Once all of the investigative requirements for your background investigation have been completed it is sent to the DOD Central Adjudication Facility (CAF), if you work for a DOD component, or to the federal agency’s CAF that requested your investigation. For DOD personnel and contractors your case is assigned to a PSMO-I (first level) adjudicator who will review the Report of Investigation (ROI) and make a favorable decision if no issues of concern under the 13 adjudicative guidelines are present.
In a recent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) case the original decision to remove a Department of the Navy employee due to his security clearance being revoked was upheld by the board. Specifically, the employee was removed for failure to maintain a top secret security clearance as a condition of employment. It has been well established by case history that the MSPB cannot look at the reasons for a security clearance denial, as that authority is reserved for the adjudicating agency. However, MSPB can consider and rule on whether the agencies administrative processes and procedures were followed in removing the employee and whether due process was given.
In another recent Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) case the board decided that the concerns about the applicant’s recreational illegal drug use over a ten-year period that spanned from 2001 to 2011 were mitigated. The applicant disclosed information detailing his recreational drug use from 2001 to 2011 that included the use of marijuana, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and illegal use of prescription drugs. These concerns fall under Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and as a result, a Statement of Reasons (SOR) was issued to the applicant.
In a recent Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) case the original decision by the Department of Defense (DoD) to deny the applicant a security clearance was upheld by the board. This particular case involved Guidelines J (Criminal Conduct) and E (Personal Conduct). The applicant had a history of serious criminal conduct that involved unlawful wounding, stalking, DUI, probation violations, assault, and destruction of property. However, the DUI was the latest criminal offense that he had been convicted of and it occurred over 6 years ago. Had there been no other more recent issues in the case then the criminal conduct it could have been mitigated by time and rehabilitation.