Little-known facts about security clearances
Collected for attorneys, researchers, and people holding a Statement of Reasons. Every fact is labeled with where it comes from. Numbers marked CASE record are computed from our own database of 29,877 published DOHA decisions and link to the underlying data on this site.
Descriptive research on the public record. Nothing here is legal advice, a prediction, or a recommendation.
Money
The most common concern in the record, and the most misunderstood.
Bankruptcy is not an automatic disqualifier. A third of these cases were still granted.
Of the 1,329 hearing cases in our record where the SOR alleged a bankruptcy filing, 449 (34%) ended with access granted. Adjudicators treat bankruptcy as a lawful way to resolve debt; what sinks cases is unresolved delinquency, not the filing itself.
CASE record as of July 6, 2026, 1,329 hearing-level cases with a bankruptcy-filing allegation · see the cases
Applicants never pay for the investigation. The government does.
The background investigation is paid by the sponsoring agency, not the person being investigated. In the last detailed public accounting, the weighted average investigation cost the government about $1,231, and the Defense Security Service paid OPM 218 million dollars in a single year for contractor investigations. If anyone asks you to pay for your own clearance investigation, something is wrong.
Government cost data (FY2010 to FY2011) as reported in the practitioner literature (FedCAS)
The past is not destiny
Three histories people assume are fatal, and what the record actually shows.
Marijuana in the record did not end 1 in 4 of these cases.
4,802 hearing cases in our record involve marijuana somewhere in the allegations or findings, and 23% were still granted. Federal guidance since 2021 tells agencies to focus on recency and future intent rather than the fact of past use, and prior use alone, even use that once contributed to a denial, is not treated as permanently determinative.
CASE record as of July 6, 2026, 4,802 hearing-level cases mentioning marijuana · Guideline H in our record
A criminal record, even a felony, is not an automatic bar.
3,887 hearing cases in our record raise Criminal Conduct (Guideline J), and 23% were granted. Under the whole-person concept, judges weigh recency, seriousness, pattern, and rehabilitation. The narrow statutory exceptions (for example, current unlawful drug users, or certain long incarcerations when the job needs the most sensitive access levels) are the only true automatics.
CASE record as of July 6, 2026, 3,887 hearing-level Guideline J cases · Guideline J in our record
Seeing a therapist almost never costs anyone a clearance by itself.
One government-era analysis found that 99.98% of applicants with a psychological concern in their file kept or received eligibility. Several kinds of counseling are exempt from disclosure on the form entirely: marital, family, and grief counseling, counseling related to combat service, and sexual-assault counseling. The form itself states that counseling in and of itself is not a reason to deny.
DoD-era statistic and SF-86 exemptions as reported in the practitioner literature (FedCAS) · Guideline I in our record
Applying: traps and quirks
Where the process bites before judgment even begins.
The famous "last 7 years" rule does not cover the whole form.
Many SF-86 questions look back 7 years (10 for the deepest investigations), but the questions that begin with have you EVER have no time limit at all, and several sections carry their own special windows spelled out in the instructions on the first page, which many people skip. Getting a window wrong is not a small slip: a timing error can later be alleged as falsification.
SF-86 structure; practitioner literature (Edmunds Law Firm)
About 1 in 8 applications used to bounce before any investigation even began.
Across a multi-year government sample, roughly 12% of submitted clearance applications were rejected for clerical problems before an investigator ever touched them: missing or illegible fingerprints, a missing Social Security number for a spouse or co-habitant, missing references, or the employer not listed correctly. The process can fail on paperwork long before it ever reaches judgment.
DISCO and OPM rejection data (2007 to 2011) as reported by FedCAS
Being turned down for an interim clearance usually does not predict the final answer.
Interim clearances are decided in days on a partial file, and in some years as many as 39% of applicants were declined an interim, with no right to appeal. Yet the final denial rate is only a few percent, and most people declined an interim went on to receive the final clearance. An interim declination is also not a denial you must report as one on future forms.
Interim and final adjudication data (2008 era) as reported by FedCAS
Interviewers sometimes repeat your words back slightly wrong. On purpose.
A documented interview technique is to restate what you said with a small inaccuracy and see whether you agree. Agreeing to a wrong restatement, or guessing at specifics under polite pressure, creates the inconsistencies that later show up in a Statement of Reasons as candor allegations. Precision beats agreeableness in that room.
Practitioner literature on the subject interview (Edmunds Law Firm; FedCAS)
Polygraphs are rarer than people think, and failing one usually means a retest.
Polygraph screening generally applies only to the most sensitive access programs, not to ordinary Secret or Top Secret clearances. The charts are quality-reviewed by a second examiner, problem questions can be rephrased, and an unfavorable result typically leads to retesting rather than an instant denial.
Practitioner literature (Edmunds Law Firm; FedCAS)
If a Statement of Reasons arrives
The stage this site exists for.
