MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. It's like gold in Washington and if you lose one or it's taken away, getting it back could mean months of employment limbo, expensive lawyers and a trial. Security clearances, those confidential, secret and top-secret designations that are required for many federal workers and contractors are hard to get and even harder to keep. A recent study by the Washington Post found that 854,000 Americans have top secret clearances, nearly a third of them work for private contractors.

MR. KOJO NNAMDISince September 11th, the number of jobs that require -- September 11th, of course, being 9/11, the number of jobs that require clearances, from janitors to analysts, has increased sharply, but so has the government's scrutiny of its clearance holders. Credit card trouble or even giving your child a foreign-sounding name can be grounds for revoking or denying a clearance. So what do you do when that happens? And what are the new rules for getting and keeping these coveted clearances?

MR. KOJO NNAMDIJoining us in the studio is Jenna Greene. She's the senior reporter for The National Law Journal. Jenna, good to have you here.

MS. JENNA GREENEThanks for having me.

NNAMDIAlso with us is Pam Stuart. She's an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. Pam, thank you for joining us.

MS. PAM STUARTIt's great to be here.

NNAMDIYou can join this conversation by calling 800-433-8850. Are you applying for a security clearance? Have you run into any hurdles? If so, what? Have you ever had your security clearance revoked or denied? Why? Call us at 800-433-8850. Go to our website kojoshow.org. Send us a tweet at kojoshow or an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org.

NNAMDIJenna Greene, before we talk about the challenges of getting and keeping a security clearance, can you tell us non-governmental types about the different kinds of clearances and why they're so valuable to workers and to the economic health of our region?

GREENESure. There are three basic levels of clearance. There is confidential, secret and top secret. The Post reported -- what was it? 800,000 have top...

NNAMDI854,000...

GREENETotal clearances is actually a bigger number, about three million federal workers and military personnel, according to the Defense Department, hold some level of clearance. And about a million government contractors also have clearances. Of those numbers, most of them are with the Defense Department. Clearances, really, are a valuable commodity. Employees who have clearances are rewarded. According to the website, clearance.jobs.com, the average pay for a government contractor employed with a security clearance in the D.C. area is almost $100,000.

GREENEAnd government contractors have said they'll pay a 15 to 25 percent salary premium to hire employees that have clearances. One said in testimony before Congress, we give them special bonuses and incentives, treating them like a whole different class of citizen.

NNAMDIIf you're an employee or a government contractor and you are not granted a security clearance or if your clearance is revoked, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals is one place where you go to protest. You write in a September article in The National Law Journal that that court's docket has increased 25 percent in the last ten years. Why?

GREENEThe lawyers who practice before it have a fairly simple answer. They say it's a result of 9/11 and that many, many more jobs require clearances. Now, not necessarily intelligence jobs, but you could be a tarmac worker at an airport or doing data entry in a computer system. Just the sheer number of jobs that require clearances has grown so much and so, too, have the number of people who are getting their clearances denied and then are going to this court to try to protest the denial.

NNAMDIPam Stuart, when an application for security clearance is denied, is it usually for people who are first-time applicants or people who have held those jobs or jobs in the federal government or with contractors for many years?

STUARTIt can be any one of those. It typically will happen to somebody who is a first-time applicant if they say something that is not truthful on their application form or they give some sort of indication to the investigators that they raise a question in terms of their allegiance to the United States or if they spent a lot of time abroad. If they have a lot of friends with foreign background or family with foreign background, if they have had problems in the past with criminal behavior or drug use or that sort of thing.

STUARTBut this can happen throughout life. And so when someone is re-investigated, which happens once every five years, questions on the same lines can be raised.

NNAMDIIf during the course of those five years somebody finds themselves in a whole lot of credit card debt or have their homes foreclosed, is that a factor also?

STUARTYes. Unfortunately even in these economic times, the investigators are looking for a reason why someone might be subject to undue influence from someone who is seeking classified information that belongs to the United States. If you are subject to being pressured or bribed or anything of that sort, even though you may think you're not, they may think that you are because of excessive debt.

NNAMDIThere are some 13 different standards for denying a security clearance. Jenna Greene, what's the most common reason these days that applicants seem to be denied a security clearance?

