foreign influence or preference

• Personal conduct concerns

• Failure to disclose relevant information on clearance forms

• Polygraph-related issues

Identifying the root cause of your clearance denial is the first step in building an effective appeal strategy.

How a NSA Security Clearance Lawyer Helps

Security clearance appeals are not ordinary legal cases — they involve:

• Complex federal regulations

• Tight deadlines

• Technical adjudication guidelines

An experienced lawyer can help you with:

✅ Reviewing your investigatory file and allegations
✅ Developing a persuasive written response
✅ Preparing you for your Security or AAP hearing
✅ Gathering and organizing strong mitigating evidence
✅ Communicating with NSA adjudicators on your behalf

Legal counsel at this stage significantly increases your chance of retaining or regaining clearance.

Frequently Asked Questions About NSA Security Clearance Appeals

Can you appeal an NSA security clearance denial?

Yes. Contractors and employees may appeal NSA security clearance denials or revocations through a written response and, in many cases, a hearing before a security officer or NSA Access Appeals Panel on appeal.

How long do I have to appeal an NSA clearance decision?

Deadlines are short. Security clearance applicants and holders have typically 10 days to respond to an initial decision requesting their options, which include (1) not responding (not recommended); (2) responding with a written response; and (3) responding with a written response and a Personal Appearance (usually recommended).

Do I need a lawyer to appeal an NSA security clearance?

While not required, legal representation significantly improves outcomes. NSA appeals involve classified procedures, strict deadlines, and detailed evidentiary standards.

What issues commonly cause NSA clearance denials?

Financial issues, foreign contacts, criminal conduct, personal conduct concerns, and omissions on security forms are common reasons.

Speak With an NSA Security Clearance Appeal Attorney Today

Whether you are a contractor, federal employee, cleared professional, or pending applicant, our security clearance lawyers understand the NSA’s unique process and appeal requirements. We offer personalized legal representation to help you navigate and win your appeal.

📞 Call (703) 668-0070
📍 Berry & Berry, PLLC – Serving clients nationwide
📩 Contact us for a confidential consultation

When a Department of Justice (DOJ) component such as the FBI denies or revokes an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information, the process does not end there. In many cases, the applicant or employee has the right to seek reconsideration and, if that effort is unsuccessful, to appeal to the Department of Justice Access Review Committee, commonly called the “ARC.” Under DOJ regulations (28 CFR § 17.15), the ARC reviews appeals from denials or revocations of eligibility for access to classified information, and its decision is generally final unless the Attorney General elects to personally exercise appeal authority.

Understanding the DOJ Access Review Committee (ARC) Appeal Process

This article discusses the DOJ security clearance appeal process. The ARC process is highly important, but it is also very procedural. Understanding the timing, submission requirements, and hearing format can make a meaningful difference in how an appeal is presented and the possibility for success.

Before the ARC – First Level of Review

Before a matter reaches the ARC, the DOJ component involved will first issue a decision denying an individual’s request for a security clearance. Upon issuing this initial denial, the individual will be provided with an opportunity to request the records relied upon and submit a written request for reconsideration. You must request the records within 30 days of receipt of the denial notice. Your written request for reconsideration is due within 30 days of your receipt of the documents relied upon, or the denial letter, whichever is later.

Following the submission of the request for reconsideration, which should be provided with explanation and evidence outlining why the individual does not pose a current security risk, the component will make a first-level decision. If the component upholds the denial or revocation in the first-level decision, the individual may then elect to appeal the matter further to the ARC.

Requesting an Appeal to the ARC

A DOJ clearance applicant or employee generally has 30 days from receipt of the first-level decision to file a written appeal to the ARC under the governing regulation. Because that deadline arrives quickly, it is wise to begin preparing the appeal as soon as the first-level denial is issued. Waiting too long can compress the time available to gather supporting records, prepare a written submission, and decide whether to request a personal appearance before the ARC.

What Must Be Included in the ARC Appeal

In our experience, the ARC appeal submission should include the following four items:

• The applicant’s full name, address, and telephone number;
• The name, address, and telephone number of the attorney or representative, if there is one;
• Any written statement, relevant documents, materials, or other information the applicant wants the ARC to consider; and
• A statement indicating whether the applicant does or does not wish to appear personally before the ARC.

