Should retired/replaced government officials retain their security clearances after leaving office?

2018-08-16T10:49:05-04:00

With the political uproar about outspoken opponents of the CiC, this question has been asked a lot lately. Without violating our oaths and responsibilities as servicemembers, what are your thoughts on this topic in general? Should anyone keep a clearance after they no longer have a "need to know"?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2018 10:56 AM

2018-08-16T10:56:32-04:00

I think there is a lot of misinformation about clearances. Once you leave a place where you have a "clearance" with, you no longer have access or a "need to know". You have been debriefed. If you are within your investigation scope, you maintain your eligibility and are able to regain access if such a need were to arise.

People who aren't actively using their clearances don't just walk around with a clearance maintaining access to classified information. Organizations need to sponsor people for clearances and take ownership of that clearance for them to have access to information and facilities.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Aug 16 at 2018 10:57 AM

2018-08-16T10:57:45-04:00

A "need to know" can be determined at the time, if a person is called upon for their experience/knowledge of certain issues. Why would we wish to throw away such?

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Aug 16 at 2018 11:02 AM

2018-08-16T11:02:44-04:00

In general yes, security clearances already have an expiration period if not renewed. Allowing officials to keep their security clearance until expiration allows government officials to confer with their predecessors or former officials when needed.

Obviously if there's a case where someone with a security clearance poses a genuine risk, then exceptions to this rule are appropriate but revoking clearance as a form of retribution is not acceptable.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2018 11:03 AM

2018-08-16T11:03:41-04:00

Yes. Clearance is based off eligibility.
No to access.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 16 at 2018 11:08 AM

2018-08-16T11:08:27-04:00

Of course not. When the job ends, their need to know ends. You can put the security clearance on hold, but cut off their access.

Response by LT Brad McInnis made Aug 16 at 2018 11:18 AM

2018-08-16T11:18:53-04:00

Once you no longer have the need to know, you no longer deserve a clearance. Remember it is a privilege necessitated by job requirements, not a right... Some people have forgotten that...

Response by PO1 Don Gulizia made Aug 16 at 2018 12:03 PM

2018-08-16T12:03:12-04:00

In the case of political appointees that misuse their position...no. Most, regular, retired clearance holders retain eligibilty until the scope of the clearance runs out.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2018 12:24 PM

2018-08-16T12:24:08-04:00

Why? Most of them do not return to government work requiring such a clearance. Those that do can get another clearance if and when their government job requires it.

Response by CPO Nate S. made Aug 16 at 2018 1:37 PM

2018-08-16T13:37:00-04:00

Given the responses of those foregoing commentators who are all right or provide valid points, the issue in fact is - "need to know". If, the "need to know" is seen as - "old buddy"-based, meaning "hey dude, you know my clearance is good, can you share........'ostensibly off the record'.... this or that."

If they, as a part of their civilian work, are on a "cleared list" to provide information and the sponsoring agency has determined they in fact passively or actively have a "need to know" in an on demand fashion, then the head of that agency's head should roll when it is determined that such access is or has a conflict with the oaths we all took "...to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic."

It seems simple, yet the past 44 Presidents and all who have taken the oath nearly 20 million living veterans and our current active duty/guard & reserve forces are held to uniformed standard. The President, like him or not, is exercising that portion of the sentence regarding "...preserving, protecting and defending..." as he sees it.

All this said, we have to be transparent. Having a security clearance is not a right it is a privileged granted by a government that believes you will exercise prudence in its use for the greater good and not for personal gain in any form! There is much more I'd like to say, about this regarding human nature, but I am afraid RP would blow up. So, the above is a place to continue to focus this discussion.

Yet, we have to honest and be smart enough to realize BS when we hear it from all sides. Having this discussion from a political point of view is pointless. It is about the Oath of Office and how committed we are to its proper execution at our respective levels. As my sister, a current DoD civilian, often says ... brother (sister), I am just saying.....!

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Aug 16 at 2018 2:52 PM

2018-08-16T14:52:52-04:00

I have had a clearance at every command I have ever been stationed at during my Naval Career, Including Boot Camp (Recruit Training) because some of the things I was exposed to were just Classified to keep out of the hands of those who did not have a "Need-to-Know." That is the basis of any clearance, do you have that need? If you do and you pass the required checks, the COMMAND then grants you the clearance while there. At the end of my tour, I was read out, literally, at any level above Confidential, and signed paperwork stating that I understood I no longer held that clearance.

Each Command after that then decided if I had the qualifications AND the need-to-know in order to do my job properly before granting a clearance at THAT Command! Just because I had had the proper background checks did not mean I had the Clearance.