GREENEThese days, it's financial. We did an analysis of the court's decisions to date this year, it's about 1,000 decisions and we found that financial considerations were flagged in 63 percent of the decisions. It might not have been the sole reason that someone was denied a clearance, but it was at least one factor.

NNAMDII suspect that before 1995, when President Clinton developed a system, when it was more arbitrary and before the Aldrich Ames episode, that financial considerations were not as much a factor, right, Pam?

STUARTWell, I don't think that's really the case. I think the Aldrich Ames case certainly highlighted that and also Robert Hanson, the FBI agent who had some mistresses on the side, as I recall, and lived outside his means as well. But the standards certainly for investigation were enhanced after those incidents and certainly after 9/11.

NNAMDICould you tell us a little bit, Pam, about the investigative process that applicants for security clearances go through?

STUARTYes. Typically, if they are employed by a contractor, there will be a security agent or a security officer at their company who really coordinates this and will inform the applicant of what he or she has to do. That involves filling out either an electronic form or what's called an SF86, which is an application for a security non-ordinary type position. I'm sorry.

NNAMDIAnything out of the ordinary...

STUARTWell, something that requires a clearance. And so there are quite a number of questions that are asked on that form and some of them call for some sort of judgment in answering them. And if you slip up, then that's a problem. Once you have filled out the forms, then the matter goes to an investigator. Typically, the investigator is either employed by the U.S. government or by a government contractor.

STUARTAnd the investigator will take the forms that you've filled out and interview your past employers, your family, your friends and an increasing circle of friends beyond that to find out what they need to know.

NNAMDIIt's a conversation we're having on security clearances and the denial of security clearances. We're talking with Pam Stuart. She's an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. Jenna Greene is a senior reporter for The National Law Journal. We're taking your calls at 800-433-8850. Would you hire a lawyer to gain a security clearance for your job? You can also send an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org. Here is Owen in Alexandria, Va. Hi, Owen.

OWENYes, Kojo. If you had a security clearance and got a physical illness, then no problem. But if you had a security clearance and got a mental illness, then the fear out there of getting treated is so widespread among those with security clearances that they simply won't get them. They won't even take advantage of the employee assistance programs offered by organizations. And that means that fear is so medieval that you have a whole bunch of people with basically mental illness walking around with security clearances. I encourage you to do a program just on this subject alone and I'll take your answers off the air.

NNAMDIWell, thank you very much for your call, Owen. It is my understanding, Jenna Greene, that before 1995, if you were simply getting mental health counseling, you could be denied a security clearance. Our caller seems to suggest that, in a way, that is still in effect.

GREENEMy understanding is that they have gotten better about it and certainly reading decisions from the court that hears these cases, The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, there are a number of cases where they have people with fairly significant mental illnesses, bi-polar, for example, or depression. But if they are getting treated, they will talk to the doctor, for example. But the court does seem willing, in many cases, to approve clearances, but I certainly can understand the concern.

NNAMDIPam Stuart, what has been your experience with mental health counseling?

STUARTWell, it is very, very important to understand that the process has become much more sophisticated when it comes to mental health issues. And just as Jenna suggested, having an illness, a diagnosed illness, is no longer a complete barrier to gaining a clearance. What it simply does is raise an issue that, as she suggested, involves reviewing the type of issue involved.

STUARTIf it's simply a situational disorder brought on, say, by a stressful divorce or death of a family member or something like that, those are fairly easily dealt with. If it is a condition that is chronic, then the investigators will want to know and talk with the doctor to make sure that the applicant is being treated, has the appropriate medication and perhaps most important, is compliant in taking the medication regularly so that it becomes a means of deciding that that person is appropriate for a clearance.

NNAMDIThank you very much. On to the phones now again, here is Alexi in Washington, D.C. Alexi, your turn.

ALEXIHi, I would like to -- my clearance was suspended recently, quite abruptly, without any explanation. And I was told that I cannot know the reason why it was suspended until it's going to be revoked. So I know that that's the situation in -- been a specific case, when a person's clearance was revoked for seven years. So my first question is do I have a right to know why? Question number...

NNAMDIDo you have a right to know why it was suspended?

