Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Access to sensitive government information is crucial for maintaining U.S. national security. To protect this information, the U.S. government employs a rigorous process known as the personnel security clearance investigation. This process determines if an individual—federal employee, military member, or government contractor—can be trusted with classified material.
The core purpose is to assess an individual’s loyalty, character, trustworthiness, judgment, and reliability, ensuring they can safeguard classified national security information. While the investigation can seem complex, understanding its stages and requirements can make the experience clearer. This article breaks down the U.S. security clearance investigation process.
Understanding Security Clearances: The Basics
Why Clearances Exist: Protecting National Security
The security clearance system exists because of classified national security information. This information requires protection against unauthorized disclosure because such disclosure could harm national security, as determined by the U.S. government under authorities like Executive Order 13526 or the Atomic Energy Act.
The security clearance process serves as the government’s mechanism for vetting individuals before granting access to sensitive information. Its fundamental purpose is to determine whether a person is “able and willing to safeguard” classified material based on an assessment of their loyalty, character, trustworthiness, and reliability. Common sense recognizes that not all individuals possess the same level of trustworthiness, making this vetting process essential for protecting national interests.
It’s important to understand that obtaining a security clearance signifies that an individual is eligible for access to classified information up to a certain level. It does not automatically grant access to any classified material. To gain access to specific classified information, a cleared individual must also demonstrate a valid “need-to-know” directly related to their official duties and responsibilities.
This distinction highlights that the clearance system manages risk for national security. The clearance itself isn’t a personal status symbol or reward; it’s a functional necessity tied directly to specific job requirements involving sensitive government data. Even among cleared personnel, access is compartmentalized based on the principle of need-to-know, minimizing potential exposure of sensitive information. Before accessing any classified information, individuals must also sign a legally binding nondisclosure agreement.
The Three Main Levels: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret
The U.S. government classifies national security information into three primary levels, corresponding to three levels of security clearance eligibility. These levels reflect increasing degrees of sensitivity and the potential harm that could result from unauthorized disclosure.
Confidential: This is the lowest level of classification. Individuals granted Confidential eligibility may access information whose unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause “damage” to national security. Confidential clearances typically require reinvestigation every 15 years. It is generally considered the easiest level to obtain. The investigation typically involves a National Agency Check with Local Agency Checks and Credit Check (NACLC), now aligned with Tier 3 investigations.
Secret: This mid-level clearance grants eligibility for access to information whose unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause “serious damage” to national security. Secret clearances traditionally require reinvestigation every 10 years. The required investigation is typically a Tier 3 investigation (formerly ANACI or NACLC), which includes record checks with various federal and local agencies and a review of credit history.
Top Secret (TS): This is the highest of the three main clearance levels. Eligibility at this level allows access to information whose unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security. Historically, Top Secret clearances required reinvestigation every five years, although recent standards suggest reinvestigation submission around the 6th or 7th year, with the process increasingly shifting towards continuous vetting. A Top Secret clearance requires a Tier 5 investigation, formerly known as a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI).
The Department of Energy (DOE) uses its own clearance designations, L and Q, for access to Restricted Data (RD) or Formerly Restricted Data (FRD). These generally correspond to the investigation and access levels associated with Secret (L) and Top Secret (Q) clearances.
The clear hierarchy in potential damage—from “damage” to “serious damage” to “exceptionally grave damage”—directly explains why the vetting process becomes more rigorous at higher levels. The government invests more resources and conducts more intrusive investigations (Tier 5/SSBI for Top Secret vs. Tier 3/NACLC for Secret) and more frequent reinvestigations (or now, continuous monitoring) when the potential consequences of unauthorized disclosure are greater.
Beyond the Basics: SCI and SAPs
Beyond the three main clearance levels, certain highly sensitive information requires additional access controls known as Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and Special Access Programs (SAPs). Access to SCI or SAPs often requires eligibility standards and investigative requirements that are even higher than those for Top Secret information classified at the same level. Special approval must be granted for access to this information.
SCI typically pertains to intelligence sources, methods, and processes. SAPs are established to protect specific, highly sensitive projects or programs where exceptional vulnerability or threat exists, and normal safeguarding measures are deemed insufficient. SAPs enforce strict need-to-know, minimize the number of individuals with access, and enhance security protocols.
Access to SCI or certain SAPs, particularly within the Intelligence Community or specific agencies like the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), may also require the successful completion of a counterintelligence polygraph examination. The existence of SCI and SAPs underscores the critical principle of compartmentalization in national security. Holding even a Top Secret clearance does not grant universal access to all information at that level. Access is further restricted based on a rigorously enforced need-to-know for the most sensitive intelligence and programs, reflecting a layered approach designed to limit exposure even among trusted individuals.