Some SOR cases end with the government quietly withdrawing the SOR.
When a written answer resolves every stated concern, the government can withdraw the Statement of Reasons entirely and processing simply resumes. No hearing, no published decision. Those wins are invisible in every statistic on this site, including ours, because only decided cases are published.
DOHA process; practitioner literature (Edmunds Law Firm; FedCAS)
Ignoring an allegation is the same as admitting it.
The answer to an SOR must admit or deny each numbered allegation, separately and in writing. An allegation that is not specifically addressed can be treated as admitted. The single most mechanical rule in the process is also one of the most commonly fumbled.
DoD Directive 5220.6 answer requirements
People who asked for a live hearing were granted at twice the rate of those who chose paper.
Among 9,321 decisions in our record where the decision route is identifiable, applicants who appeared at a hearing were granted 22% of the time versus 11% for those decided on the written record alone. Descriptive, not causal: the two groups differ in many ways. But the gap is large, stable, and worth knowing before choosing a route.
CASE record as of July 6, 2026, 9,321 route-classified decisions · shown in every Case Prep report
Four out of five applicants face the process alone, and the outcomes differ sharply.
In our record, 80% of hearing-level applicants had no attorney of record. Represented applicants were granted 51% of the time; unrepresented applicants 30%. An independent 2012 study of 500 DOHA cases found nearly identical numbers (51% vs 32%). Again descriptive, not causal, and volume is not a quality ranking. The convergence across fourteen years is what makes it remarkable.
CASE record as of July 6, 2026, 5,119 represented and 20,890 unrepresented hearing cases; W. Henderson, 500-case review (2012) · representation on Insights
The cover-up is judged more harshly than the conduct.
Practitioners on both sides agree, and the Personal Conduct guideline is built around it: concealing or minimizing an issue on the form or in the interview routinely becomes a bigger allegation than the issue itself. Old debt is mitigable. A fresh falsification about old debt is much harder.
Guideline E mechanics; practitioner consensus · Guideline E in our record
A final denial starts a 12-month clock, not a life sentence.
After a final unfavorable decision, an applicant can reapply after one year, and the reapplication is judged on whether the original concerns have since been addressed. People do come back and win, especially where the issue was time-mitigable, like debt, recency of use, or an unfinished treatment program.
DoD Directive 5220.6 reapplication rules
Judges and appeals
The parts of the system with the most surprising numbers.
Among the busiest judges, grant rates run from 8% to 62%.
Across the 56 administrative judges in our record with at least 100 hearing decisions, the lowest grant rate is 8% and the highest is 62%. Same guidelines, same burden of proof. Who hears a case is one of the largest visible variables in the record.
CASE record as of July 6, 2026, judges with 100+ decided hearing cases · judge outcomes on Insights
On appeal, the government wins 70% of the time. Applicants win 0.4%.
Of 3,055 applicant appeals in our record, just 12 ended in reversal (143 more were sent back for another look). Of the 303 appeals the government filed against decisions it lost, 211 were reversed. The Appeal Board hears no new evidence and no witnesses; it reviews the existing record for error, which is why fresh arguments cannot be saved for later.
CASE record as of July 6, 2026, 3,368 profiled ISCR appeals · appeals on Insights
Every published decision is anonymous. No applicant is ever named.
All 29,877 decisions in our record refer to the person only as Applicant. Judges, government counsel, and applicants’ attorneys are named; the applicant never is. Losing a clearance case does not put your name on a public list, and it is exactly this anonymization that makes open research on the record possible.
CASE record as of July 6, 2026, all 29,877 published decisions
You can lose by walking away: the loss-of-jurisdiction trap.
Leaving a cleared job while a security incident report is unresolved can freeze the record in a status called loss of jurisdiction: nothing is decided, nothing is appealable, and the flag sits in the government’s system until a future employer sponsors the clearance and forces the old report to be adjudicated. People typically discover it only when a job offer stalls.
DoD personnel-security practice as documented by FedCAS
Primary sources
The official documents behind all of it, at their official locations.
- SEAD-4, the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (the 13 guidelines every SOR cites)
- SEAD-3, reporting requirements for clearance holders
- DoD Directive 5220.6, the rules of the DOHA process itself
- 32 CFR Part 117 (NISPOM), the industrial-security rulebook
- Standard Form 86, the questionnaire everything starts with
- 5 CFR 731.202, the separate suitability criteria (not the same thing as a clearance)
- DOHA, the source of every decision in our record
Sources and method: CASE record figures are computed from the 29,877 published DOHA decisions in this site’s database as of July 6, 2026, scoped to verified hearing-level standard ISCR cases unless noted. Historical government statistics are attributed to the years they cover and to the practitioner literature that reported them (FedCAS / William Henderson; Edmunds Law Firm). Percentages describe decided public cases; withdrawn and never-published matters are invisible to every source on this page. Not affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense or DOHA.