Security Clearance Abuse

I know it sounds like an impossible theme, but people actually are abusing the security clearance process to eliminate government employees who don’t share their political views.  It is the worst kind of lawlessness,  and criminal in its own right.

There are two sides to this story, but the one in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Section today is a curious one because it involves the Defense Department which has a centralized security clearance review process.  One part of the Agency should not be involved in making a suspension or revocation decision without going to review.  This is a case about a Defense Department lawyer who questioned a contractor’s performance for Chelsea Clinton’s “best friend”.  He quickly found himself accused of all kinds of things and his clearance was suspended.  Very few people know what that means.

There are three things that can happen to a security clearance.  It can be suspended, as in this case, denied while it is being processed before being granted, or revoked for really bad things that a person might do - almost always when a person goes to jail.  Suspension means you can’t have access to classified information in the course of your work, which for many workers in the Pentagon means you can’t have access to your own office or workplace.  That isolates anyone from working on anything but unclassified things, so they may be able to continue to work.

In most of the cases I was involved with, a person could be accused of a lot of things and not get the clearance suspended or revoked.  Just as an aside, you almost have to kill someone in a public place to get it revoked.  I have seen married alcoholics engaged in multiple sexual encounters with people inside and outside the office who did not get their clearance suspended.  They face a lot of other actions, but not that.

On one occasion I did see a person in a management position solicit negative comments from contractors about the performance of  one of his employees.  That information was to be used to bring this kind of action against the employee, but it backfired when the employee got an email from one of the contractors with his attached request for those comments.  The employee went to the Director of the Agency and he resolved it.  That was the only time I ever saw anything close to what is described in the Journal piece. It can be resolved in a day, since it does not take long to review, but in a case like this, it might be beneficial to have a hearing and require all those who brought the charges to have to testify in open court (there are administrative courts just for this).  A little sunshine on this kind of behavior might have a beneficial effect.

Many people who have this kind of thing happen to them just sit and wait for the review action to take place - tough it out.  But, if this piece is accurate, something more needs to be done.  Get the review over with, and get this person out from under the supervision of people who are so politically motivated that they cannot make clear judgements.  The people who brought the charges are the ones who should have their clearances suspended, then revoked.