Getting Started: The Initiation Process
It Starts with the Job: Agency Sponsorship
A fundamental aspect of the security clearance process is that individuals cannot initiate it themselves. You cannot simply apply for a security clearance independently, nor can another cleared individual nominate you.
The process must be initiated, or “sponsored,” by a U.S. government agency or an authorized government contractor (often referred to as a “cleared contractor”). This sponsorship occurs only when the agency or company determines that a specific position requires the incumbent to access classified national security information to perform their job duties. The sponsoring entity, such as the Bureau of Human Resources in the Department of State or the Facility Security Officer (FSO) in a contracting company, decides both whether a clearance is needed and the appropriate level (e.g., Confidential, Secret, Top Secret) based on the position’s duties and responsibilities.
Typically, the security clearance process begins only after an individual has received a conditional offer of employment for the position requiring the clearance. Having a clearance does not guarantee employment; the hiring decision comes first. This employer-driven nature ensures that government resources are allocated only when access to classified information is a validated requirement for performing official functions. It prevents speculative applications and firmly links the clearance to a specific role, reinforcing that the clearance serves the needs of the government position, not the personal aspirations of the individual. For prospective applicants, this means securing a job offer requiring a clearance is the necessary first step.
The Cornerstone Document: Standard Form 86 (SF-86)
Once sponsorship is established and a conditional offer is accepted, the next critical step is the completion of the Standard Form 86 (SF-86), Questionnaire for National Security Positions. This form is the primary vehicle used by the U.S. government to collect the extensive personal history information necessary to conduct a background investigation for national security positions. It serves as the foundation upon which the entire investigation is built. Different forms, the SF-85 (Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions) and SF-85P (Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions), are used for positions not requiring a national security clearance but still needing a background check for suitability or public trust determination.
The SF-86 is typically completed online through the secure Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) system. Applicants usually receive an email invitation to access e-QIP and are given a specific timeframe (e.g., 10 days) to complete and submit the form electronically. The electronic format includes features like branching questions that tailor the information requested based on the applicant’s history, potentially reducing the burden compared to a static paper form. For individuals undergoing reinvestigations or updates, a shorter form, the SF-86C (Certification), may sometimes be used to report changes since the last full SF-86 submission.
The government emphasizes the need for complete honesty, candor, and thoroughness when filling out the SF-86. Any deliberate falsification, concealment of material facts, or significant omissions can result not only in the denial or revocation of the security clearance but also potentially in removal from federal service and even criminal prosecution under Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001. Applicants are advised that if they are unsure how to answer a question or feel an answer requires context, they should provide a detailed explanation in the comments or continuation sections.
The act of completing the SF-86 is, in itself, part of the evaluation. The government uses the process to gauge an applicant’s integrity and willingness to be forthright—key components of the trustworthiness required for access to classified information. Often, a lack of candor about an issue can be more detrimental to an application than the issue itself, if honestly disclosed and potentially mitigated.
What Information Does the SF-86 Ask For?
The SF-86 requires applicants to provide a comprehensive and detailed account of their personal history, typically covering the last 7 or 10 years, although some questions may require information covering a longer period or even an entire lifetime. The sheer volume and detail required underscore the importance of preparation before starting the form. Being ready with names, dates, addresses, and contact information can significantly streamline the process and help avoid errors or omissions that could cause delays. Key categories of information requested include:
Table 1: SF-86 Key Information Categories & Typical Look-Back Periods
| Information Category | Typical Look-Back Period |
|---|---|
| Personal Identifiers | Current |
| Citizenship | Lifetime / Current |
| Residences | 10 Years (or back to age 18, min 2 years) |
| Education | 10 Years |
| Employment | 10 Years (including unemployment, self-employment) |
| Military Service | Lifetime |
| Family & Associates | Current & Historical (Parents, Siblings, Spouse, Children, In-laws, Cohabitants, Roommates) |
| Foreign Connections | 7 Years (Contacts, Travel); Lifetime (Activities, Finances) |
| Mental & Emotional Health | Lifetime |
| Substance Use | 7 Years (Illegal Drugs); Current/Pattern (Alcohol) |
| Criminal Record | 7 Years (most offenses); Lifetime (more serious/felonies) |
| Financial History | 7-10 Years (Debts, Delinquencies); Lifetime (Bankruptcy) |
| Associations | Current / Recent |
| Technology Use | Current / Recent (Social Media, Email) |
| References | Current |
Note: Look-back periods are typical but can vary based on the specific question and clearance level. Always refer to the instructions on the current SF-86.