Choosing a Written Appeal or ARC Hearing

A person appealing to the ARC may proceed on the written record alone or may request to appear personally before the Committee. In our practice, we generally recommend requesting a personal appearance.

That recommendation is grounded in the realities of these proceedings. A live appearance gives the applicant and counsel a fuller opportunity to explain the background of the case, address perceived security concerns directly, respond to the component’s position, and answer questions from ARC members in real time. A written submission is important in every case, but a personal appearance often allows for a more comprehensive presentation.

ARC Hearing Scheduling

After the appeal is submitted, applicants who request a personal appearance will eventually be contacted to schedule that appearance. One important practical point is that scheduling can happen faster than many people expect. In a recent matter handled by our office, the scheduling notice provided a hearing date only about three weeks later.

That means preparation should begin before the formal notice arrives. Supporting records, mitigation evidence, chronology, and hearing themes should be assembled early so there is no scramble once a date is set.

Virtual and In-Person Appearance Options

The ARC appearance may be conducted virtually or in person. When held in person, the proceeding takes place at the DOJ’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Employees or applicants should think strategically about which format best serves the case. Virtual appearances may be more convenient and cost-effective. In-person appearances may, in some matters, provide a stronger setting for presentation and advocacy. The right choice depends on the facts, the individual, and the overall theory of the appeal.

Additional Submissions Before the Hearing

If additional materials need to be submitted after the appeal is filed, they can usually still be provided in advance of the hearing. In our experience, any such additional documents or information should be submitted at least 15 days before the hearing date.

This is another reason to avoid waiting until the last minute. Mitigation evidence often takes time to gather. Medical records, counseling records, financial documentation, character letters, employment materials, and explanatory affidavits can all take longer to obtain than expected. Additional materials involving the Whole-Person Concept can be submitted as well.

If the scheduled hearing date presents a genuine conflict, an extension may be requested. That request should be made promptly and with a clear explanation.

What Happens at the ARC Proceeding

Individuals are often anxious because they do not know what the hearing will look like. Although every case is different, the ARC proceeding is generally orderly and professional.

On the day of the hearing, the applicant attends with counsel if represented. There are typically approximately three DOJ officials present as members of the ARC. The ARC is comprised of the Deputy Attorney General or a designee, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security or a designee, and the Assistant Attorney General for Administration or a designee.

The DOJ component involved in the case, such as the FBI, also appears through a representative to present their position. DOJ regulations specifically provide that the Department Security Officer has an opportunity to present relevant information in writing, or in person if the applicant appears personally before the ARC.

In our experience, the hearing generally unfolds as follows:

The Chair opens the proceeding, makes introductions, and gives a brief overview of the matter. The ARC then turns to the applicant and/or the applicant’s attorney for opening remarks. Approximately 30 minutes is typically allotted for that presentation. After the applicant’s side concludes, the agency component is usually given about 30 minutes to present its remarks. Once both sides have been heard, ARC members ask questions of both the applicant and the agency representative. After the questioning concludes, the proceeding ends. The meeting is recorded.

ARC members are generally well prepared. They have usually reviewed the file and supporting materials in advance and tend to ask thoughtful, focused questions to both sides.

The Legal Standard Remains Demanding

Even with a strong presentation, applicants should understand that this is not an ordinary administrative appeal. DOJ regulations make clear that an ARC determination on eligibility for access to classified information is a discretionary security decision, that access is granted only when the facts show that access is clearly consistent with the national security interest of the United States, and that any doubt is resolved in favor of national security. That standard is demanding. Successful appeals require more than disagreement with the initial decision. They require a careful showing that the concerns identified by the component are either unsupported, outdated, mitigated, or outweighed by the full record.

When to Expect a Final Decision

The ARC will issue its final written decision as “expeditiously as possible.” The timeline is not set, but a good expectation is around 60 days (always subject to change).

