Many security clearance applicants mistakenly believe that previously adjudicated adverse information does not have to be disclosed or is not open to review when undergoing subsequent background investigations. But there’s no such thing as security clearance “double jeopardy;” just because something didn’t affect your investigation in the past, doesn’t mean it can’t affect it in the future. Read more here…
Thank you so much for teaching people! It has to be listed!
Agreed. This is great information.
I recently finished reading a book on the Ana Montes investigation (1996-2001). A lot of previously adjudicated adverse information was overlooked, yet used in the aggregate during the decision in her 2001 arrest.
What if it denied under CIA and friends with the same actions are cleared under DoD? I thought DoD was less strict and would maybe also consider the “whole person concept” whereas a friends’ case with CIA is shocking at how horrible they made high school drug use sound when denying the clearance of a 35 year old with nothing in his recent past.
You only know what your friends tell you, which may simply not be the entire truth.
Quick question for everyone. If a candidate has previously adjudicated adverse information in her favor during the last reinvestigation and there is no addition adverse information in the past 8 years, will the next reinvestigation honor the fact that all previously reported adverse information were favorably adjudicated via demonstration that security concerns were successfully mitigated?
I believe that ANY information is legitimate fodder for current investigations. Think about it: Circumstances change over the years. Additional information about the previous issue can come to light. In some cases, concern over certain issues can grow, lessen or simply change over time.
Without more specifics, we really can’t even come close to answering your question.