ALEXIWhy it was suspended.

NNAMDIBefore it is revoked?

ALEXIYes, before it is revoked, yeah, because, you know. The second is many people suggest me to hire a lawyer. They say only a lawyer can prevent me from further trouble. The other people tell me that no, a lawyer is going to make the situation much more complicated because it's going to generate a parallel paper trail, paper process, which is going to make my situation worse and besides, I'm going to antagonize the people who are working on my clearance. Could you, please, give me any suggestions?

NNAMDIThe first part of the question, Jenna Greene, do you have any idea whether there is any law or any rule that says that Alexi has to know why his clearance was suspended before it is and it would seem to be ultimately revoked?

GREENEI don't actually, but Pam probably does.

NNAMDIYeah, Pam, I was going to ask the second part of the question (unintelligible).

GREENEI can answer the second one better than the first.

NNAMDIIndeed.

STUARTThere...

NNAMDIWould a lawyer complicate -- well, then before Anna answers, will a lawyer complicate matters for Alexi?

GREENENo. I don't think a lawyer will complicate matters. You know, you're going to have pay a lawyer. But from what I saw reviewing the courts decisions, people who hire lawyers are more likely to be successful. That's not to say that lawyers don't still lose plenty of cases and sometimes people who represent themselves are sometimes successful. But all in all, your odds are going to be better hiring a lawyer. It's no guarantee. And overall, it's tough to -- it's tough to win one of these cases. Analyzing the courts decisions to date this year, the people were successful about 27 percent of the time. So it's not easy to get -- once a clearance has been taken away, it's not that easy to get it back.

NNAMDIHere now is Pam Stuart, the lawyer.

STUARTWell, it probably will not surprise you that I would recommend that you get a lawyer in this case. And I would certainly go to your security officer and ask for what's called a statement of reasons. You are entitled to a statement of reasons as to why the security office that is dealing with your case feels that it -- at this time, it is not clearly in the national interest for you to continue to hold your clearance.

STUARTA lawyer would be able to then analyze your situation in a confidential consultation and act as a buffer between you and the people who are trying to deny your clearance. It's really, I think, very important in your case to get a lawyer. And sometimes, if you work for a contractor, the contractor will pay for the legal services required.

NNAMDIAlexi, thank you very much for your call.

ALEXIThank you.

NNAMDIWe're going to take a short break. When we come back, we'll continue this conversation on security clearances, their approval and denial and the process involved. But you can still call us, 800-433-8850. Do you think the system for getting a security clearance is fair? 800-433-8850 or go to our website, kojoshow.org. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIWe're having a conversation about security clearances and how they are approved and denied. Inviting your calls at 800-433-8850. We're talking with Pam Stuart. She's an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. Jenna Greene is a senior reporter for The National Law Journal. On to John in Great Falls, Va. John, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

JOHNI am a one-person company. I am the owner. I would like to know if I can personally apply for security clearance. What is the process and how much is it going to cost me?

NNAMDIJenna, have any idea?

GREENEI'm not sure how it works if it's your own company. I mean, I know if you're an individual person, you can't apply for a security clearance. Your company has to do it for you. And my understanding is that they're not charged to get the process -- for the clearance. It's -- the government pays for the cost of the investigation. In your case, I'm not sure how it works if you're -- if it's your own company. Maybe, Pam knows.

NNAMDIPam?

STUARTWell, if you have your own company and you're applying to be a contractor, I believe that you can, through a contractor that will hire you as a sub-contractor, apply for a clearance. But I would consult with a company that is in the same field that you are to see whether or not you can strike up such an arrangement.

NNAMDIThank you very much for your call, John. Let's get back to the financial issues for a second here. Because when a client comes to you with a security clearance denial, Pam, for being in debt, how do you mitigate that before a court?

STUARTWell, actually, Kojo, what it comes to me as, is not quite a denial, but it is generally after the person has been issued, what I mentioned before, a statement of reasons, which indicates reasons why, based on the investigation, the government thinks that, at this time, it is not clearly in the national interest to grant that person a clearance. At that point, the applicant has the opportunity to notify the agency that is conducting the investigation, which for a contractor would be the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals or for some other agencies, it might be internal, say, at the CIA or the National Reconnaissance Organization and others, to notify the agency that you intend to take advantage of the appeal procedures.

