# Clearance In Person

**URL:** <https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/clearance-in-person/4126>\
**Category:** SECURITY CLEARANCE NEWS\
**Created:** [July 19, 2018, 10:04pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/clearance-in-person/4126 "2018-07-19T22:04:48Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sbusquirrel](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/sbusquirrel/32/34_2.png) [@sbusquirrel](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/sbusquirrel)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2018, 10:04pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/clearance-in-person/4126/1 "2018-07-19T22:04:48Z")

</div>

I saw an article about a group of industry organizations that sent a letter to key members of Congress urging them to support certain key reforms in the security clearance process as described in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

One item I had not heard of before is “Clearance in Person,” meaning that a clearance stays with a person even if they leave a cleared position, allowing them to more easily move from program to program. As it is, people have to consider any such move very carefully for fear of losing their clearance, having to be readjudicated or reinvestigated, or not even getting a chance to move because the new employer doesn’t want to risk it.

Here’s a [link to the PDF](https://www.pscouncil.org/Downloads/documents/Advocacy-Policy%20Docs/7.12.18%20NDAA%20Trade%20Associations%20Letter%20-%20Security%20Clearances%20(1).pdf) of the letter; Section 936 of the proposed NDAA is the “Clearance in Person” part

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AWoodhull](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/awoodhull/32/867_2.png) [@AWoodhull](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/AWoodhull)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 1:11pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/clearance-in-person/4126/2 "2018-07-20T13:11:47Z")

</div>

This is an interesting concept, and I can imagine the challenges of that, especially since there is no uniformity. Nonetheless, I think it is sensible and certainly will improve the backlog and such.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![amberbunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@amberbunny](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/amberbunny)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2018, 9:17pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/clearance-in-person/4126/3 "2018-07-20T21:17:42Z")

</div>

I can tell you when I try to explain the nuance between a position requiring the clearance and eligibility vs having a clearance…many do not understand the process or terminology at all. It would be an interesting reform if they allowed this. But I imagine everyone with a degree of autonomy in their clearances would carve out exceptions.