Specific details required within these categories include:
Personal Identifiers: Full name (including maiden and any other names used), Social Security Number (SSN), date and place of birth, current contact information. While SSN disclosure is not mandatory, failure to provide it can hinder or delay processing; its solicitation is authorized by E.O. 9397 for accurate record identification.
Citizenship: Confirmation of U.S. citizenship (generally required for clearance eligibility), details of birth or naturalization, and information on any dual citizenship held, including how and when foreign citizenship was acquired. Passport details (number, issue/expiration dates, location) are also required.
Residences: Complete addresses for all locations lived for the past 10 years (or back to age 18 if shorter, minimum 2 years), including temporary addresses like college dorms or apartments, with no time gaps. Must provide name and contact information for a verifier (landlord, roommate, neighbor) for addresses within the last 3 years. Physical addresses are required, not P.O. Boxes.
Education: Names, addresses (including zip codes), dates of attendance, and degrees received for all schools attended in the last 10 years. Requires contact information for someone who knew you at schools attended in the last 3 years.
Employment: Chronological listing of all employment (full-time, part-time, self-employment) and periods of unemployment for the past 10 years with no gaps. Requires employer names, physical addresses, phone numbers, dates of employment, position held, supervisor name and contact information, and reason for leaving.
Military Service: Details of any active duty or reserve service, branch, dates, rank, discharge type, and military personnel record (DD-214 if applicable). Male applicants must provide Selective Service registration number.
Family and Associates: Extensive information on relatives (mother, father, stepparents, siblings, half/step-siblings, spouse/cohabitant, former spouses, children, stepchildren, foster children, parents-in-law), including full names (maiden names where applicable), dates and places of birth, current addresses, citizenship. Also requires information on non-family roommates/cohabitants residing with you for 30+ days within the past 5 years (name, DOB/POB, address, contact info, citizenship, employer).
Foreign Connections: Detailed information on relatives and associates residing in foreign countries, and any non-U.S. citizens with whom you have had close or continuing contact within the last 7 years (bound by affection, influence, common interests, obligation). This includes their full name, relationship, contact details, DOB/POB, citizenship, frequency/dates of contact, and employer information. Also requires listing all foreign travel within the last 7 years (dates, countries visited), excluding official U.S. government business. Any foreign financial interests (property, bank accounts, investments, etc.) must be disclosed.
Mental and Emotional Health: Information regarding any psychological or mental health counseling or treatment received (lifetime), including diagnoses, doctor/facility details, treatment dates, and hospitalizations.
Substance Use: Details on any use of illegal drugs or drug activity within the last 7 years, and information regarding alcohol consumption habits and any related incidents.
Criminal Record: Information on arrests, summons, citations, charges, convictions (including military court-martial), and any involvement in civil court actions for the last 7 years (or longer for certain offenses). Includes traffic violations exceeding a certain fine amount (e.g., $300). Requires details like date, location, law enforcement agency, charge, and disposition/penalty.
Financial History: Disclosure of financial difficulties, including delinquent debts (federal, state, local taxes; loans; child support; etc.), bankruptcies, liens, judgments, wage garnishments, repossessions, and counseling for financial problems within the last 7 years.
Associations: Information on affiliations with clubs, organizations, or groups (civic, social, etc.), including name, address, contact person, positions held, and any compensation received (paid or unpaid).
Technology Use: Listing of social media profiles (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) including profile name, web address, associated email, dates used, and nature of content. Also requires listing email addresses used.
References: Names and full contact information (address, phone, email, DOB/POB) for three personal references who know you well and can attest to your character.
The Investigation: Digging Deeper
Who Conducts the Investigation?
Once the SF-86 is submitted and reviewed for completeness by the sponsoring agency, the background investigation phase begins. The responsibility for conducting these investigations is largely centralized. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), operating within the Department of Defense (DoD), is the primary investigative service provider (ISP) for the federal government. DCSA conducts approximately 95% of all background investigations government-wide, covering DoD military personnel, civilians, and contractors, as well as employees for over 100 other federal agencies. This consolidation, which included absorbing the functions of the former National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB) from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in 2019, reflects a government-wide push towards greater standardization, efficiency, and quality control in the vetting process, aligning with the goals of initiatives like Trusted Workforce 2.0.
However, some agencies retain their own investigative capabilities, particularly within the Intelligence Community. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may conduct investigations for personnel requiring access within the Bureau or for specific law enforcement liaison roles. Similarly, the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) conducts investigations for State Department personnel. Regardless of the specific agency conducting the investigation, the investigators performing the fieldwork may be federal employees or government contractors working for an authorized ISP. All investigators operate under the same federal laws, rules, and standards.