STUARTAnd at that point, a lawyer would look at the reasons that are listed in the statement of reasons and interview the client and decide whether or not it is worthwhile to even pursue an appeal.

NNAMDIBefore we go any further, we've been talking a lot about cases brought by the employees of the defense -- defense contractors and those are heard before the DOHA. But what about federal civilian employees and members of the military, who hears their appeals when they're denied clearance?

STUARTWell, as I indicated, some agencies do their own clearance process. But some government employees also may go before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, typically military employees or those connected with the defense department. Others may have an investigation within their own agency. For example, sometimes an investigation by the inspector general of an agency may raise a clearance issue. And those investigations may be combined.

NNAMDIAnd if it's not the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals, it's my understanding that you go through the same process assembling evidence and building a defense, but sometimes you have an additional opportunity where that you can accept or decline to have a personal appearance.

STUARTYes. That's correct. And in my view, people should always accept that opportunity because it really is an opportunity to explain further why you ought to have a clearance. And for the agency officials who are going to be involved in the -- at least, first time -- first line of decision-making to, as I say, eyeball you and decide whether or not you're a truth-telling person.

NNAMDIDo most people now take that option?

STUARTA lot of people don't, but those are probably the ones who don't come to me for guidance.

NNAMDIThank you for you call, John. Here now is Ebin in Springfield, Va. Ebin, you're turn. Go ahead, please.

EBINHello, Kojo, can you hear me?

NNAMDIYes, I can.

EBINReal quickly, I have served the nation since June 19, 1975. In 1980, I got a top-secret clearance. In 2005, my ex-wife began a divorce proceeding. As part of that, she called a complaint with my agency, which is a non-military federal agency. There was a lengthy investigation. My security has come up for renewal and I was told that during the interview with the OPM investigator that I appeared to be evasive regarding issues with the divorce.

EBINNow, the largest issue with the renewal of my clearance is credit. I got stuck holding the bag for a mortgage, for joint credit cards, for my credit cards and it was literally more per month than I made. And until the time that I was thrown out of the house, my credit was impeccable for 25 years. What are my options? I've gotten a letter that says I've got some explaining to do and there's basically nothing more to say then, do the math.

EBINWhen you make this much money a month and your tax pay is twice that much, something's got to give. So your first need is shelter, food, parking, gas in your car to go to your job. I'm in a trick back here.

NNAMDIThat's the situation Ebin finds himself in right now, Pam Stuart.

STUARTWell, fortunately, Ebin, you have a record of exemplary service to the nation. So my guess is that your supervisors and employers are very anxious to assist you in this process. I would suggest that you get counsel and it -- that counsel will probably assemble the records involving your divorce, get you to a financial counselor and make arrangements so that it will be clear to the next level of review that you've taken steps to assure that you will be able to shoulder these unwanted and unexpected responsibilities in the responsible way that you have conducted yourself throughout your career.

NNAMDIWhat happens, Pam Stuart, when the shoe, so to speak, is on the other foot? We got this from Tom in Falls Church, Va. His wife has a secret clearance. She held it before they got married. He has high credit card and IRS debt. Can that prevent her getting future clearances?

STUARTIt can. And this is -- this is why within the intelligence community and those who hold clearances, you certainly want to investigate carefully before you fall in love. It's a real problem. I once represented somebody who married a Frenchman. And in his interview process, the investigator asked him whether he knew any communists. He said, of course. Well -- and that's because in France, everybody knows communists. Well, she lost her clearance because of that. It was terrible.

NNAMDIIn Europe where communist parties are very often still alive and well, we don’t have the same view of them in this country as they do in Europe. Thank you very much for your call. Speaking of which, we got this from somebody who sent it by e-mail and it's a kind of laundry list question, Jenna Greene. "Do any of these things affect the application process, dual citizenship or having parents or family overseas?"