Although every case is fact-specific, individuals should use the post-hearing period to remain available in case counsel needs to address any administrative follow-up. Once issued, the ARC’s decision is generally the Department’s final decision in the matter. Another good resource in reviewing ARC appeals was published by the DOJ, here.

Contact Us

The DOJ ARC process is one of the most important stages in a security-clearance matter involving the DOJ security clearance appeals process. It is formal, deadline-driven, and substantively significant. The written appeal must be prepared carefully, and when a personal appearance is requested, hearing preparation should begin early. At Berry & Berry, PLLC, we guide clients from the initial written response to hearing preparation and ARC presentation. A well-prepared appeal can ensure that the ARC receives the fullest possible picture of the individual, the underlying concerns, and the reasons continued eligibility for access should be granted. If you need assistance with a security clearance issue, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation.

For many federal employees a security clearance is a requirement of employment. When a clearance is denied or revoked after the appeals process is exhausted, the federal agency will often move forward with a proposal to remove the employee from their position unless a suitable reassignment is available.

Because of this risk, it is extremely important for federal employees to actively protect and defend their security clearance at the earliest stage of a security investigation or denial.

At Berry & Berry, PLLC, our attorneys regularly represent federal employees nationwide in security clearance matters and federal employment disputes. Learn more about our federal employment practice.

What Happens When a Federal Employee Loses a Security Clearance?

Many federal positions, particularly in defense, intelligence, and law enforcement require an active security clearance as a condition of employment. If an employee ultimately loses that clearance, the agency must determine whether:

1. The employee can be reassigned to another position that does not require a clearance, or

2. The agency may remove the employee from federal service.

In many cases, reassignment options are limited or unavailable, which means that removal from federal employment becomes the likely outcome.

This reality highlights why it is essential for federal employees to seek legal advice early in the security clearance process before a security clearance is lost.

Our firm represents federal employees in matters involving security clearance investigations, denials, revocations, and appeals. Learn more about security clearance representation.

MSPB Appeals After a Security Clearance-Based Removal

Federal employees who are removed from their positions due to the loss of a security clearance often ask whether they can appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

However, MSPB review in these types of cases is extremely limited.

The Supreme Court held in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) that the MSPB generally does not have the authority to review the underlying merits of a security clearance determination. The Federal Circuit later reaffirmed this principle in Cheney v. Department of Justice, 479 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In other words, the MSPB typically cannot second-guess a federal agency’s decision to deny or revoke a security clearance.

Limited Issues the MSPB May Review

Although the MSPB cannot review the security clearance determination itself, the Board may consider certain procedural issues related to the employment action.

For example, the MSPB may evaluate:

• Harmful procedural error that could have changed the outcome of a case (i.e. not following Agency policy).

• Whether the agency had a formal policy requiring reassignment of employees who lose their clearance.

• Whether a suitable reassignment position existed at the time of the removal.

Why Early Legal Representation Matters

Because the ability to challenge a removal based on a security clearance denial is limited, it is critical for federal employees to respond proactively to security clearance concerns.

Early legal guidance may help:

• Address issues raised during the background investigation

• Respond to a Statement of Reasons (SOR)

• Prepare for security clearance hearings or appeals

• Develop mitigation strategies under the Adjudicative Guidelines

Our attorneys at Berry & Berry, PLLC focus on representing federal employees in security clearance and federal employment law matters nationwide.

Contact a Federal Employment and Security Clearance Lawyer

If you are facing a security clearance denial, revocation, or federal employment action, it is important to seek legal guidance as early as possible.

Each security clearance case and federal employment matter involves unique facts, procedures, and deadlines.

Berry & Berry, PLLC represents federal employees, contractors, and military personnel in security clearance and federal employment matters throughout the United States.

📞 Phone: (703) 668-0070
🌐 Website: https://www.berrylegal.com
📩 Or visit our Contact Page to request a consultation:
Contact Berry & Berry, PLLC

Our security clearance lawyers represent individuals with Special Access Program (SAP) issues and concerns. SAP access can be important for traditional federal agencies like the Department of Defense or for the Intelligence Community.

SAP access can be sought for both federal employees and government contractors.