Scope and Methods: Record Checks and Interviews
The background investigation uses the information provided on the SF-86 as a roadmap to explore an applicant’s life history. The process involves two primary methods: record checks and interviews.
Record Checks: Investigators systematically verify the applicant’s self-reported information against a wide array of official records and databases. This typically includes:
- Criminal History: Checks with the FBI (including fingerprint checks), federal and local law enforcement agencies, and court records.
- Credit History: Review of credit reports from major credit bureaus to assess financial responsibility and potential vulnerabilities.
- Employment Verification: Contacting past and present employers listed on the SF-86 to confirm dates, positions, performance, and reasons for leaving. Importantly, the current employer must be contacted as part of the investigation.
- Education Verification: Confirming attendance, dates, and degrees earned with educational institutions.
- Citizenship and Identity Verification: Checking birth records, passport information, and potentially Selective Service registration.
- Other Record Checks: Depending on the clearance level and individual circumstances, checks might include military records, public records (bankruptcies, divorces, civil litigation), and potentially limited checks on spouses or cohabitants, particularly for Top Secret clearances.
Interviews: Personal interviews form a crucial part of the investigation, especially for higher clearance levels.
- Subject Interview: The applicant undergoes an interview with an investigator. This provides an opportunity for the applicant to clarify or expand upon information provided on the SF-86, discuss any potential issues or discrepancies, and allows the investigator to assess the applicant’s candor, judgment, and overall suitability. Applicants are typically required to bring photo identification and potentially other documents (birth certificate, SSN card, naturalization papers, financial records, etc.) to the interview.
- Reference Interviews: Investigators contact and interview individuals who know the applicant, including listed personal references, current and former supervisors, coworkers, neighbors, friends, and sometimes family members or former spouses (for Top Secret). These interviews aim to corroborate the applicant’s self-reported information regarding residences, employment, education, character, conduct, reliability, and trustworthiness.
The overarching goal of these combined methods is to develop sufficient information to determine if the applicant is reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the United States. The investigation actively seeks to verify the applicant’s statements through independent records and corroborate them through interviews with knowledgeable third parties. This multi-pronged approach, involving both objective record checks and subjective assessments from interviews, aims to build a comprehensive and reliable profile of the individual, going beyond simple self-reporting to assess their overall suitability for handling sensitive national security information.
Tailored Investigations: Deeper Dives for Higher Clearances
Not all background investigations are created equal. The scope, depth, and intensity of the investigation are tailored to the level of security clearance being sought. This tiered approach reflects the principle that greater potential damage associated with unauthorized disclosure warrants a more rigorous vetting process. The government balances the need for a trusted workforce against the intrusiveness and cost of investigations, applying the most comprehensive scrutiny where the national security stakes are highest.
Confidential and Secret (Tier 3): Investigations for these levels, typically designated as Tier 3 (formerly including investigations like the National Agency Check with Local Agency Checks and Credit Check, or NACLC), are generally less extensive than those for Top Secret. They focus heavily on record checks, including national agency databases (like FBI criminal records), local law enforcement records, credit reports, and verification of citizenship, education, and employment history provided on the SF-86. While a subject interview may occur, extensive interviews with references are less common than for Top Secret investigations.
Top Secret (Tier 5): Eligibility for a Top Secret clearance requires a much more comprehensive investigation, designated as Tier 5 (formerly the Single Scope Background Investigation, or SSBI). The SSBI covers a longer period, typically the last 10 years of the applicant’s life. It includes all the record checks performed for lower levels but adds significantly expanded interview coverage. This involves a mandatory, in-depth subject interview with the applicant, as well as interviews with spouses, former spouses (divorced within the last 10 years), family members, friends, coworkers, supervisors, neighbors, and other individuals who know the applicant well. Investigators verify details regarding birth, education, employment, and residences more thoroughly. Additionally, national agency checks are conducted on spouses and cohabitants. The investigation may be expanded further if specific issues arise, such as significant time spent residing abroad, a history of mental health concerns, or past drug or alcohol abuse. Investigations for access to SCI or SAPs may have even more stringent requirements.
Background checks are also conducted for positions designated as Public Trust (Tier 2 or Tier 4) or non-sensitive (Tier 1), though these do not typically result in a national security clearance unless the position also requires access to classified information.
