Responding to the Statement of Reasons (SOR)
Our security clearance lawyers represent federal employees, military personnel or government contractors nationwide when they receive a Statement of Reasons (SOR) regarding their security clearance. The SOR lists the government’s security concerns with an individual holding a security clearance. SORs can also be referred to as a “Notice of Intent to Deny” or “Notice of Intent to Revoke” a security clearance. If you receive an SOR it is critical to take it seriously and get legal assistance. The SOR Response can be one of the most important steps to keep or obtain a security clearance. Too often, individuals take a wait and see approach when responding which can result in the loss of a security clearance.
How the SOR Process Begins
The process of getting to the SOR starts with an application for a security clearance. This is often referred to as the SF-86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions. It is also known as the eAPP, a digital version of the security clearance application. The forms are completed by the individual seeking to obtain or retain a security clearance. Next, the forms are reviewed by the government and investigators. Following this step, depending on the position and security clearance level, the individual will be subject to interviews and possibly a polygraph. The polygraph is typically only used for those seeking higher level security clearance credentials, like Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) or Special Access Programs (SAPs).
Investigative Interviews
After the interview and/or the polygraph process, the government will make a decision as to whether or not an individual has unacceptable security concerns. For instance, the government may have concerns about an individual’s susceptibility to foreign influence, alcohol issues, drug use, financial issues or many other potential issues. These issues can be found in Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD 4), which spells out the security concerns the government can have in clearance cases. There are 13 guidelines that apply to security concerns.
Requests for Additional Information or Interrogatories
In some cases, before issuing an SOR, the government will seek more information about the issues from the individual. They might send a request for interrogatories or generically for more information. At this point, it is important to respond to all of the concerns thoroughly to attempt to avoid an SOR. However, if the concerns are significant enough, the government will issue a SOR and provide the individual a chance to formally respond.
SOR Notices Vary by Agency
SOR notices, depending on the federal agency involved, are structured differently. Some provide a paragraph style discussion of the issues and others provide a very detailed narrative. In either case, the individual has to provide as much information as possible rebutting the security concerns. In our years of practice, it is rare that the government provides detailed enough instructions to sufficiently respond to the SOR on their own. As a result it is very important to obtain experienced legal counsel in responding to an SOR.
Hypothetical Statement of Reasons
The SOR that is issued will list, to varying degrees, the security concerns at issue and also and the security guidelines which are involved. The following is an example of a Statement of Reasons issued to a government contractor based on not handling protected information correctly and lying about it:
(SAMPLE) STATEMENT OF REASONS 
A review of your eligibility for security clearance has been made pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as amended) and as implemented by DoD Directive 5220.6, dated, January 2, 1992, (as amended). Because this office is unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant you access to classified information, your case will be submitted to an Administrative Judge for a determination as to whether or not to grant, deny, or revoke your security clearance. This determination is based on the following reasons:
1. Guideline M: Failure to comply with rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, calling into question the willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive systems, networks, and information. Information Technology includes any computer-based, mobile, or wireless device used to create, store, access, process, manipulate, protect, or move information. This includes any component, whether integrated into a larger system or not, such as hardware, software, or firmware, used to enable or facilitate these operations. Available information raising this concern shows that:
a. You intentionally and illegally accessed another individual’s email account without their permission on December 4, 2024.
b. On or around September 8, 2022, when leaving work for the day you failed to secure classified information at work as required.
2. Guideline E: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. Available information raising this concern shows that:
a. The information set forth in paragraphs 1 through 2 and their subparagraphs above.
b. During your security clearance interview on February 1, 2025, you falsely denied that you had not committed the security violations listed above.
The Adjudicative Guidelines cited above were made applicable to all executive branch agencies by the Security Executive Agent on December 10, 2016, and are effective for all adjudications to determine eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, effective June 8, 2017. A copy of DoD Directive 5220.6 is contained in this package and the Guidelines can be found at Enclosure 2 of the Directive.
__________________________________________
Responding to the SOR
When an individual receives an SOR, they need to address all of the security concerns alleged. Legal help is a critical necessity. In the sample above, the first step for the attorney would be to analyze the allegations separately for both (1) the information technology charge; and (2) the truthfulness charge. Basically, the attorney would need to examine all of the facts to see if it can be argued that these facts are not correct. For instance, in the sample, it is possible that the individual had permission to access the email account mentioned and this fact would be critical. For the truthfulness issue, the individual would need to review the interviewer’s transcript to see what actually occurred at the interview.
Point out the Mistakes
It is not uncommon for interviewers to sometimes not fully explain what took place during the interview. A further explanation by the individual, usually through a sworn affidavit or declaration would be needed to respond to the truthfulness allegation. In other cases, some of the allegations may have actually been disclosed by the individual themselves. If so, this can help in an SOR response. Providing voluntary disclosures can show that an individual is honest and can help mitigate the security concerns. There are countless ways in which to respond to the facts alleged in the sample above.
Use Mitigating Factors
In addition to responding to the facts, an individual can argue that mitigating factors apply. These mitigating factors are listed in SEAD 4. It is critical to explain which mitigating factors apply to the situation listed above. For instance if a security concern is old that can be a major mitigating factor. In the sample, the issue involving the classified information was almost 3 years old. That can be considered mitigating. Perhaps the individual also volunteered the information about the email access, which can also be mitigating. Further, suppose the individual has fully apologized and taken full responsibility for the conduct. All of these things can be considered as mitigating. Mitigating factor arguments can be just as helpful as addressing the facts in an SOR Response. It is important to get them right.
Employ the Whole-Person Concept
The Whole-Person Concept is a catch all defense for an individual. Basically, the individual has to show information that they are a good security risk based on their background. For the Whole-Person argument you want to argue that the individual has a good track record and is a good risk. For example, when we submit responses to SORs we include information awards, work performance, character letters, resumes and practically anything positive about that person to submit with the response.
Contact Us
When an SOR is issued, it is important to retain a security clearance attorney. It is important to do so as early in the process as possible. Our law firm advises individuals in the security clearance process and specifically in responding to SORs. We can be contacted at here or by telephone at (703) 668-0070.