Many clearance holders assume that once they have obtained a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance, the hardest part of the clearance process is behind them. In reality, for some professionals, the next step, being considered for SAP access, introduces a new and often misunderstood set of requirements. The upgrade process is different than for those seeking to upgrade from a Secret clearance to a Top Secret clearance or other more traditional security clearance upgrades.

After many years of representing and defending security clearance holders and applicants, I have seen experienced professionals surprised by the additional scrutiny that accompanies seeking SAP access. Understanding how SAP differs from TS/SCI access can help clearance holders prepare for the process and avoid unnecessary delays or adverse outcomes.

What is a SAP?

A SAP is a program established for a specific class of classified information that requires safeguarding and access requirements that exceed those normally required for security clearance access. A SAP can be acknowledged or not acknowledged. The existence of higher-level SAP programs in certain federal agencies might not even be acknowledged.

A common misconception is that SAP access is simply a different type of security clearance (e.g. TS/SCI). In fact, TS/SCI is a security clearance eligibility determination, while SAP access is program-specific authorization layered on top of an existing clearance.

To be eligible for SAP access, an individual must already hold the appropriate clearance level, usually Top Secret, and have a demonstrated need to know. However, meeting those baseline requirements does not guarantee SAP approval. Each SAP has its own access criteria, security procedures, and approval authorities. It seems like no two agencies are the same.

Additional Scrutiny Involved for SAP Access

SAP access often involves enhanced vetting beyond the underlying TS/SCI investigation. This may include additional reviews of prior clearance history, candor, employment conduct, financial issues, foreign contacts, and prior reporting compliance.

Issues that were previously mitigated or resolved at the TS/SCI level may be reexamined in the SAP context. Think of it as additional scrutiny over the same issues.  SAP authorities tend to apply a more risk-averse standard, particularly when programs involve especially sensitive technologies, operations, or intelligence sources.

A SAP Hypothetical

Consider a clearance holder who has maintained a TS/SCI clearance for several years without incident. During a prior reinvestigation, the individual disclosed a foreign national mother living overseas. The relationship was reviewed, mitigated, and ultimately deemed acceptable for TS/SCI eligibility.

When that same individual is later nominated for SAP access, the foreign family connection is reevaluated. Although nothing about the relationship has changed, the SAP authority determines that the potential risk, however remote, is incompatible with the program’s sensitivity. The individual retains their TS/SCI clearance but is denied SAP access and cannot fill the position.

This type of outcome is not uncommon and illustrates that SAP decisions often turn on program-specific risk tolerance rather than traditional clearance eligibility.

Foreign Influence Concerns, Contacts and Travel

For SAP access, foreign influence is a key concern. Foreign contacts and foreign travel frequently take on greater significance during the SAP approval process. Relationships or travel that were fully disclosed and adjudicated during a TS/SCI investigation may still be scrutinized anew.

Contacts involving countries with adversarial relationships with the United States can be especially problematic for those seeking access. SAP authorities may impose additional reporting requirements, restrict travel, or deny access altogether based on assessments that differ from standard clearance adjudications.

For obvious reasons, those adjudicating SAP access are especially concerned with individuals that could be susceptible to coercion from hostile countries.

Prior Clearance History is Reviewed Again for SAP Access

For clearance holders upgrading to SAP access, past behavior often matters as much as current circumstances. Security offices and SAP authorities frequently review whether an individual has complied consistently with reporting obligations related to finances, foreign contacts, criminal conduct, outside activities, and personal conduct.

In my experience, SAP access denials often stem not from disqualifying conduct, but from perceived lapses in judgment or candor. Even minor reporting failures can be viewed as indicators of unreliability when evaluated under SAP standards.

Limited Due Process and Appeals

Another important difference between regular security clearance eligibility and SAP access is the level of discretion afforded to program authorities. Think discretion. SAP access decisions are highly discretionary and may offer limited avenues for appeal or review. Some agencies, like the U.S. Air Force / Space Force, offer some level of SAP Access review. Many SAP programs offer the ability to rebut issues raised in writing. It is important to have a security clearance lawyer for these types of responses.