Adjudication: Making the Decision
The Rulebook: SEAD 4 Adjudicative Guidelines
Upon completion of the background investigation, the collected information is compiled into a Report of Investigation (ROI) and forwarded to an adjudicative facility. Trained and certified personnel security specialists, known as adjudicators, then evaluate the ROI to determine the applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Adjudication is typically handled by the sponsoring agency or by a centralized adjudication facility (CAF). DCSA Adjudication and Vetting Services (AVS), which absorbed the DoD CAF, handles the majority of adjudications for DoD personnel and many other agencies.
The evaluation process is not arbitrary; it is guided by a single, common set of criteria applicable across the Executive Branch: the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, codified in Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4). SEAD 4 outlines 13 distinct guidelines, each addressing a specific area of potential security concern. Adjudicators use these guidelines to assess whether granting or continuing an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information or to hold a sensitive position is clearly consistent with U.S. national security interests.
Table 2: The 13 National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (SEAD 4)
| Guideline | Core Security Concern |
|---|---|
| A: Allegiance to the United States | Actions demonstrating questionable loyalty or preference for a foreign nation over the U.S. |
| B: Foreign Influence | Vulnerability to coercion, pressure, or divided allegiance due to foreign contacts, interests, or obligations. |
| C: Foreign Preference | Exercising rights, privileges, or obligations of foreign citizenship that could conflict with U.S. interests. |
| D: Sexual Behavior | Conduct involving criminal offenses, poor judgment/discretion, or potential for coercion/exploitation. |
| E: Personal Conduct | Questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules/regulations; failure to cooperate with security processing. |
| F: Financial Considerations | Irresponsible financial management, significant debt, or unexplained affluence indicating poor self-control, lack of judgment, or potential vulnerability to illegal acts. |
| G: Alcohol Consumption | Excessive consumption leading to impaired judgment, unreliability, or alcohol-related incidents. |
| H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse | Illegal drug use, misuse of legal drugs, or substance abuse indicating unreliability, untrustworthiness, or unwillingness to comply with laws. |
| I: Psychological Conditions | Emotional, mental, or personality conditions potentially impairing judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness (seeking treatment is generally viewed favorably). |
| J: Criminal Conduct | Pattern of disregard for laws and regulations, indicating poor judgment, unreliability, or untrustworthiness. |
| K: Handling Protected Information | Deliberate or negligent failure to follow rules for protecting classified or sensitive information or systems. |
| L: Outside Activities | Involvement in activities (employment, associations) creating conflicts of interest or potential for foreign influence/exploitation. |
| M: Use of Information Technology Systems | Improper or illegal use of IT systems, indicating poor judgment, untrustworthiness, or disregard for security protocols. |
For each guideline, SEAD 4 provides specific examples of potentially disqualifying conduct and conditions that might mitigate the security concern. Adjudicators weigh the information gathered during the investigation against these standards.
Beyond the Checklist: The “Whole Person” Concept
The adjudication process is not a mechanical exercise of checking boxes against the guidelines. Adjudicators are trained to apply the “whole person” concept. This means they conduct a careful weighing and examination of all available, reliable information about the individual—both favorable and unfavorable, past and present—to make an overall, common-sense judgment.
The goal is to assess the individual’s overall stability, trustworthiness, reliability, discretion, character, honesty, and judgment. When potentially disqualifying information arises under one or more guidelines, the adjudicator considers several contextual factors:
- The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct.
- The circumstances surrounding the conduct (including knowledgeable participation).
- The frequency and recency of the conduct.
- The individual’s age and maturity at the time.
- The voluntariness of participation.
- The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other positive behavioral changes.
- The motivation for the conduct.
- The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress.
- The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
This contextual analysis means that an isolated incident or past mistake, especially if it occurred long ago or when the individual was young, may not automatically lead to denial if there is sufficient evidence of reform, maturity, and current reliability. However, the burden ultimately falls on the individual to demonstrate that they are currently trustworthy despite any past issues. The “whole person” concept allows for nuance but operates within a fundamentally risk-averse framework.
The standard for granting eligibility is high: the adjudicator must find that access to classified information or placement in a sensitive position is “clearly consistent with the interests of the United States”. Critically, SEAD 4 mandates that “any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the national security”. This principle underscores the government’s prioritization of protecting classified information; in marginal cases where significant doubt about an individual’s trustworthiness remains after considering all factors, the adjudicator is required to err on the side of caution and deny or revoke eligibility.
It is also explicitly stated in policy and guidelines that certain factors cannot be considered in eligibility determinations. These include an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation. Adjudicative decisions must be based solely on factors relevant to national security concerns as outlined in the guidelines.
