Eligibility for Reprocessing?

As a contractor, I went through the NSA SCI Access application process, investigation and poly. Following the poly I was denied. I requested the reasons, and then started the appeal process, submitting an explanation that addressed the reaons for denial, and asking for reconsideration. In response, I received a decision granting me eligibility for reprocessing, meaning my company could then resubmit me for the access, without any waiting period required. Does this mean the original denial was vacated?

That’s a new one on me. How long did all this take, from the time you were denied to the time you were informed you were ‘eligible for reprocessing?’

It sounds like you mitigated the concerns in the initial denial but you were taken out of the queue for SCI processing, most probably because the position for which you were put in for the access was filled by someone else. Did you give the decision letter to your company? It is up to them whether or not to resubmit you as an applicant.

Thanks for your responses. This was almost thirty years ago, so the process may have changed considerably. I was given the decision, then ten days to request the reasons. Once I got the reasons, I had thirty days to respond to them in writing, addressing the reasons. Apparently my reasons did provide some rationale for modifying the decision to deny, since what I got back was that I could then be resubmitted. I’m fairly sure I was not taken out of the queue, just that the request for access needed to be resubmitted. It’s all a bit confusing. What is unclear to me is whether the decision to deny was in some way set aside or nullified, much like a judicial decision. When an appeal is granted, isn’t the original decision set aside?

I think Marko is correct. A company needs fill a seat and at times will submit multiple people for a clearance at that level in hopes they get one cleared fast and can then offer other positions to those eventually clearing. Is it gaming the system? Well. Hate the game not the player I suppose. As long as a company can be in contract default if a seat goes unfilled this practice will never end.I am a much bigger fan of better screening at the initial security interview. Since I took 100% control of this process from a less than stellar HR person I have not had a single rejection. This doesn’t’ mean I won’t experience any due to a candidate telling lies, but I know what to look for, how to ask questions, how to probe certain answers. I won’t submit if finances aren’t in good standing or if recreational drug use is too current.

If this company or any others will submit you, include the letter. It shows you have addressed the situation and are eligible for reconsideration, and you weren’t required to wait 365 days.

My bottom line question is: When asked if I was denied access or a clearance, is the answer yes or no? It seems like the process was interrupted before a final decision was made, because I chose not to pursue it after I got this reply.

Just to be safe I would put yes and what you wrote in your initial post. It will not affect current clearance processing because it was so long ago and if the issues at hand then are no longer present.

Thanks - that sounds like the way to go. The issues that were at hand are no longer present, and have not been for over 30 years. This is reassuring, and in a process like this, that helps a lot. Thanks as well to amberbunny and sbusquirrel.

Occasionally an Intel Agency will deny a clearance based solely on information provided by the applicant (SF86, FNC forms, Subject Interview) without completing a security clearance investigation. If the applicant is successful in rebutting the Letter of Denial, the applicant is required to resubmit for the clearance, because by then the SF86 is stale. If the applicant was originally sponsored by a contractor, then there’s the issue of whether they still have clearance sponsorship. Since Intel Agencies issue Letters of Denial rather than Letters of Intent, you were denied clearance even though you ultimately had the denial reversed and consequently must now and forever indicate the clearance denial on an SF86. Obviously you should explain somewhere on the SF86 or Q86 that the decision was reversed.

1 Like

Were you denied based on an unsuccessful poly? If yes, but you were successful in your appeal and granted reprocessing, does this mean you still need to poly again? Or are they essentially saying they are disregarding your poly results?

Those are among the questions whose answers are unclear to me.

Thanks - I believe you have nailed it.

I have seen employees get called back for 3 Poly’s and then 2 subsequent interviews in an attempt to resolve something. So yes a situation may be somewhat unresolved and there may be a physiological “white coat syndrome” situation presenting itself. You will be nervous, anxious and keyed up. By design. If you are not they will work hard to get you off balance and take you there. In the end if there is nothing to resolve and the interviews feel there is nothing to probe…you can be cleared. Not the same thing as saying the poly is disregarded but end result is the same.