Denial By One Agency, Affecting Current Agencies Clearance

Seeking advice on the following scenario:
Applicant has current active secret clearance within active duty military
Applicant is in a 3 letter agency application process that will not accept reciprocity of clearances and has to reapply for one within said agency
Applicant has had some financial issues a few years ago that they have since settled and taken care of but is still worried denial or unfavorable within this new agencies clearance process
If the applicant is denied or found unfavorable by the 3 letter agency, will this be reported to or affect their current active duty military clearance that is still good for another 2 years?

If you need more information please feel free to ask!

Thank you

It can. Some 3 letters have a “rat back” process where if it is an egregious enough reason they claim they notify the other agency. Who exactly they notify in DoD is questionable. Sounds like he was out of normal scope 5 to 6 year range, they won’t cross over and insist on new initial investigation. If he HAD financial issues, as long as he is caught up and doesn’t have a confluence of issues going on…he should be okay. Normally I would not submit a candidate if they were under a 650 FICO. It isnt the FICO per say…but history…and FICO is a summation of history so it is a solid indicator of financial responsibility currently. But even a bankruptcy won’t harm a clearance once you rebound

It depends. Is the financial issue worrisome? Did you report the financial issue to your security manager/office when you were gong through the issue?

Here’s my opinion/assessment: it will not affect your secret clearance while you are in the military. However, if in fact you do get denied a clearance, and then you LEAVE the military and apply for a civilian job requiring a clearance, it may come up.

However, if your financial issues from a few years back are indeed all cleared up and you’ve had no issues since then, I don’t think it would cause you to be denied a clearance. The only concern would be if they were just “written off” and not paid off, I’ve heard of cases where that became an issue.

Written off and not paid off is an issue. The CAF is not focusing on the debt, but the cause and outcome. I have too many Subjects try to argue that written off debt is not their concern and they become angry when it is our concern.

1 Like

Thanks, that is the distinction I was trying to describe. I also see where people got into more trouble for not declaring the written-off/forgiven/etc debt on their taxes, because that is considered income in certain situations. I think they send you a 1099 or other tax form in that situation.