Timelines, Delays, and Outcomes
How Long Does It Take? The Million-Dollar Question
One of the most frequently asked questions about the security clearance process is: how long will it take? Unfortunately, there is no standard timeframe, as processing times can vary widely depending on numerous factors. Key variables include the level of clearance sought (Top Secret investigations are inherently longer), the complexity of the applicant’s personal history, the workload and resources of the investigating and adjudicating agencies, and the responsiveness of third-party sources like employers and references. Some sources suggest general averages like 120 days, while others note it can take a year or more, especially for initial Top Secret clearances.
Recent publicly reported data provides some benchmarks, though it’s important to remember these are averages for the fastest 90% of cases processed by DCSA for DoD and industry, and actual times can be longer. As of the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2024 (Q4 FY24), these averages were:
- Secret: 138 days
- Top Secret: 249 days
These figures represent an increase compared to previous years, indicating a recent trend towards slower processing times. Government bodies acknowledge these delays and are implementing strategies, such as DCSA’s “Tiger Team” initiative, to identify root causes and improve efficiency.
Table 3: Recent Average Security Clearance Processing Times (DoD/Industry – Fastest 90%)
| Fiscal Year/Quarter | Secret Clearance Avg. Days | Top Secret Clearance Avg. Days |
|---|---|---|
| FY 2022: Q4 | 95 days | 121 days |
| FY 2023: Q4 | 100 days | 170 days |
| FY 2024: Q4 | 138 days | 249 days |
To mitigate the impact of these timelines, agencies may grant interim security clearances (or preliminary determinations). An interim Secret clearance might be granted within 1-2 months (or even faster in some cases) if initial checks—typically including a favorable review of the submitted SF-86, a favorable fingerprint check, and proof of U.S. citizenship—are completed without issues. Interim Top Secret eligibility might take slightly longer, potentially around two months in exceptional circumstances. Interim clearances allow individuals to start working in sensitive positions sooner, but they are temporary and can be withdrawn at any time if unfavorable information is developed during the full investigation.
The fluctuations in processing times and the ongoing government focus on reform highlight a persistent challenge: balancing the need for thorough, high-quality investigations and adjudications to protect national security with the operational imperative to onboard personnel quickly and efficiently manage investigative workloads. Delays can negatively impact government readiness, increase contract costs, and lead to difficulties retaining qualified personnel.
Why the Wait? Common Factors Causing Delays
Several factors can contribute to longer-than-average processing times for a security clearance investigation and adjudication:
Incomplete or Inaccurate SF-86: This is a frequent and often avoidable cause of delay. Errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or lack of detail on the form force investigators to spend additional time requesting clarification, correcting information, or pursuing leads that were not initially provided. Ensuring the SF-86 is filled out with complete honesty, accuracy, and thoroughness is paramount. While applicants cannot control agency workloads or the inherent complexity of their lives, taking the time to prepare carefully and complete the SF-86 accurately is the single most effective action they can take to facilitate a smoother process.
Complex Personal History: Certain life experiences inherently require more investigative effort. This includes having lived in multiple locations (especially overseas), frequent job changes, extensive foreign travel, or having numerous foreign nationals as relatives or close contacts. Verifying information across different jurisdictions or countries naturally takes more time.
Presence of Potential Issues: If the initial review of the SF-86 or early stages of the investigation reveal potentially disqualifying information under the Adjudicative Guidelines—such as significant financial problems (debt, bankruptcy), past arrests or criminal convictions, documented drug or alcohol abuse, or unresolved mental health concerns—the investigation will necessarily become more complex and require deeper scrutiny. Resolving these issues takes additional investigative time and more thorough adjudicative review.
Verification Difficulties: Sometimes delays occur simply because investigators have trouble verifying information or contacting necessary sources. References may have moved or be unresponsive, past employers may have closed, or records may be difficult to locate or obtain.
Agency Workload and Resources: The volume of pending cases at investigative agencies like DCSA or at the relevant adjudicative facility can significantly impact timelines. Backlogs can develop due to surges in demand, budget constraints, staffing levels, or systemic inefficiencies, leading to longer waits for everyone in the queue.
Possible Outcomes: Granted, Denied, Revoked
Following the completion of the investigation and the adjudicative review based on SEAD 4 and the whole person concept, a final determination is made regarding the applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. The possible outcomes are:
Granted: The adjudicator determines that the individual meets the required standards of loyalty, trustworthiness, and reliability, and that granting eligibility is clearly consistent with national security interests. The individual is granted eligibility for access to classified information up to the specified level (e.g., Secret, Top Secret), contingent upon having the necessary need-to-know for their position.
