The document provides an overview of security clearance guidelines and considerations. It summarizes three key points: 1. No one has an automatic right to security clearance, and national security concerns will always take priority. 2. The security clearance process involves completing application forms, an investigation, adjudication based on 13 guidelines related to loyalty, reliability and trustworthiness, and potential appeal rights if denied. 3. Case studies are presented to illustrate how certain behaviors like drug use, foreign preferences, provision of false information can result in clearance denial due to security concerns, even with mitigating factors like character references or claimed lifestyle changes.

1. Beer Pong, Facebook and File Sharing:
Why You Might Not Be Eligible for a Security Clearance
Women in Federal Law Enforcement - WIFLE - Webinar
Wednesday, January 29, 2014

2. Presented by
✤
Peter J. Jeffrey
✤
The Jeffrey Law Group, PLLC
The Federal Employee's Law Firm ®
www.jeffreylawgroup.com

3. Disclaimer
✤
The legal information contained in this document is of a general
nature and is subject to change; it is not meant to serve as legal advice
in any particular situation. The law is in a constant state of change as
Congress amends statutes or passes new statutes, Federal agencies
issue new regulations, and courts issue new interpretations of the law.
The Jeffrey Law Group, PLLC, does not guarantee the accuracy of the
legal information in this document. The Jeffrey Law Group, PLLC,
recommends you consult a licensed attorney who is knowledgeable
about the area of law in question before you take action to address a
legal matter.

4. Why am I Here?
✤
If you are planning to apply for a federal government
internship or job, you may be required to maintain a
security clearance.
✤
If you understand what is required of you now, the
process of applying for and obtaining a clearance may be
easier in the future.

5. Two key concepts:
1. No one has the right to a security clearance; and
2. All concerns will be resolved in the favor of national
security.
See Dept. of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).

6. Process Overview
1.Complete application form;
2. Investigation;
3. Adjudication (varies by agency); and
4. If your clearance is denied, you will be provided with a written
application, and you may exercise your appeal rights.
See Executive Order (E.O.) 12968; Dept. of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).

7. Application Process
✤
Standard Form (SF) 85 - Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions;
✤
SF 85-P and SF 85-P-S - Questionnaires for Public Trust
Positions; and
✤
SF-86 - Questionnaire for National Security Positions.

8. Application Process
✤
Prior to beginning the application process, visit
www.opm.gov/forms to review the forms needed for
your internship or employment and to determine whether
you may have an issue or concern that will preclude you
from access to classified information.

9. “Whole Person Concept”
✤
After submitting your application, the agency will begin
what is known as the “Adjudicative Process.” In this
process, the agency weighs a set of variables known as the
“whole-person concept,” through 13 adjudicative
guidelines.

10. Adjudicative Process
Guidelines
✤
The overriding purpose of the 13 adjudicative guidelines
is to evaluate a candidate for a security clearance based on
that person’s trustworthiness, reliability, and allegiance to
the United States. (See DOD Directive 5220.6 (1992)).

11. The Adjudicative Guidelines
✤
GUIDELINE A: Allegiance to the United States;
✤
GUIDELINE B: Foreign Influence;
✤
GUIDELINE C: Foreign Preference;
✤
GUIDELINE D: Sexual Behavior;
✤
GUIDELINE E: Personal Conduct;
✤
GUIDELINE F: Financial Considerations;
✤
GUIDELINE G: Alcohol Consumption;
✤
GUIDELINE H: Drug Involvement;
✤
GUIDELINE I: Psychological Conditions;
✤
GUIDELINE J: Criminal Conduct;
✤
GUIDELINE K: Handling Protected Information;
✤
GUIDELINE L: Outside Activities; and
✤
GUIDELINE M: Use of Information Technology
Systems.

12. Alcohol Consumption &
Nat’l Security Questionnaire
✤
24.1 In the last seven (7) years has your use of alcohol had a negative
impact on your work performance, your professional or personal
relationships, your finances, or resulted in intervention by law
enforcement/public safety personnel?
✤
24.2 Have you EVER been ordered, advised, or asked to seek
counseling or treatment as a result of your use of alcohol?
✤
24.3 Have you EVER voluntarily sought counseling or treatment as a
result of your use of alcohol?

13. Alcohol Consumption
✤
Some alcohol use is normal, but excessive use can be
a serious security concern. Alcohol impairs
judgment, reduces inhibitions, and increases any
tendency toward aggression. Those who abuse
alcohol are more likely than others to engage in highrisk, thoughtless, or violent behaviors. This increases
the risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified
information due to impulsive or careless behavior.

14. Alcohol Consumption
Disqualifying Conditions
✤
Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence,
fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol
dependent;
✤
Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated
or impaired condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent; and
✤
Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless
of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.

15. Alcohol Consumption
Mitigating Conditions
✤
So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; or
✤
The individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of
abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser).