GREENEOh, yeah. That's a big one. The -- for the most part, you're not going to get a clearance if you have -- if you hold two passports. To get a clearance, you'll need to surrender one of the pass -- well, surrender the non-American passport. They don't like dual citizenship. And having relatives overseas can also be a real problem, especially if you actually call them or see them or have contact with them. It seems it's a little easier if you're completely estranged from them. But if you have a lot of ties overseas, especially to countries like maybe Iran or Afghanistan or China, but even sometimes western Europe or countries that are allies, that can be a problem.

GREENEBecause they are concerned that you might have either a foreign preference or foreign influence and that they might be able to -- someone could -- I think, as one lawyer put it to me, you know, say, give us the goods or off with Mom's head. And so there -- they don't want a person who has access to top secret information that -- and top secret by definition would mean that disclosure would cause exceptionally grave danger to the United States. So if there is a risk of that, they're going to think twice about granting a clearance.

NNAMDIHaving a bachelors degree from Beirut, Lebanon and including the Arabic language on your resume as one of your languages -- as one of your languages, yes.

GREENEI would think they'd like the language part.

NNAMDII thought that would be more of an...

GREENEBut…

NNAMDI...asset than a deficit in that situation, right, Pam?

STUARTYes, it is. But, of course, they want to know the circumstances under which you became an Arabic speaker. And if I might follow up on the question to Jenna. They've gotten a little bit more lenient on the issue of having dual passports these days. If you have an exceptionally good reason and can make arrangements with your security officer to hold the foreign passport until such time as you really need it to travel and they've determined it's a really good reason, then sometimes a dual citizenship and dual passport applicant will not be denied a clearance. But that's a relatively recent development.

NNAMDIOn to Bill in Harpers Ferry, W.Va. Bill, you are on the air. Go ahead, please.

BILLYeah, I had a quick question and a comment. One was the -- I was curious how the candidates' engagement in social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, et cetera, would affect their application process. And the comment is -- or another question perhaps, is that it seems like there's been a huge politization (sp?) of what is being cleared and does that have an impact on the number of clearances that are required for things that maybe should not be in -- under the umbrella of clearance?

NNAMDIWhen you say a politization -- whatever that word is, the politicizing of the clearance process, exactly what do you mean?

BILLWell, it seems recently some of the documents that should be open to public discourse have been stamped clear -- clearance or top secret or secret when, in fact, they really did not have a -- did not present a grave danger to the U.S. simply were -- it was politically expedient to do so.

NNAMDII guess, the difference between documents that are classified and shouldn't be and the process for getting clearance is what our caller is making a relationship between. Is that relationship, Jenna Greene, obvious in the security clearance process at all?

GREENENot so much to me, except maybe just the general trend of requiring more clearances for employees and keeping more things confidential.

NNAMDIHow about social media? Have you covered any cases at all where social media were a factor in clearance or denial?

GREENENot where it's a specific factor. But I don't doubt that they would look at it. I mean, the OPM standard to grant a clearance is you need to be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct in character and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States. And when they're doing the investigations, much of it is done electronically. So I would imagine that social media would be one of the things that they might find if they are doing searches of you on the Internet or other kinds of investigation. And so comments you make on social media might be viewed, you know, through that prism.

NNAMDII'm pretty sure, Pam Stuart, that they do look at social media these days.

STUARTI am certain that they do, although I have not had a case involving this. But think about it. If you have merely an application form that's 10 pages long and you list six friends, but on your Facebook page you have 330, this is sort of like having a cornucopia of friends from which to chose for the investigator. And certainly they would be able to look and see who your friends are and if there's anybody with a foreign sounding name or an address. You can probably be sure they'll be questioned.

NNAMDIWhich brings me to this. And you can stay on the line for a second, Bill, because I’m going to get back to social media. But we got this e-mail from Beth in D.C. "What on Earth is a foreign sounding name? Sven, Heidi, Jorge, Chang, Beth, Kojo?"

STUARTWell, as I've said sometimes, you need to have come over on the Mayflower to definitely get a clearance these days. So if your name is something like Elliott or Miles Standish, you probably are in better shape than if you...

NNAMDIOh, Barack, maybe.

STUARTYeah.

GREENEYeah.

STUARTOr have a name, like, Barack Obama or have relatives that live in Kenya. Fortunately, he got to his top security clearance the difficult way. And probably...

NNAMDIEven though...

STUART...didn't even get investigated.