Unlike traditional clearance adjudications, SAP access determinations may not provide detailed explanations for denials or revocations. In others, an individual may be provided the investigative file which provides reasons for the denial. Clearance holders should understand that even a perfect TS/SCI clearance record does not automatically mean that they will be approved for SAP Access.

Furthermore, if you are denied SAP access it will not necessarily adversely affect your existing security clearance. I have plenty of clients who have been denied for SAP Access that still retain their TS/SCI security clearance.

Contact Us for Legal Assistance in SAP Issues

Upgrading from a security clearance (Secret, TS/SCI) to SAP access is not a routine administrative step and may require the advice of counsel. SAP access in unique with heightened scrutiny, much greater agency discretion, and fewer due process protections. Clearance holders who understand these differences are better positioned to navigate the process successfully. If you need legal assistance regarding SAP issues or security clearance matters, please call our office at (703) 668-0070 or reach us here.

As security clearance attorneys, we frequently represent individuals whose tax issues have placed their cleared careers at risk. One of the most commonly overlooked risks to a security clearance is unresolved tax debt or filing issues. Tax-related security clearance issues affect both federal employees and government contractors.

While many people understand that an arrest could trigger a clearance denial or revocation, fewer appreciate that delinquent taxes or late tax filings can also cause the same result.

The Connection Between Tax Issues and Security Clearances

Security clearances are issued based on an individual’s trustworthiness, reliability, and ability to safeguard classified information. These fall under Guideline F: Financial Considerations in Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4). Under this guideline, unresolved tax debts and the failure to file tax returns can cause roadblocks to keeping or obtaining a security clearance.

Why do tax issues matter? The government views significant debts or financial mismanagement as a potential security risk. Even if there is no evidence of misconduct, the mere appearance of financial problems can raise issues during a background investigation. In our experience, tax issues matter more to the Government than regular unpaid debts. The Government tends to view both tax debts and late tax filings as equally serious.

Common Tax Problems for Security Clearance Holders

The most common tax-related issues that jeopardize clearances include:

• Failure to file tax returns (federal, state or local)
• Unpaid federal, state or local tax debt
• Tax liens or garnishments
• Negligence in failing to resolve tax disputes

Another important note. Tax issues don’t have to be recent. Even older tax delinquencies can resurface during a clearance renewal or background reinvestigation. Also, tax issues that are indicative of a pattern are subject to more intense scrutiny.

What the Government Considers in Tax Clearance Issues

Not all tax issues are created equal. In assessing your case, adjudicators will consider:

• The nature, extent, and recency of the tax problem
• Whether it was intentional or negligent
• Whether there were policy exceptions involved with the tax filings (e.g. military service)
• Steps taken to resolve the tax issue
• Voluntary disclosure vs. concealment

For example, an individual who fell behind on taxes due to a medical emergency but who is now making regular payments under an IRS installment agreement will generally be viewed more favorably than someone who simply ignored their filing obligations.

Tips in Responded to Tax-Related Clearance Issues

If you are seeking or currently hold a security clearance and are facing tax problems, it is important to act promptly. Fixing tax issues for security clearance holders is very important. Here are a few quick tips in dealing with adverse tax issues:

Consult a Tax Professional

Professional guidance can help you understand your tax liabilities and options. Often, tax attorneys or CPAs can work with the IRS or state or local tax agencies to resolve tax issues on your behalf. They can also help in providing documentation of your positive efforts to resolve tax issues.

Work on Resolving the Tax Issues

Whether through a tax installment agreement, offer in compromise, or other IRS program, begin addressing the debt immediately. It is harder to mitigate these security concerns when the individual only starts attempting to resolve the tax issues are a Statement of Reasons (SOR) has been issued. It is important to address the tax issues as soon as possible. More credit is given to individuals who have evidence that they have worked on resolving their tax issues prior to the issuance of an SOR.

Keep a Record of all Tax-Related Documents

Keep detailed records of your efforts to resolve your tax issues. This documentation will be key during any security clearance adjudication or appeal. Keep documents, tax transcripts, cashed checks, copies of correspondence and even emails regarding tax resolution efforts.

