Whole Person Concept

Understanding the Whole-Person Concept in Security Clearances

The Whole Person Concept is how the 13 National Security Adjudicative Guidelines are applied and interpreted in resolving security concerns and determining eligibility.

No single incident or particular potentially disqualifying factor will solely determine whether you are an acceptable security risk and should be granted access to classified information. In reviewing an individual’s history and the context in which it occurred gives clearance adjudicators a means to determine if, despite any past conduct, that a future version of that person will be likely to be a threat to national security.

The whole person concept is applicable to all security clearance applicants and security clearance holders, regardless of whether you are a federal employee, government contractor, or military personnel.

Nine Factors of the Whole Person Concept

The Whole Person Concept consists of nine factors that contextualize security clearance concerns about a person during the adjudication process and how mitigating factors are applied:

Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct. How bad was the conduct?
The circumstances surrounding the conduct. What happened just before or during the conduct?
The frequency and recency of the conduct. Did this happen once, or often? Did it happen 3 years ago or 3 months ago?
Age and maturity at the time of the conduct. The individual’s age and maturity is an important factor. Was the person an immature 19-year old or a 45-year old with decades of life experience to lean on?
Knowledgeable participation in the conduct. Was this done unwillingly, with a metaphorical gun to the person’s head?
Rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes (or lack thereof). Did the person take corrective action, comply with recommended treatment, and change his environment to make recurrence less likely
Motivation for the conduct. Why did the person do this?
Potential for coercion, exploitation, or duress. Can the misconduct be used to leverage the person to compromise national security?
Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of the conduct. The first eight factors are all considered in determining if the conduct is likely to happen again.

Any one of these factors can carry more or less weight than another depending on the conduct and circumstances. At bottom, all of the factors are applied with what is commonly referred to as commonsense judgment to make a final determination on an individual’s security clearance.

Examples

An unprovoked violent felony that resulted in death or permanent bodily harm to another is more likely to lead to a security clearance denial than a simple battery committed in self-defense, even if both offenders were the same age and had the same criminal history.
Unfiled taxes for several years due to knowingly accepted risky business practices is more likely to result in a clearance denial or revocation than a year or two of unpaid taxes due to competing medical bills due to a cancer diagnosis, even if both people have the same debt to the IRS or state tax authorities.
Illegal use of THC at age 40 while holding a security clearance and accessing classified information as a regular part of one’s job is more likely to lead to a security clearance revocation than a 25-year-old, first-time security clearance applicant who used THC during college and purchased it at a state-licensed dispensary is to get denied a clearance.

Contact us for help

Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eletteifend ac, enim. Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet.

Time is Always a Factor in Security Clearance Cases

Time can be the best friend of a person seeking to gain or maintain a security clearance.

How recent something derogatory occurred determines whether the adjudicator or administrative judge can be confident it will not occur again and can confidently reach an affirmative determination. If the misconduct occurred three months prior to the adjudication, it is much harder to say the individual has built a track record of not engaging in the concerning behavior. What constitutes a sufficient period of time since derogatory conduct will vary based on the specific details of the offense.

Similarly, conduct at a younger, less mature age is often given more grace than someone who does the same thing after having been an adult for two decades or more.

Rehabilitation and behavioral changes also take time. Completing a course of substance abuse treatment, psychological counseling, or a term of probation for a criminal offense all take many months and sometimes years. Someone in the middle of those courses will have a harder time making a case for rehabilitation than someone who has fully completed those requirements and has an additional significant period where the derogatory behavior has not occurred.

Mitigating Criminal Conduct and Protecting National Security

Criminal conduct (Guideline J) is frequently invoked both in isolation and along with other guidelines like Personal Conduct (Guideline E), Sexual Behavior (Guideline D), and Alcohol and Drug Involvement (Guidelines G and H). It also has the ability to be mitigated with the passage of time and with positive behavioral changes.

The Whole Person Concept factor of rehabilitation is highly relevant to criminal conduct. Completing court-ordered requirements, demonstrating positive community involvement, and documenting all actions is crucial to demonstrating rehabilitation.

Age at the time of the criminal conduct is highly relevant. A minor criminal offense at a young age is, if not repeated, less harmful to a final decision than something done at the age of full maturity or if it is repeated.

Documenting the Total Record and Establishing Credibility

When establishing a record of mitigation and using the whole person concept general criteria in your favor, documenting all relevant steps is critical.

Character references from people who know you well, especially in the context that the derogatory conduct occurred, can provide weight to your own claims. Individuals who have been in similar circumstances or have held security clearances in the past are particularly good references to testify to an individual’s character, work ethic, and dedication to the mission.

Where issues involving employment concerns exist, demonstrating a positive work history since the concern arose is necessary. Performance reviews, awards, letters of appreciation, or merit-based promotions all help document an improved work history.

Individuals should include their specific work history, specialized training, and prior clearance sponsorships to demonstrate a long-term, trustworthy track record of safeguarding classified data.

Transparency is key. Suggesting that there is something to hide can be fatal or even raise other applicable disqualifying conditions.

Common Mistakes That Ruin a Whole-Person Review

Inconsistent Timelines. If different forms or interview results note different timelines for significant issues, it can create concerns about whether reliable information has been provided.
Denying or Minimizing Underlying Problems. Especially in cases of drug and alcohol abuse, failing to address and treat the addiction itself rather than relying on a lack of related problems can be fatal.
Blame Shifting. While context and providing relevant circumstances for an individual’s conduct is important, not fully owning actions
Failure to Document. Writing or testifying to changed circumstances and positive actions taken is necessary but not sufficient. You must present evidence in the form of documents to back up claims made and must be provided as early as possible in the adjudicative process to be useful to preserving an individual’s eligibility.

How an Experienced Security Clearance Attorney Can Help Apply the Whole Person Concept to Your Individual Situation

Applying the whole person concept is unique to each case. The nature and circumstances surrounding the derogatory information, the person’s life circumstances both in the past and now, and the efforts made to correct course will determine how mitigation is approached and presented to the government.

A seasoned security clearance lawyer has had clients of varying ages, life experiences, and all manners of misconduct and understands that mitigation for a security clearance applicant right out of college is not the same project as mitigation for a 25-year clearance holder who has a decades-long history of both positive and negative things to contend with in making their case.

Call us today for a free confidential consultation to see how you can begin to apply the whole person concept to your individual situation. Brian@LSAttorneys.com 847-775-7701.