# Top Issues in 2017 for Security Clearance Denials

**URL:** <https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/top-issues-in-2017-for-security-clearance-denials/2612>\
**Category:** SECURITY CLEARANCE NEWS\
**Created:** [December 27, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/top-issues-in-2017-for-security-clearance-denials/2612 "2017-12-27T18:58:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EdFarmerIII](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/edfarmeriii/32/122_2.png) [@EdFarmerIII](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/EdFarmerIII)\
**Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 10:14pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/top-issues-in-2017-for-security-clearance-denials/2612/4 "2017-12-27T22:14:53Z")

</div>

I suspect that most people with debt can explain/mitigate the concerns but they get denied, initially either because they do not do a good enough job explaining it on their SF86 or the SF86 just doesn’t give you the chance.

At lot of this could be addressed with the investigator and that’s what I tried to do. I provided a pile of documentation to the investigator and the same information in the reply to my SOR. I was denied but the same information, pretty much, allowed me to prevail on appeal.

I feel like the adjudicators need better instruction on interpreting mitigating factors.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/top-issues-in-2017-for-security-clearance-denials/2612)._