Denied: The adjudicator determines that based on the investigation and application of the Adjudicative Guidelines, the individual does not meet the standards for eligibility, and granting access would not be clearly consistent with national security interests. The request for initial clearance eligibility is denied.
Revoked: For individuals who already hold a security clearance (perhaps undergoing reinvestigation or flagged through continuous vetting), the adjudicator determines that they no longer meet the required standards, and their existing eligibility is withdrawn or revoked.
In recent years, a potential intermediate outcome has emerged: Conditional Eligibility Determination. This may be considered when an adjudicator finds potentially disqualifying information related to specific guidelines (currently limited to Sexual Behavior, Financial Considerations, Alcohol Consumption, Drug Involvement/Substance Misuse, and Criminal Conduct) that is serious but where the risk might be manageable through mitigation and monitoring. If the individual agrees to the conditions (which might involve treatment, counseling, financial planning, etc.), they may be granted eligibility subject to monitoring for a set period (typically one year) or until the issue is resolved. This allows individuals who might otherwise face denial or revocation an opportunity to maintain access while actively addressing the concerns.
While a denial or revocation is a serious outcome with significant career implications, it is not always permanent. The existence of appeal procedures provides a mechanism to challenge the decision. Furthermore, individuals whose clearance is denied or revoked may, in many circumstances, be eligible to reapply after a specified period (often one year), assuming the underlying issues that led to the unfavorable decision have been adequately addressed and resolved.
Challenging an Unfavorable Decision: The Appeal Process
Individuals who receive an unfavorable security clearance determination (denial or revocation) are generally afforded administrative due process rights to challenge the decision. While specific procedures can vary slightly depending on the agency (e.g., DoD, State Department, CIA) and the individual’s status (military, civilian employee, contractor), the general framework typically includes the following steps:
Statement of Reasons (SOR): The process usually begins when the individual receives a formal, written Statement of Reasons (SOR) from the adjudicating authority. The SOR outlines the specific findings and security concerns, referencing the relevant Adjudicative Guidelines, that form the basis for the proposed denial or revocation.
Opportunity to Respond: The individual is given a specific timeframe (e.g., 45 days for CIA applicants/contractors, 10 days for acknowledgement for DoD CAF SORs) to submit a written response to the SOR. This is the individual’s chance to refute allegations, provide mitigating evidence, explain circumstances, and present arguments for why they should be granted or retain eligibility. They generally have the right to request copies of the non-classified documents, records, and reports upon which the decision was based.
Hearing or Personal Appearance (in some cases): Executive Order 10865 provides contractor employees the right to a hearing before an administrative judge, including the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Government employees’ rights to a formal hearing may vary by agency, but they often have the opportunity for some form of personal appearance or review. Individuals can be represented by legal counsel or a personal representative throughout the process, though typically at their own expense.
Review and Decision: The adjudicator or administrative judge reviews the original information, the individual’s response, and any hearing testimony or additional evidence, then makes a decision.
Appeal to Higher Authority: If the decision remains unfavorable, the individual usually has the right to appeal to a higher-level board or panel within the agency or department. For DoD contractors, this is typically the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Appeal Board. Military and civilian personnel may appeal to Personnel Security Appeal Boards (PSABs) or similar entities within their respective components or agencies. The Appeal Board’s review is typically limited to determining whether the administrative judge or initial adjudicator made errors of fact (not supported by evidence), procedure (failed to follow regulations), or law (rulings were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law). The Appeal Board can affirm, reverse, or remand (send back for correction) the decision.
This structured appeal process, grounded in administrative due process principles, ensures that individuals facing the potentially career-altering consequence of a security clearance denial or revocation have a meaningful opportunity to understand the reasons, present their side of the story, and have the decision reviewed before it becomes final. Recent legislation and policy directives, like SEAD 9, are also working to clarify and strengthen appeal rights for individuals whose clearances are suspended (especially for prolonged periods) and who allege the suspension is retaliatory whistleblowing.
Maintaining Your Clearance: An Ongoing Responsibility
Obtaining a security clearance is not a one-time event; it is the beginning of an ongoing responsibility to maintain the government’s trust. Historically, this involved periodic reinvestigations, but the process is now shifting towards a model of continuous evaluation or vetting.
Staying Current: Periodic Reinvestigations (The Traditional Model)
For decades, the primary mechanism for ensuring continued eligibility was the Periodic Reinvestigation (PR). PRs were conducted at set intervals determined by the clearance level: typically every 15 years for Confidential, 10 years for Secret, and 5 years for Top Secret. Public Trust positions also required reinvestigations, often every 5 years.
