The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

T his edition of the Journal contains a number of articles, some favorable, others critical, about the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. AFSA strives to support all our mem- bers while maintaining a collaborative, positive working rela- tionship with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. AFSA’s four full-time lawyers represent numerous Foreign Service employ- ees, including DS agents, in DS, Inspector General, and FBI investigations, disciplinary actions, and security clearance pro- ceedings. We have worked collaboratively with the DS on draft- ing guidance to its security clearance background investigators and Foreign Affairs Manual language on assignment criteria to critical-threat posts, as well as guidance to the field on DS pro- cedures for background investigations, the impact of mental health counseling on an employee’s security clearance, and the effect of dual nationality on a security clearance, to name just a few issues. Last year, we met with DS officials to discuss needed clarifi- cations to the foreign contact reporting requirements. Since a number of employees recently had their clearances suspended or proposed for revocation based on their alleged violation of the contact reporting requirements, we urged DS to update the applicable FAM provisions and make the names of the critical threat posts more readily available. We are pleased that DS recently posted the names of the critical-threat posts on its clas- sified Web site. However, we are still waiting for the FAM updates. While AFSA and DS have worked cooperatively over the years, recently there have been a number of occasions where AFSA has strongly disagreed with some of the actions DS has taken in individual security clearance cases. In representing our members, it is to be expected that we will not always see eye to eye with DS. AFSA’s role is to ensure that our members receive the fullest measure of due process; that cases are handled in a fair and timely manner; that investigations and decision to revoke clearances are supported by reliable evidence; that miti- gating information is considered; and that decisions to revoke a clearance are consistent and limited to those issues that truly affect national security. DS’s role is to ensure that allegations of misconduct or criminal behavior are thoroughly investigated; that reports of investigation are referred to the appropriate offices for action; and, if an issue arises that could affect an employee’s eligibility for a security clearance, that all doubt is resolved in favor of national security. This article contains the personal stories of two Foreign Service employees whose careers hit a national security road block. Both have had their security clearances suspended for more than two years while DS investigates the allegations against them and adjudicates their eligibility for a security clear- ance. Without a clearance, these employees have been unable to obtain meaningful assignments, are not competitive for pro- motion, and have endured prolonged anxiety while they wait for DS to determine their future with the State Department. If their clearances are revoked, and the Security Appeal Panel (the one and only appeal process available in security clearance revoca- tions) upholds the revocations, these employees will be termi- nated because of the department’s position that all Foreign Service employees must have a Top Secret clearance in order to be worldwide available. As neither employee is eligible for an immediate annuity, both will be forced to leave the Service, after 18 and 16 years, respectively, without a pension. And the State Department will lose the valuable investment it has made in these employees. Fortunately, the vast majority of Foreign Service personnel have never had their clearance suspended and their only contact with the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability is the five- year security clearance update process. For most employees, this process runs smoothly. However, AFSA is currently assist- ing more than 20 Foreign Service employees from all cones and specialties whose clearances have been suspended, proposed for revocation or revoked by DS. In addition, a number of other Foreign Service employees are being represented by outside counsel. As with the two individuals who tell their stories here, some of these employees have been in limbo for over two years. Clearances can be suspended or revoked for a variety of rea- sons. A large number of the employees AFSA is assisting have had their clearances suspended or revoked because of their unreported (and in some cases reported) foreign contacts. One employee recently had his clearance suspended more than two years after marrying a foreign national despite the fact that he filled out the required intent-to-marry forms and waited more than the requisite amount of time. Several other employees’ clearances were suspended or revoked based on DS’s concern regarding the manner in which they carried out their consular duties (the clearance was revoked even though the employees were not found to have engaged in visa fraud or other criminal behavior). Still other employees lost their clearances based on MED’s finding that they had abused or might abuse alcohol. Several employees lost their clearances based on poor judg- ment (misuse of a government vehicle or computer). And F O C U S 64 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 Sharon Papp is general counsel for the American Foreign Service Association. AFSA’s Role in the Security Revocation Process By Sharon Papp