NNAMDI...even though there's still haters and doubters. But Beth in D.C. says, "I don't get that at all." And back to the issue of social media, Bill. Apparently, it is not everything that one does as a young person on a college campus that might be considered imprudent will result in a denial because Jenna Greene has found some interesting example of people -- examples of people who had, for instance, used drugs, but one was granted security clearance and one was denied. Could you tell us about those cases?

GREENESure. There are -- sometimes in reading through these decisions, you can find summaries that seem flatly contradictory. And in this case, two applicants who smoked pot over the last couple years, both kind of maybe a dozen times, and one also true hallucinogenic mushrooms. Well, the mushroom guy got a clearance and the other guy didn't. So the question is why? What's the difference?

GREENEWell, the mushroom guy was 23 years old. And when he smoked pot, he was, you know, 19, 20, 21. And there -- and he described it as a juvenile mistake. And there is some recognition on the part of judges that maybe you don't have great judgment when you're 19 or sometimes you do make bad decisions. And they are sometimes willing to forgive that. In this case, you know, he said he was very sorry and he would never do it again.

GREENEIn the case of the other person, he was 58 years old and he smoked pot with his children. And he explained it as sort of wanting to be in touch with them and, you know, he had reason why he thought it was appropriate.

NNAMDIAt another level.

GREENEYeah. But the judge really did not like that at all and said that basically he was old enough to know better and that he was in effect condoning his children's illegal drug use and he did not get the clearance.

NNAMDIThank you very much for your call, Bill. But Pam, tell us about one of the more interesting cases you've tackled before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals and how you built the defense in the case of a woman who apparently bought or appeared to have bought an apartment in Seoul, South Korea.

GREENEWell, that was a very heartwarming case for me because it ended up well. She was the daughter of a gentleman who was deceased, but he had been a officer in the Korean military. And fortunately for me, during the Korean War, he had worked with the American military and was awarded an honor at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. And it turned out, as I interviewed her more thoroughly, it was really the dream of her parents for her to come to the United States and to work.

STUARTAnd she had the opportunity in Seoul to work with a defense contractor. And when their project was up, they invited her to the United States, And she, being a very entrepreneurial sort of person, started up her own business, which included providing services to the State Department and she needed a top-secret clearance. Well, during the investigation, they discovered that her now widowed mother had put an apartment in Seoul in the name of her daughter who was seeking a clearance.

STUARTWell, it really is usually a no-no for you to own any property in a foreign nation to get a clearance. Well, I interviewed the mother and had her explain that in Korea, it is impossible -- nearly impossible to own two pieces of property legally. And so she put this second piece of property, which she viewed as a part of her wealth that she would give to her children, in the name of her daughter. And that, even though in theory the daughter was the owner, it was really the mother who was the owner.

STUARTAnd once I included the picture of the father getting his award at Fort Sill in the application package, or the appeal package, her clearance was granted and she continues to provide very important security services to the state department.

NNAMDIAnd you actually had to get her mother to testify?

STUARTYes. By way of affidavit that had to be translated by a certified translator here in the United States.

NNAMDIAnd that's sometimes how difficult the process is, but in this case, it ended up with that individual getting the clearance. We're going to take a short break. If you've called, stay on the line. We're discussing security clearances, how they are approved and denied. And taking your calls at 800-433-8850. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIWe're talking about security clearances, the denial and the process by which you may be able to get a security clearance if it has been initially denied. We're talking with Jenna Greene, senior reporter for the National Law Journal, and Pam Stuart, who is an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a formal federal prosecutor.

NNAMDIWe got this Facebook comment from Mark Zaid, a lawyer who works on these issues. "There is no formal appeal, right or due process attached to suspensions which are actually not viewed as adverse actions. Instead, the government views it as a temporary measure in order to allow further investigation for the particular agency to determine whether or not the clearance will be denied or revoked and a statement of reasons is issued.

NNAMDIUnfortunately, a clearance suspension oftentimes has the practical effect of a denial or revocation, particularly because of the length of time that it might take to resolve, months and even years, and the likelihood that a contractor will be terminated, in the interim, by their employer." Despite, however, that and the fact that this seems pretty dim hopes for those who are actually appealing their security clearance denials, Jenna Greene, you said only about 27 percent of people after get clearance after they appeal. How much access does the public have to Defense Office and Hearings and Appeals decisions?