The PR process generally involved the submission of an updated SF-86 or similar form and a background check to cover the period since the last investigation. While potentially less intensive than the initial investigation if no significant issues had arisen, the PR served as a formal check-up to confirm continued trustworthiness. However, this traditional model represented an episodic approach to security. Information about potential risks or disqualifying conduct emerging between these multi-year reinvestigation cycles might not be discovered by the government unless it was self-reported by the individual or brought to attention by others. This created potential vulnerabilities where individuals might remain eligible despite developing security concerns.
The Shift to Continuous Vetting (CV) and Trusted Workforce 2.0
Recognizing the limitations of the episodic PR model, the U.S. government is undertaking a major transformation of its personnel vetting system, known as Trusted Workforce (TW) 2.0. A cornerstone of TW 2.0 is the implementation of Continuous Vetting (CV), also sometimes referred to as Continuous Evaluation (CE).
CV replaces the traditional PR cycle with an ongoing process of automated record checks. Government and commercial databases covering areas such as criminal activity, terrorism screening, financial records (like credit reports and significant debt), and public records are regularly queried for potentially relevant information concerning cleared individuals. As the system matures under TW 2.0, additional data categories like suspicious financial activity and foreign travel may also be incorporated.
The goal of CV is to provide near real-time alerts to security officials when potentially disqualifying or concerning information arises about a cleared individual. This allows agencies to identify, assess, and mitigate potential risks much sooner than waiting for the next scheduled PR. This shift represents a move towards a more proactive, data-driven, and continuous model of personnel security risk management.
DCSA has already enrolled all DoD personnel holding security clearances into its CV program and began phased enrollment of the Non-Sensitive Public Trust (NSPT) population in August 2024, aiming for full enrollment capability by the end of FY 2025.
While full PRs are being phased out as CV expands, this does not eliminate the need for individuals to periodically update their background information. Current policy generally requires submission of an updated SF-86 (or potentially a shorter future equivalent like the Personnel Vetting Questionnaire or PVQ) every five years to ensure the information used for CV checks remains current and accurate, and to renew the necessary authorizations for record access.
The technological engine driving TW 2.0 and CV is the National Background Investigation Services (NBIS) system. NBIS is designed to be the integrated, secure IT platform connecting the various systems and databases needed for end-to-end vetting, replacing multiple outdated legacy systems. However, the development and implementation of NBIS have faced significant challenges, including delays and technical issues, requiring recovery efforts and revised timelines for full capability deployment.
Your Ongoing Responsibilities: Reporting Requirements
The transition to Continuous Vetting does not absolve cleared individuals of their personal responsibility to uphold security standards and report relevant information. Holding a security clearance entails a “special and continuing security obligation”. This means that beyond the government’s investigations and automated checks, cleared personnel must proactively report certain life events and activities to their agency or company security office.
These reporting requirements are primarily outlined in Security Executive Agent Directive 3 (SEAD 3). While specific agency procedures may vary slightly, common reportable events generally include:
- Unofficial Foreign Travel: Often requires pre-travel notification and approval, including submission of an itinerary. Deviations must be reported upon return. Travel may be disapproved if deemed an unacceptable risk.
- Foreign Contacts: Reporting is required for close or continuing contact with foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens), particularly relationships bound by affection, influence, common interests, or obligation. Casual public contact generally does not need to be reported unless other concerns exist.
- Change in Personal Status: Events such as marriage, divorce, or cohabitation often need to be reported.
- Financial Issues: Significant financial problems like bankruptcy, wage garnishment, substantial delinquent debt, or foreclosure may be reportable.
- Psychological Health: While seeking mental health care is encouraged and not inherently disqualifying, certain diagnoses or hospitalizations may require reporting depending on agency policy.
- Arrests and Criminal Charges: Any arrest or criminal charge, regardless of disposition, must typically be reported.
- Other Involvement: Reporting may also be required for involvement in civil court actions, excessive alcohol consumption incidents, or any activity that could potentially raise security concerns under the Adjudicative Guidelines.
- Drug Involvement: Any use of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains reportable and a significant security concern. Despite changing state laws, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and its use can jeopardize clearance eligibility.
Failure to make required self-reports can itself raise security concerns about an individual’s judgment, reliability, and willingness to follow rules, potentially leading to administrative action, including suspension or revocation of the security clearance. This underscores that maintaining eligibility is a shared responsibility. While the government conducts investigations and continuous vetting, the cleared individual plays an active role by adhering to security practices and promptly disclosing potentially relevant information that arises between formal checks or automated monitoring hits.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
