The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

T he rules governing access to classified information are equal- ly applicable across the U.S. government. Whenever an agency is compelled to first suspend an employee’s access, and perhaps later revoke that access, the seriousness of the process demands that agency’s utmost attention. While the process can be time-consuming, arduous and sobering, it is one based on law and administrative regulation. For those reasons, and because the vital interests of our national security are at stake, the Department of State, through its Bureau of Diplomatic Security, strives to make the process fair and timely. As the department is prohibited from commenting publicly on individual cases, readers may find a review of the process helpful. To begin with, the standard for access to classified information has remained the same for more than 50 years – it must be “clear- ly consistent with the national security interests of the United States” always resolving any doubt “in favor of national security” (E.O. 12968). These access decisions are based on specific adju- dicative guidelines that describe both areas of security concern and related aggravating and mitigating circumstances that must be weighed. These core source documents and many other related authorities can be found on the Diplomatic Security Web site at: http://clearances.ds.state.gov/. When a set of facts calls into question an employee’s continu- ing eligibility for a security clearance, his or her security clearance might be suspended. Reasons for suspending a clearance are individual to each case, but are based on a security concern or concerns in the government-wide adjudicative guidelines cited above. Decisions to suspend a security clearance are made by the director or principal deputy assistant secretary of Diplomatic Security, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. The suspen- sion allows the department to conduct a more complete investiga- tion with a more comprehensive set of facts to determine if the clearance should be restored or revoked. At this point, an employ- ee is provided written notification of the decision to suspend and may be assigned to non-sensitive duties. There are several variables that can determine the length of time a suspension remains in effect. For instance, if the suspen- sion decision was based on preliminary facts from a DS criminal investigation, a Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation, or an Inspector General inquiry, those matters must be resolved and U.S. Attorney prosecutorial decisions rendered before the department can use the information for an administra- tive action. When, in the department’s view, the employee’s security clear- ance should be revoked, he or she is provided a written explanation of the basis for that conclusion and afforded an opportunity to appeal. Consistent with any releasability restrictions (Privacy Act, etc.), when asked, the department will provide the employee copies of relevant documents and, of course, he or she may retain coun- sel. Based upon the employee’s written appeal, the director/princi- pal deputy assistant secretary of DS may decide to restore the clear- ance or continue forward with a revocation action. When the latter occurs, the employee is notified and informed of his or her right to appeal, in writing and in person, to a panel consisting of the under secretary for management, the director general and the assistant secretary for administration. The decision of the panel is final. Similar to the time period following a clearance suspension, there are several variables that determine the timeline before a final decision is rendered by the panel. Each major step in the process is followed by a 30-day period for response from the employee. Requests by the employee for reasonable extensions to complete a reply are usually granted. If the information forming the basis for a revocation decision is classified, attorneys who are not cleared must receive security clearances before they can see the underly- ing documents. New evidence presented by an appellant, or by other sources, must be verified, often through additional investi- gation. Throughout the process, the senior adjudicators and the depart- ment’s legal staff review the cases. New facts uncovered either in the employee’s rebuttal or through follow-up investigation are con- stantly reviewed to determine if a suspension can be lifted, if such a decision is in the interests of national security. The department’s Personnel Security and Suitability function has undergone tremendous efficiency and effectiveness changes over the last few years. In delivering security clearances, it is client-centered and timely. The suspension and revocation pro- cess is effective. The process allows for a thorough examination of all the information gathered by the department and by the employee and his or her legal representatives. A review by the OIG in the fall of 2004 corroborated the “thoroughness, responsive- ness and balance” of the department’s revocation function. The appeals panel consists of the most senior officers in the depart- ment, who carefully weigh the facts in light of the interests of the employee, the department and the overriding context of the inter- est of national security. While the process can be time-consuming in some cases, and the department is committed to improving its efficiency, any changes to the process must take into account fair- ness to the employee, the best interests of the department and, ultimately, the national security interests of the United States. F O C U S 68 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 The Department of State’s Security Clearance Revocation Process (12 FAM 230) By Donald R. Reid Donald R. Reid is the director of the Security Infrastructure Program within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.