16. Drug Involvement &
Nat’l Security Questionnaire
✤
23.1 In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled
substances? Use of a drug or controlled substance includes injecting, snorting,
inhaling, swallowing, experimenting with or otherwise consuming nay drug or
controlled substance.
✤
23.2 In the last seven (7) years, have you been involved in the illegal purchase,
manufacture, cultivation, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving,
handling or sale of any drug or controlled substance?
✤
23.5 In the last seven (7) years have you intentionally engaged in the misuse of
prescription drugs, regardless of whether or not the drugs were prescribed for you
or someone else?

17. Drug Involvement
✤
Illegal drug use may indicate an unwillingness or inability to abide by
the law.
✤
Drug use may weaken judgment. When under the influence of a
psychoactive substance, an individual may not exercise the care and
discretion required to protect classified information.
✤
Users of illegal drugs may be susceptible to blackmail, especially if
exposure of drug use could cost them their jobs.

18. Drug Involvement
Disqualifying Conditions
✤
Any drug abuse;
✤
Illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug
paraphernalia; or
✤
Expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and
convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.

19. But What About
Colorado?
✤
Marijuana use, even when allowed under State law, is still as
Schedule 1 controlled substance under Federal law. Substances in this
schedule have no currently accepted medical use in the United States,
a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a
high potential for abuse.
✤
The security concern that follows from the recreational us of
marijuana APPLIES EQUALLY TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA. (See
ISCR Case No. 10-08217 (Oct. 24, 2011).

20. Drug Involvement
Mitigating Conditions
✤
The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
✤
A demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future;
✤
Abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these
drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; or
✤
Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, without recurrence of
abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.

21. Foreign Preference & Nat’l
Security Questionnaire
✤
10.1 Do you now or have you EVER held dual/multiple
citizenships?
✤
10.2 Have you EVER been issued a passport (or identity card
for travel) by a country other than the U.S.?

22. Foreign Preference
✤
Foreign Preference is an issue whenever a person acts in such a
way as to indicate a possible preference for a foreign country
over the United States. Such actions raise questions about a
person's loyalty and allegiance, and how the person would
behave if faced with a conflict between the interests of the
United States and the interests of a foreign person,
organization, or country. A preference for a foreign country
may cause a person to make decisions that are contrary to the
interests of the United States.

23. Foreign Preference
Disqualifying Conditions
✤
Exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign
citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or through the foreign
citizenship of a family member.
✤
Action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship
by an American citizen.

24. Foreign Preference
Mitigating Conditions
✤
Dual citizenship is based solely on parents' citizenship or birth in a foreign country;
✤
The individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship;
✤
Exercise of the rights, privileges, or obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before
the individual became a U.S. citizen or when the individual was a minor; or
✤
The passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the cognizant security authority, or
otherwise invalidated.

25. Financial Considerations &
Nat’l Security Questionnaire
✤
26.7 In the past seven (7) years, have you had:
✤
Property foreclosed?
✤
Defaulted on any type of loan?
✤
Bills or Debts turned over to collection agency?
✤
Account or credit card suspended, charged off or cancelled?

26. Financial Considerations
✤
Financial difficulties may increase temptation to
commit illegal or unethical acts as a means of
gaining funds to meet financial obligations.
Financial problems may be part of a general
tendency toward irresponsibility and poor
judgment. From a security perspective, the cause of
debt and how one deals with financial obligations
are considerably more important than the amount
of debt.

27. Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions
✤
Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; or
✤
Indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending and the
absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay the debt or
establish a realistic plan to pay the debt.

28. Financial Considerations
Mitigating Conditions
✤
The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
✤
The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's
control and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; or
✤
The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.

29. Use of IT Systems & Nat’l
Security Questionnaire
✤
27.3 In the last seven (7) years have you introduced, removed, or
used hardware, software, or media in connection with any
information technology system without authorization, when
specifically prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations
or attempted any of the above?

30. Use of IT Systems
✤
Failure to comply with rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations
regarding information technology (IT) systems raises concerns about
an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, and calls into question
the person's willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive
systems, networks, and information.

31. Use of IT Systems
Disqualifying Conditions
✤
Illegal or unauthorized entry into any information technology system;
✤
Illegal or unauthorized modification, destruction, manipulation or denial of access to
information, software, firmware, or hardware in an information technology system;
✤
Unauthorized use of a government or other information technology system; or
✤
Introduction, removal, or duplication of hardware, firmware, software, or media to or
from any information technology system without authorization, when prohibited by
rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations.

32. Use of IT Systems
Mitigating Conditions
✤
So much time has elapsed since the behavior happened, or it happened under such
unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; or
✤
The misuse was minor and done only in the interest of organizational efficiency and
effectiveness, such as letting another person use one’s password or computer when no
other timely alternative was readily available.