Transparency is Important

Attempting to hide tax issues can result in an automatic denial or revocation. Transparency is critical. Keep in mind that background investigators likely have all of your tax records already.

Acceptance of Responsibility Where Warranted

When you have made mistakes with unpaid tax debts or late filings, acceptance of responsibility can be important. If you have a tax issue, it isn’t a good idea to blame someone else. It is best to accept responsibility where warranted and explain how the issue was unique and will not happen again.

Hire a Security Clearance Lawyer

If your security clearance is under review for tax issues, an attorney familiar with clearance law can prepare a compelling response and represent you before the appropriate federal agency. Tax issues are more complicated than most cases and often require a tax professional, as well as a security clearance attorney.

Contact Us

Tax issues, while serious, are not necessarily the end of your  security clearance. What often matters more is how you respond. Inaction can lead to the loss of a security clearance. However, being proactive can help mitigate the tax issues and help you preserve your security clearance. We represent security clearance holders and applicants facing tax issues. We can be reached at (703) 668-0070 or through our website.

IT violations and security clearance risks under Guideline M

Misuse of information technology (IT) is a common and often underestimated reason security clearances are denied or revoked. Many clearance holders assume IT violations are merely workplace issues, but under Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4), improper use of IT systems is evaluated under Guideline M and can place a clearance at serious risk. This can happen even when no classified information is involved, and even when the conduct occurs on unclassified or employer-provided systems.

As a security clearance attorney, I regularly see otherwise strong cases jeopardized by avoidable IT and AI-related mistakes.

Why IT Misuse Is a Serious Security Clearance Issue

The government relies on cleared personnel to handle sensitive information responsibly and follow rules designed to protect national security systems. Misuse of IT systems raises concerns about judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and willingness to comply with rules. Guideline M is not limited to classified systems. It applies broadly to the improper use of any government or employer-provided information system, including unclassified networks.

Common IT Violations That Trigger Guideline M Concerns

Some of the most frequent problems I see include:

• Downloading or transferring data without authorization
• Using removable media without required approval
• Accessing systems or data without a valid need-to-know
• Circumventing security controls or monitoring systems
• Sending sensitive information through unauthorized email accounts
• Using government systems for prohibited personal activities
• Installing unauthorized software or applications
• Inputting sensitive data into unauthorized AI tools
• Bringing personal mobile devices into secure areas without permission

In many cases, individuals do not view their conduct as serious misconduct until it becomes a clearance issue.

Does Intent Matter in Guideline M Cases?

Not entirely. Adjudicators distinguish between intentional misconduct and negligent or careless behavior, but both can raise concerns. Knowingly bypassing security controls or accessing data without authorization is potentially very damaging. However, repeated carelessness or failure to follow IT policies can also suggest poor judgment. An adjudicator may see potential risks for both intentional and negligent IT security issues.

One-Time Mistakes vs. Patterns of Behavior

As with other adjudicative guidelines, frequency and recency matter. A single, isolated incident (or a few smaller incidents) especially where they were promptly reported and corrected is far easier to mitigate than a pattern of violations that were discovered by an agency or employer.

Multiple incidents, even minor ones, can indicate disregard for rules and procedures. That pattern can be more damaging than one serious lapse.

Why Failing to Report IT Violations Makes Things Worse

Failure to report an IT violation often creates a larger problem than the violation itself. Many clearance holders harm their cases by attempting to minimize, conceal, or “handle quietly” an incident that later comes to light. Unreported misconduct can raise Personal Conduct (Guideline E) concerns in addition to Guideline M issues. When an incident occurs, timely self-reporting and cooperation matter. Reporting the issue is critical. However, if the situation involves criminal issues you will want to consult with counsel immediately.

How Does Emerging AI Use Affect a Security Clearance?

Unauthorized use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools can raise serious security clearance concerns. We are increasingly seeing cases where individuals input sensitive or classified information into unauthorized AI systems, leading to investigations and potential clearance revocations.

Clearance holders must understand applicable policies, seek guidance from supervisors or security officers, and think carefully before using any AI system with work-related information. While AI may eventually be integrated into approved government systems, that is not the current reality for most clearance holders.