GREENEThey publish them online, which, to me, is fascinating because, you know, for -- both as a journalist and also, I think, for the applicants, the security process can be kind of a black box. But this court, DOHA, publishes its opinions. And my understanding is also you can even go to the hearings, assuming the people involved agree to it. And so this is really kind of a rare window into the process. The only other agency that publishes decisions is the Department of Energy. Also for contractors, but it's a much smaller number of decisions.

NNAMDIPam Stuart, how useful are these public decisions for your practice?

STUARTI find them extremely useful because the guidelines that are used by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals apply essentially throughout the government. They might be called something different, but they're essentially the same guidelines. So if, for example, you're doing a case at the Central Intelligence Agency, you can refer to the cases decided by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals for some precedent or guidance as to how the CIA ought to decide a particular case.

NNAMDIOn to the telephones again, here is George is Manassas, Va. Hi, George.

GEORGEMy question was if you've let a security clearance drop, do you have to start the procedure entirely over again?

STUARTYes.

NNAMDIIn a word, George, yes. Here is Elise in Bramble Town, Va. Elise, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ELISEHi. I'm one of those sort of federal employees who is in clearance purgatory. I held a high security clearance for many years. As a result of an EEO action that involved some illegal behavior, retaliations went against my security clearance which ended with me having an administration -- an administrative denial of access to information, which led to me being put on leave, which then, despite my lawyers best efforts, led to me suddenly being put on leave without pay when my lawyer was called up to the reserves and sent overseas.

ELISEWhich then led to my former agency refusing to comply with the judge's decision that they had to pay me and do some other things. OPM interceding telling them that they had not complied and could not deny my clearance. I never had any actual revocation, but ended up sort of in this black abyss where nobody will answer any questions.

ELISEHad recently been tried to be hired again by people, because I have an interesting specialty, and in the process of this, my former agency retroactively canceled my health insurance, which led to some financial problems which have been straightened out or are being dealt with by another attorney. In the meantime, in this recent process, I was -- someone tried to hire me.

ELISEWe started again, did the 72-page application, got a DOHA thing to please answer the questions that I had already answered. Could I testify that what the investigator said six years ago was correct? Responded to them with an extension of time and then got like a denial because I had not responded and that they were not acknowledging that I had an extension. So at this point, it's been several years.

ELISEThis has gone back and forth. I no longer cry about it. The question is, would it behoove me to actually get an attorney or am I just, as they say, SOL and never going to be able to work in my profession again?

NNAMDIPam Stuart?

STUARTWell, I wish you had retained an attorney years ago...

NNAMDIIn the first place.

STUART...although it sounds like you did have an attorney, at some point. But in a case like this, I hate to say this, but there are some cases when the government, for some reason, just gets a bee in its bonnet and decides, sometimes for improper and discriminatory reasons, that they don't want you to have a clearance. They didn't like you when you were there and they don't want you back. Now, there are, of course, reasons that you can take them to court and you have to be very aggressive about it. It sounds like you have been given the runaround to the nth degree.

NNAMDIWhen you say you can take them to court, it's my understanding that security cases...

STUARTOh, I'm sorry.

NNAMDI...like the ones being discussed, cannot be heard in any other court besides these agency panels.

STUARTThat is correct. But the discrimination aspect of it...

NNAMDIOkay.

STUART...may be. But the problem with that is in the area of discrimination, the Supreme Court has watered it down and the time limits are so fierce that it's often difficult to bring these cases. But if they continue to retaliate against you for having filed a claim of discrimination, that starts the clock running again and you should pursue it.

NNAMDIElise's case is a good example, Jenna Greene. But what kind of havoc do these denials generally reap for those who have held a job for years and then suddenly can't pass their clearance?

GREENEI mean, it usually it means they're out of a job. In the case Elise mentioned, this is something -- wasn't a focus of my reporting, but some lawyers did mention concerns that the government might use revoking a security clearance as kind of an easier way to take HR action. That sometimes it might be simpler to yank a security clearance as opposed to trying to fire someone because of civil service protections. And there has been certainly some concern among lawyers that this is something that could happen.