33. Personal Conduct
✤
The Personal Conduct adjudicative guideline covers unreliable or
untrustworthy behavior not considered under other guidelines, or
which falls below the threshold for action under any other single
guideline.

34. Personal Conduct
Disqualifying Conditions
✤
Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts;
✤
Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator,
security official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative;
✤
Evidence of significant misuse of employer's time or resources;
✤
Personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress; or
✤
Association with persons involved in criminal activity.

35. Personal Conduct
Mitigating Conditions
✤
The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being
confronted with the facts;
✤
The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
✤
The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such
unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
✤
Association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or occurs under circumstances that do not cast
doubt upon the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.

36. Case No. 10-10379
September 30, 2011
✤
29-year-old Applicant illegally used marijuana from 2006-2010, which
he disclosed in his clearance application. His marijuana use was
primarily social (i.e., at college parties), but used marijuana 3-4 times
post-college.
✤
CLEARANCE DENIED.
✤
Despite his youth and honesty in his application, there was not
enough evidence that he had made a true lifestyle change to mitigate
the security concern.

37. Case No. 09-07217
December 13, 2010
✤
Applicant is a 19-year-old dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada.
Applicant was unwilling to renounce his Canadian citizenship or
Canadian passport.
✤
CLEARANCE DENIED.
✤
“Applicant’s application, receipt, and continuing use of a passport
from a country other than the United States, raises foreign preference
concerns…”

38. Case No. 09-07674
October 10, 2010
✤
26-year-old applicant used marijuana while in high school, which she admitted on her application. However, during
her hearing, she denied using marijuana. Applicant also tested positive for marijuana in 2006 as part of an
employment application. Applicant claimed she tested positive in 2006 as a result of second-hand marijuana smoke
from her friends.
✤
Applicant provided several letters demonstrating good character, and provided the results of a 2010 drug test, which
were negative.
✤
CLEARANCE DENIED.
✤
Administrative Judge determined that the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from her past
drug use. While her poor choices could be partially attributed to her youth, her explanations for her marijuana use
and discrepancies in her investigation were not believable.

39. Case No. 10-10170
August 31, 2011
✤
Applicant, a 23-year-old engineer, began smoking marijuana in college. He smoked almost daily from 2007-2010, and also
used ecstasy, mushrooms, vicodin, oxycodone, cocaine, opium, and ketamine on numerous occasions from 2007-2010.
✤
After receiving an internship offer in his junior year of college, applicant stopped using drugs and passed a drug test in the
summer of 2009. Applicant graduated magna cum lade from college in May 2010.
✤
Applicant was honest and candid about his illegal drug use throughout the investigative process. He regrets his prior drug
use, but still associates with some of the people he used to do drugs with. He tested negative for drugs in June 2011, but
has never received treatment.
✤
CLEARANCE DENIED.
✤
While the Administrative Judge did not doubt the sincerity of the Applicant in his lifestyle change, because his drug use
was so extensive, and because he had only been abstinent for 1 year, his clearance was denied.

40. Case No. 05-13515
Jan. 25, 2007
✤
Applicant hacked DirectTV while in college.
✤
CLEARANCE DENIED.
✤
Applicant knew it was wrong; he frequently engaged in hacking;
and he was slow to correct his wrongdoing.

41. Case No. 08-12181
Decided Dec. 29, 2009
Applicant admitted a financial delinquency related to a mortgage loan on a property he purchased for
his parents. Although there was no written agreement, the parents agreed to make all of the mortgage
payments. All mortgage correspondence was sent to the parents. Applicant lived in another part of the
country from his parents; he was not aware of their financial situation or their failure to pay the
mortgage. Applicant’s parents’ actions were beyond his control.
CLEARANCE GRANTED.
Applicant was caught in a severe downturn in the real estate market and he was misused by his own
parents, whose refusal to meet their financial obligations reflected poorly and unfairly on Applicant.
The Judge noted that it was an unusual circumstance, unlikely to recur, and did not cast doubt on
Applicant’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.

42. It May Not Just Be What
You Did –
✤
But Also Who You Know!
✤
Case No. 08-06969
✤
The Appeals Board affirmed a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
administrative judge’s decision to deny an applicant’s access to classified
information because the Applicant’s wife maintains two hardcore pornographic
web sites, some of which include photographs of her. Because neither the
Applicant’s family nor his employer are aware of these web sites, the
administrative judge found the Applicant vulnerable to exploitation or coercion.
✤
CLEARANCE DENIED.

43. Closing Principles
✤
There is no right to a security clearance
✤
All questions will be resolved in favor of national security.
✤
NEVER LIE ON YOUR APPLICATION!

44. Questions?

45. Have questions or
need help?
✤
The Jeffrey Law Group, PLLC
The Federal Employee's Law
Firm ®
1906 Sunderland Place, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-312-7100
www.jeffreylawgroup.com