How Guideline M Concerns Can Be Mitigated

Mitigation of Guideline M cases focuses on responsibility and corrective action. Helpful factors include:

• Prompt self-reporting of the incident
• Cooperation with security and IT personnel
• Evidence the conduct was isolated or unintentional
• Completion of remedial training
• Additional efforts to show that you won’t repeat the same mistakes again
• Clear understanding of policies going forward
• Passage of time without further incidents

Adjudicators want to see that the issue is understood and unlikely to recur.

When to Speak with a Security Clearance Attorney

If you are unsure whether an IT incident must be reported or how it may affect your clearance, it is important to seek guidance before taking action. Early legal guidance can help protect both a clearance holder’s rights and their long-term eligibility. When security concerns arise involving potential misuse of information technology, it is important to get legal advice quickly. Clearance holders have multiple duties to the government, their employers (and also to themselves). Navigating a difficult situation involving IT misuse often requires advice from professionals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can unclassified IT misuse affect my security clearance?

Yes. Improper use of employer or government information systems can raise concerns under Guideline M even when no classified information is involved. Misuse of unclassified networks, systems, or data can still reflect poor judgment, unreliability, or unwillingness to follow security rules, all of which are relevant to clearance eligibility.

What is Guideline M (Use of Information Technology Systems)?

Guideline M is the adjudicative guideline used to evaluate misuse of information technology systems during the security clearance process. It focuses on whether an individual’s conduct demonstrates poor judgment, unreliability, or a lack of willingness to comply with rules designed to protect information systems, whether classified or unclassified.

Do I have to report an IT policy violation if it seems minor?

Often, yes. Failure to report an IT violation can create more serious clearance problems than the underlying conduct itself. Unreported misconduct may raise additional concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). When in doubt, follow reporting requirements and seek guidance promptly rather than attempting to handle the issue quietly.

Does one IT mistake automatically revoke a security clearance?

No. A single mistake does not automatically result in clearance revocation. Adjudicators consider the totality of the circumstances, including frequency, recency, and response. An isolated incident that is promptly reported and corrected is generally easier to mitigate than repeated violations or attempts to conceal misconduct.

Does intent matter in Guideline M cases?

Intent matters, but it is not the only factor. Intentional misuse of IT systems can be especially damaging, but repeated carelessness, negligence, or failure to follow IT policies can also raise serious security concerns. Both intentional and negligent behavior may negatively affect clearance eligibility.

Can using AI tools jeopardize a security clearance?

Yes, if the AI tool is not authorized or if sensitive, proprietary, or classified information is entered into it. Clearance holders should follow applicable policies, seek guidance from supervisors or security personnel when uncertain, and avoid using AI tools with work-related information unless explicitly permitted.

What factors help mitigate Guideline M concerns?

Mitigating factors may include prompt self-reporting, cooperation with security and IT personnel, evidence that the conduct was isolated or unintentional, completion of remedial training, demonstrated understanding of applicable policies, and the passage of time without further incidents.

When should I contact a security clearance attorney about an IT incident?

It is often advisable to contact a security clearance attorney promptly when an IT incident could affect clearance eligibility, involves allegations of intentional misconduct, includes potential criminal issues, or when you are unsure how to report or respond. Early legal guidance can help protect both your rights and your clearance.

Security clearance upgrades raise potential issues for many clearance holders. For many federal employees, military members, and government contractors, moving from a Secret Clearance to a Top Secret (TS) or Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance can lead to higher-paying positions and more career growth. But with these opportunities comes deeper scrutiny when it comes time for adjudication.

A clearance upgrade is not automatic, and even small issues can slow down the process or create avoidable problems potentially affecting all of your security clearances. The following are some practical tips to consider as you seek a clearance upgrade.

Enhanced Investigations Occur When Upgrading to a TS or SCI Clearance

While all security clearances require an investigation, they get more rigorous as the clearance level gets higher. A TS clearance involves a much more in-depth background investigation than a Secret-level clearance does. A TS investigation includes more extensive checks into finances, foreign contacts, travel, and personal conduct. If your position requires SCI access, expect additional steps, which may include a polygraph examination and a separate vetting process depending on the agency involved. In my experience, the jump to SCI is more rigorous than moving to a TS from a Secret-level clearance.