NNAMDIElise, thank you for your call. We move onto Anne in Fairfax, Va. Anne, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ANNEYes. Hi. I had a question. My husband went through a security clearance process for his federal government job. And in the course of the interviews, he was told he had to give his parents' social security numbers and my parents' social security numbers, as well as my social security number. And I just wondered if that's routine and if there's any way -- you know, that seems, in this age of identity theft, to be a problem and a little bit of an invasion of privacy. But is that routine or is there any way he could have said no, is my question.

NNAMDIAny knowledge of that, Pam Stuart?

STUARTWell, I don't have specific knowledge of whether they ask this sort of thing, but I am not the least bit surprised. Because as I mentioned earlier, an investigation will include not only you, your immediate family, your friends, your friends' friends, anybody who might know anything about you, but certainly but if your parents are living, they will also look into whether or not any ties you might have to them raise any security concerns.

STUARTSo I'm not surprised that that question was asked and I would not be concerned providing that information to a government investigator whom you have satisfied yourself is an investigator hired by the government.

NNAMDISpeaking of satisfying yourself as to the investigator, we got this e-mail from someone who said, "I was applying for a clearance and they were asking for records from my psychologist. The psychologist refused to send records, saying that under Virginia law she couldn't until someone with a badge came and asked specific questions. Do you or your guests know what the rules are? The government decided to withdraw my application, at that point." Do you know what the rules in that case, Pam?

STUARTWell, I do know that mental health information is very, very carefully protected. Here in the District of Columbia, for example, a doctor cannot provide information without a release from the patient and there are certain procedures that must be gone through in order to protect that information. And I'm not familiar with the Virginia rules are, but I would not be surprised.

STUARTHowever, it seems to me that it was an erroneous decision to give up simply because a psychologist said, I require somebody appropriately credentialed to ask for this information. I would certainly inquire of your security officer whether or not that's the case and see if you can revive your application.

NNAMDIThanks for you call, Anne. Here is Roger is Alexandria, Va. Roger, your turn.

ROGERYeah, hi. I just want to let you know that I work for a government contractor. And when I applied for a top-secret clearance with the investigator, when we were talking, I had mentioned that I had a problem with depression. And I said, my co-workers know about it, my friends know about it, my family all know about it. And it almost became a non issue. She was only concerned if that knowledge could be used against me. And since it was out there, the clearance went through and there was no problem whatsoever. Unlike -- please, go ahead.

NNAMDIOh, no. I was going to ask Pam Stuart, as we are running out of time, on the one hand, there's the issue of whether that knowledge can be used against you. On the other hand, I guess there's a concern about how it would affect your performance.

STUARTWell, obviously, this gentleman has a circle of friends who know about it. He's probably undergoing medical treatment, such that he performs in a manner just like anybody else. Depression is an illness much like any other illness. And once you take the medication, it shouldn't affect your performance at all.

NNAMDIThank you very much for your call, Roger. And finally, we got this e-mail from Jeff in Arlington. "Where does the contracting boom fit into this mess? My roommate works for an IT consulting business. They've done work for government agencies, agencies that do a lot of secret work, therefore he's applied and been granted a clearance. He'd be the first person to tell you that as a 25-year-old still fresh out of college computer geek, he has no business doing top-secret anything.

NNAMDII assume as much for a lot of people who work for contractors and not for the government." Have you heard that before, Jenna Greene?

GREENEIt sounds a little bit alarming, actually. You know...

NNAMDIThey gave me a top-secret clearance, but they shouldn’t.

GREENEYeah. Like, I have no business knowing this stuff. You would -- I mean, I think that the investigators are supposed to look at -- well, they say the whole person and decide, basically, are they a safe bet or not. And this case...

NNAMDIThe investigator obviously had a higher opinion of him than he has of himself.

GREENEThan his roommate.

NNAMDIJenna Greene is a senior reporter for the National Law Journal. Jenna, thank you very much for joining us.

GREENEOh, thank you.

NNAMDIPam Stuart is an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. Pam Stuart, thank you for joining us.

STUARTYou're welcome.

NNAMDIAnd thank you all for listening. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.