The Adjudicator's Role in Security Clearance Decisions

When an uncleared employee is hired to perform on classified contracts, the power Security Officer (FSO) requests a security clearance investigation. If a replacement employee already has a lively security clearance, then the action is administrative; just a transfer.

In the case of a security clearance request, the applicant completes and submits the SF-86 with the safety officer's assistance and therefore the investigation begins. Next, the adjudicators apply the "whole person" concept to work out suitability and make a security clearance decision.

My independent research into whether "unpardonable activity" exists or to answer any questions asking what behavior would always disqualify anyone for a security clearance leads me to answer that it depends on things and the way the applicant demonstrates a turn from that behavior. However, some applicant behavior that has contributed to security clearance denials include:

· A cavalier attitude about their behavior. In other words the attitude of "take me as i'm and that i won't change for you."

· Lying on the appliance . These lies include excluding crucial information also as pretending it never happened.

· The incident in question occurred within the past 12 months. apart from circumstances resulting in an event in question, recency may be a big issue; the newer the incident, the harder it's to mitigate.

The applicant has some control over the timeliness of the appliance and duration of investigation once they put within the effort to organize before time with all the references necessary to answer questions accurately and completely. Additionally they will also gather references which will help the adjudicators understand whether or not any derogatory information are often overcome.

Any answers to the questions indicating a risk should be explained in the maximum amount detail as possible. Where there's doubt or question, the applicant should err on the side of over explaining rather than under explaining answers. apart from artifacts explaining situations, the applicant may seek legal advice to help in completing the document.

If an applicant is indeed concerned that past events may cause the denial of a security clearance, they ought to provide the maximum amount information as possible explaining or demonstrating that the events are within the past, won't be repeated, completely overcome with rehabilitation, and successfully an non-issue as far as motivation to try to to it again, ability to be coerced or exploited, or a temptation to try to to again.

The adjudicators consider the subsequent as they struggle to form a choice on whether or not the applicant are going to be a national security risk. they create security clearance decisions supported interest to national security. Consequently, the applicant is required to demonstrate they're not a threat to national security and will provide artifacts demonstrating that though they'll are a risk to national security at one point, that risk has been mitigated.

Steps to Getting the power and Personnel Security Clearance are available in our upcoming book tentatively titled Insider's Guide to Security Clearances. you'll pre-order now.