Correspondence from an Adjudicator

After many delays, I was recently told that I am to expect correspondence from an adjudicator that I need to respond to before a final decision can be reached, does anyone have any insight as to what this could mean? Trying to get my ducks in a row in anticipation…is it standard for adjudicators to reach out for clarification/questions, or is this a bad sign? Any info appreciated.

I’m looking forward to hearing this answer myself.

Same here… waiting to hear this one.

Not exactly standard, as most people don’t experience this. But not necessarily a bad sign. If anything it is a good sign in that your case has made it to someone’s desk and isn’t lingering in a queue somewhere.

Hopefully you can provide whatever additional information is needed so the adjudicator can make a decision. Favorable, of course :slight_smile:

1 Like

Who knows. Supposedly your file has been through several QC checks to get this far. Maybe the adjudicator would like just a little more info on something.

1 Like

We have no way to anticipate what questions or issues they need to address. You might be able to give us an idea since this is your application that is in question.

We can help you formulate a response once you get the question. If you want to share it.


They are likely to ask about the circumstance which led to your use in the past and what you have done to eliminate a return. Look up the adjudicative guidelines and the mitigating factors for drug use.

Actually I see these with a predictable level of frequency. Usually for credit or recreational use. At times it is just a conduct letter going to your file. They may ask for more clarity on who you used with, wanting to know if you still associate. I recommend not associating with the people you used with in the past, stay away from bars where this use was prevalent as well. I was contacted by my adjudicator regarding a security infraction they “just wanted to clear up,” and I repeated the truthful story. Again. For the 4th time. I have had adjudicators call and tell me the person is non responsive to the request for more information too. I reach out and ask if they want to get the clearance…they seem excited…I tell them respond…wash, rinse, repeat. After that I remove from processing.

It happens. Someone said “whoa Nelly, we need weigh in on this.” But yes you did prove you are a good worker, keep doing so.


As long as it isn’t classified or revealing names. It should not be classified as you are waiting for the clearance, lol. Simply answer truthfully and in a positive manner. If you had a previous bad thing but long since moved on, tell them. That isn’t unusual. If we hang out with a crowd that often used drugs and we tried it a few times…it might be hard not slipping back into that behavior. But by getting new friends, new places…you manage to stay far enough away that you are no longer drawn to that. Getting married, having kids is also a mitigation for past “single” behavior. They are not looking for Angels. But they are looking for honesty. If you smoked MJ say so and dont’ quibble. They aren’t going to call the police.

@PPT How did you find out that they sent something to your old address?

When they resend the package, it should have a new date.

1 Like

I get these letters with an artificial “return in 5 days” marking. Sometimes I am getting them 30 days after they claim they were sent. We reach out to the prospective hire and try to get them the envelope. In every case they granted the extension. Now, getting some folks to provide the requested info…can be tough. Respond, hopefully with positive developments.

The SOR that you received should include the specific adjudicative guidelines for each subject that they are citing. You need to look up the mitigating factors for each of the subjects and document how you meet those mitigating factors.

Don’t take this lightly. I’m sure, in law enforcement, you are familiar with how to put together an argument like this. At the end of your SOR somewhere, the adjudicator or the lawyer who wrote it up wrote, “Therefore, it is NOT in the interest of national security to grant the applicant access to classified information.” Or, something like that. In your summary, be sure to paraphrase this saying, “Therefore, I believe that it IS in the national interest to grant me access to classified information required for the completion of the duties for which I am applying.”

You have to remember to ASK for what you want.


You could always talk to a counselor or therapist and ask to complete a drug and alcohol assessment. There maybe 100-200$, if everything is as you say and you don’t have a drug problem then getting a favorable assessment from a specialist would definitely help.

1 Like

another Source I would try to find for the adjudicator while doing your background investigation AND would be a good source for this SOR would be a letter for recommendation from someone, a friend or counselor, who was aware of your past drug use that can speak about your current use/character.


How long you have been in Adjudication ? It’s not necessarily a bad thing or in worst case scenario it could be related to SOR.

Thank you for reporting back and sharing your personal story. Always great learning first hand in a real situation how it is unfolding. Solid advice given here. I would jump on any online training as well or join an active 12 step program showing you intend to continue developing a support system.

Keep us posted!

1 Like