Applying for a security clearance is a stressful process, and even if you have every tip under the sun, you might still be fretting. It's important to know that most security clearance applications are cleared. But, there are applicants who do get rejected. Here are a few examples of security clearance applicants who didn't quite make it, who did, and the reasons why. Check out the full page here if you want to see a complete list for 2014.
Guideline D – Case Number: 12-00609.a1 4/4/2014 Applicant’s statements contain significant inconsistencies regarding the frequency of his viewing of child pornography and other matters. The extensive inconsistencies undercut his case in mitigation. Favorable decision reversed.
Foreign Influence – Case Number: 13-00838.h1 4/7/2014 Applicant is a naturalized U.S. citizen, born in the People’s Republic of China, who has such deep and longstanding family, financial, and employment relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that she can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. She and her husband have resided together in the U.S. since 1991, and their daughter has resided here her entire life. Her mother resides in the United States. Her sister, brother-in-law, and nephew will shortly join her in the United States as permanent resident-aliens. Soon, too, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law will return to the United States where they are already permanent resident-aliens. Applicant’s values are U.S. values. These circumstances increase the probability that Applicant will recognize, resist, and report any attempts by a foreign power, terrorist group, or insurgent group to coerce or exploit her. With the vast majority of her family and extended family members either permanently residing in the United States, or about to do so, there is a reduced risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion compared to a situation where close family members lived in the PRC. Under the evidence presented, I have no questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Clearance is granted.
Personal Conduct – Case Number: 13-00917.h1 4/8/2014 Applicant failed to sufficiently mitigate the Personal Conduct security concerns. Applicant was citied four times between 2006 and 2012 for various minor offenses. He failed to list those citations on his October 2012 Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). Additionally, his employment was terminated three times by different employers, between 2006 and 2012. He is repaying a past-due debt. Although he mitigated some security concerns, doubts concerning his judgment and reliability remain unresolved. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Financial – Case Number: 13-01187.h1 4/10/2014 Applicant has two charged-off student loans totaling more than $22,000. She is almost $4,000 past due on other student loans totaling approximately $71,000 and owes more than $4,000 on seven collection accounts, all alleged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). None of the delinquent obligations have been paid. Applicant has failed to rebut or mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Clearance is denied.
Drugs – Case Number: 11-15193.h1 4/17/2014 Applicant's drug use was not recent and is not likely to recur. He was not arrested for drug possession as alleged, and he has severed all ties with his friends who used drugs. The security concerns raised by his use of illegal drugs are mitigated. His request for a security clearance is granted.
Guideline F – Case Number: 12-01251.a1 4/24/2014 The Judge’s material findings are based upon substantial record evidence. Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed.
Drug Involvement – Case Number: 13-01139.h1 4/30/2014 Between February 2002 and at least October 2009, Applicant smoked marijuana cigarettes with varying frequency from one cigarette per month to four cigarettes per month. He admitted using marijuana after he was granted a DOD security clearance. His use of marijuana over that lengthy period was for fun and relaxation. At some point, despite having been granted a security clearance, and having been forewarned of the Government’s heightened sensitivity regarding marijuana use, Applicant made a decision to use marijuana for a period of time after being granted a security clearance. As he noted, he should have been mature enough to report himself to his FSO when he made the decision to use marijuana, despite having previously expressed his intentions not to do so. In addition, Applicant’s detailed histories of marijuana use are inconsistent, and it is impossible to determine the accuracy of his estimated frequency or duration of the marijuana use. There are continuing questions and doubts as to his security eligibility and suitability. Clearance is denied.