This post was deleted.
1 Like
If you need an interview in the future make sure and tell them you want it done in person, as that greatly reduces the chances of me getting your case. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
3 Likes
Quite the rant! None of these things are anyoneâs business unless you choose to work for the federal government. Obtaining a specific job is not a right. You live your best life to whatever moral guidelines you see fit. You just might not be a good fit for a federal government job. No need for all the angst. Although the underage consensual sex is a little questionable. Really?!
1 Like
asking for a âfriend?â
2 Likes
I came up against this very issue in adjudication minus laws being broken.
It was clear that I was honest and could not be blackmailed but the govât still denied me based on morality and basically just put it under âpersonal conductâ.
1 Like
The clearance system isnât necessarily judging nudists, swingers, or porn performers for fun; itâs about risk to national security. If your behavior makes you vulnerable to blackmail or coercion, the government sees this as a potential problem. It doesnât matter if you personally donât care who sees youâothers might, and thatâs what theyâre trying to prevent.
Also, foreign legality doesnât automatically protect you. Even if something is legal abroad, U.S. federal law still applies to you. Marijuana use, sex with minors, or prostitution in another country can still violate U.S. law or create exploitable situations. Regarding foreign legality, itâs important to be clear: U.S. federal law still applies to citizens abroad. Acts that are legal in another countryâlike marijuana use, prostitution, or sex with minors under 18âcan still be criminal offenses under U.S. law. Key statutes include the PROTECT Act, the Mann Act, and federal child exploitation laws. There is no âforeign law defenseâ; the U.S. considers protecting minors and enforcing federal law globally.
The rules arenât about judging your lifestyleâtheyâre about making sure youâre not creating a situation where someone could leverage your behavior to access secrets.
So before claiming inconsistency, remember this: you can be an alcoholic, a queer person, or a nudist, and thatâs fineâas long as it doesnât create a security risk. The government doesnât care about your kinks or your holidays in Spainâthey care about whether someone could use those behaviors against you. It might feel unfair, but itâs about mitigating risk, not about calling anyone âsick pervâ or âimmoral.â
Nice try, but âlegal somewhere elseâ is not a magical cloak of immunity-youâre not Frodo, and Uncle Sam still cares and isnât handing out invisibility rings. Trust me, Uncle Sam does not share your sense of humor about international loopholes.
Youâre mixing up two different things: what is legal everywhere vs. what the U.S. government can hold its cleared personnel accountable for. Security clearances arenât a âfollow only local lawsâ systemâtheyâre governed by federal standards and risk assessments. The people who determine whether behavior is a concern arenât random âmorality police,â theyâre adjudicators using the Adjudicative Guidelines for National Security Eligibility, which specifically evaluate things like criminal conduct, personal conduct, and susceptibility to coercion.
On the legal side, your claims about federal law are simply incorrect. There are federal laws that apply to U.S. citizens abroad. The PROTECT Act makes it a crime for U.S. citizens to engage in sexual activity with minors outside the U.S., regardless of local age-of-consent laws. Thatâs not about traffickingâit explicitly covers non-commercial, âconsensualâ activity as well. Federal law also criminalizes illicit sexual conduct abroad more broadly, and prostitution-related activity can trigger issues under federal statutes and related offenses depending on circumstances. So no, âitâs legal thereâ is not a valid defense for a U.S. citizen.
As for blackmail and coercionâthis isnât hypothetical guesswork. Investigators look at patterns of behavior, judgment, discretion, and vulnerability. You donât get to self-certify âI canât be blackmailed.â Plenty of people think thatâuntil their job, reputation, family, or finances are on the line. The government evaluates whether a reasonable person in your position could be pressured, not whether you claim you personally wouldnât care.
Finally, the Nevada example actually proves the point. Legal activityâlike visiting a brothel where itâs permittedâisnât automatically disqualifying. But if it becomes frequent, secretive, financially risky, or tied to poor judgment, it can raise concerns. Thatâs the consistent standard: not morality, but judgment and risk.
Bottom line: clearance rules arenât about whether something is âfairâ or aligns with your personal viewsâtheyâre about whether your behavior, legal or not, creates any realistic avenue for coercion, exploitation, or compromised judgment. Thatâs the standard, and itâs applied far more consistently than youâre suggesting.
Personal Conduct guideline needs to have boundaries set. The government will abuse that guideline to deny a clearance if the government doesnât like that person. Some of things that are covered under the personal conduct is laughable, like telling joke that someone does not like.
Personal conduct needs to be strictly lying on the background form and dishonest conduct, not calling someone a name.
Yup, they denied me on petty nonsense , because i shared a ânaughtyâ pic with a girl i was seeing and because i got in an argument defending guys i supervised. Nothing i ever hid or was ever embarrassed about. They use âpersonal Conductâ for literally anything they want. Iâm not convinced there is no quota on denials yearly.
My mind goes to âif you have to ask, you canât afford itâ