Submission of a New SF-86 Required

In preparing for the upgrade, you should review and update your SF-86/eQIP/eApp. The Standard Form 86 (SF-86) is the foundation of your entire clearance investigation. When upgrading your clearance, you will likely be required to submit a new or updated version of the form. Mistakes on this form are one of the most common causes of delays.

Some frequent security issues include:

• Forgetting to list foreign travel, relatives, or contacts,
• Omitting financial debts or delinquencies,
• Failing to disclose past drug use or arrests,
• Previous disclosures missing from prior SF-86 forms,
• Leaving out previous addresses, employers, or supervisors.

A SF-86 is a legal document. Omissions, even accidental, can raise concerns about truthfulness that are harder to mitigate than the underlying issue. One of the most frequent issues we run across is where a clearance holder simply repeats the same information from an older SF-86 without realizing that changes have occurred since the last investigation.

Address Any Financial or Foreign Influence Issues Early

Before upgrading, attempt to anticipate any new security concerns that could come up and try to resolve or mitigate them in advance. Two of the most common reasons for clearance delays or denials are: (1) Guideline F (Financial Considerations); and (2) Guideline B (Foreign Influence). It is important to address these two issues fully and directly if they arise.

If you have family overseas, dual citizenship concerns, or foreign assets, be upfront and prepared to demonstrate continued loyalty to the United States and to demonstrate that you are not subject to undue foreign influence. Additionally, if you have had credit problems, debt collection accounts, or a history of bankruptcy, gather documentation showing that you have resolved or are responsibly managing your finances.

These issues will almost always come up in an upgrade investigation, and it is important to get ahead of them where possible.

More Intensive Interview and Possible Polygraph Process

As mentioned above, during a TS investigation you will be interviewed by an investigator who will review your SF-86, clarify information, and discuss any potential issues. If SCI access is required, you may also undergo a counterintelligence or lifestyle polygraph. These examinations assess honesty and identify potential security vulnerabilities. Be honest, calm, and forthcoming; investigators are typically more concerned about dishonesty than about conduct that occurred years ago.

Importance of Avoiding New Security Issues During Investigation

Your clearance upgrade is not complete when you submit your SF-86. You remain under review for the upgrade until adjudication is complete. If new issues arise you may have to complete an SF-86C or other agency-specific paperwork.

During this time, avoid creating new potential security concerns such as:

• Taking on significant debt,
• Using illegal drugs (marijuana) even in states where they are “legal” under state law,
• Getting involved in criminal or domestic disputes,
• Failing to report foreign travel or contacts.

Encountering new security concerns while your upgrade is processing can significantly delay or impede your investigation so do your best to avoid any new issues.

Clearance Upgrade Rights if Issues Arise

If the agency has unresolved concerns, you may receive a Statement of Reasons (SOR) or a Letter of Intent to deny or revoke your clearance (LOI). If this happens, you have the right to respond and appeal. The process varies between federal employees, military members and government contractors. In fact, it is very important that you respond given that adverse issues can affect not only the upgrade but your existing security clearance.

Experienced security clearance counsel can help you prepare a thorough SOR or LOI response which includes mitigating evidence and a detailed rebuttal. Many clearances that initially appear “at risk” are ultimately granted after a well-supported rebuttal and/or a personal appearance.

Continue Good Clearance Habits After Upgrade

Once your TS or SCI clearance is approved, your responsibilities continue. You will remain subject to continuous evaluation, and your agency may still conduct periodic reviews. However, you can relax knowing that the adjudication is complete. If you are upgrading to a TS, you may have to repeat this process again if you later need an SCI.

Contact Us

Upgrading from a Secret to TS or SCI clearance is a significant step for an individual’s career growth. It is crucial to handle the upgrade process with care. If you anticipate possible security concerns, financial, foreign, or otherwise, address them early and seek the assistance of a security clearance lawyer. Please contact us here or at (703) 668-0070 if you need any security clearance assistance.