I do understand employment in the public sector may be different, BUT I disagree with anyone holding any clearance if not in a position that requires it! Having a Top Secret or any other form of clearance is a special privilege, not a right. It should only be part of your position and not a heritage.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Aug 16 at 2018 3:16 PM

2018-08-16T15:16:45-04:00

Why if they no longer are authorized access, do they need it? The are out of the job and out-dated, If not working for someone where it is needed, then leave it at the gate.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2018 3:52 PM

2018-08-16T15:52:49-04:00

Information is power.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 16 at 2018 5:10 PM

2018-08-16T17:10:01-04:00

This is an easy yes. Everybody else has to. But this is a government issue. Troops get read off when they leave, but it seems flag officers don’t, elected officials don’t, and a certain level of being comfortable takes over. Maybe they should sit through mando training slides like the rest of us? How about getting screened by the investigators at Ft Meade instead of the FBI? Mine took 18 months due to my GF at the time. Imagine the SECDEF or comparible having to wait and lawd help them if they ‘forgot’ to announce who they dealt business with.

Response by Capt Dwayne Conyers made Aug 16 at 2018 5:24 PM

2018-08-16T17:24:37-04:00

There are TONS of consultants who serve the government in that role. Why take their ability to continue to contribute away?

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Aug 16 at 2018 5:34 PM

2018-08-16T17:34:30-04:00

It pretty much depends on weather there is a need to know or if the individual is actively performing official consultation work for the government at the governments request.
As it is you can have a clearance , but not have access to information until the government needs you to have it incidental to a project or mission.
I think the press has done a poor job in educating the public in as much as a clearance and access to classified information is a privilege extended to folks to work on behalf of and for the interest of national security, not a rite.
I listened to Professor Dershowits last night who is a renowned constitutional scholar botch this point and conflate clearances with the 1st amendment, as though it was a rite to poses a clearance. If you have to apply for something then it is not an inherent rite and is subject to denial or revocation.
In the end when the smoke clears and the next crisis draws eyes away from this. It will turn out that the security managers who advise the CoC acted appropriately and within their authority and the folks who have their clearances revoked, suspended or access levels reduced will have earned those consequences. Because believe it or not there are staff folks out there that actually know what they are doing.

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Aug 16 at 2018 6:07 PM

2018-08-16T18:07:32-04:00

No.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Aug 16 at 2018 9:42 PM

2018-08-16T21:42:29-04:00

Same rules should apply to political appointee that applied to me. Once you leave Govt service your clearance is canceled. The investigation remains valid and the clearance can be reinstated if you go to work for a cleared Govt contractor or for the Govt. BTW there’s the need to know issue. How do retired or separated senior politicians have need to know if they aren’t doing Govt work? Therein lies a possible crime

Response by PO3 Richard A Northcutt made Aug 20 at 2018 5:11 PM

2018-08-20T17:11:06-04:00

When you are discharged or no longer have the need to know then your clearance is revoked...
I had a secret clearance.... when I got my DD214 it was revoked because I no longer had a need to know...
The media is making a big deal out of this and it happens many times a day whenever someone is discharged

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Aug 20 at 2018 8:55 PM

2018-08-20T20:55:16-04:00

No. If an individual of the stature of a General Officer or appointed senior civilian is required for a specific reason, an interim clearance and access limited to the subject at hand can easily be arranged by the department in question.

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Aug 31 at 2018 9:50 AM

2018-08-31T09:50:17-04:00

Just my opinion. Having to ask this question is part of the Problem. NOT slamming 2LT Kyle Brooks. But if we need to ask the question then that in its self is the problem. If I need a T/S then the command will decide that, if I do not need the T/S then the command will down grade it. It is not punishment it is Need to know basis. Now that being said the unit, the command, and the civilian corporation, should be the ones to decide if it is needed and when it is no longer needed. It takes a lot of man hours to keep-up with clearances which cost money to keep security issues to a minimum. Politicians Who served in and area that they need a certain level clearance should have it. But when they no longer work in that area the clearance should be suspended just the same as it is for the Military or anyone else. Politicians Get a Government clearance and no longer work in that job Yet keep the clearance so access to information that does NOT Benefit the U.S. of America, These clearances allow those Politicians to get employed by corporations as advisers with a clearance that they do not need. If the Corporations Need that information they need to apply for it. Having people with access to information that they no longer need allows information to be leaked to people who do NOT HAVE A NEED TO KNOW, I see several laws being broken here. Pull the Clearances when they leave the Job if they start a new Job that requires a clearance it is easy to reinstate it. Other wise they don't need it. Let Corporations pay for a clearance and the maintaining of it if the Government decides they need the information this would provide stronger security of the U.S. information as a whole and at least minimize leaks if you don't have the information then you can not leak it. Hope this helps People understand, It was real hard to write this on a level where everyone might understand. Thanks for reading.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2018 5:06 PM

2018-09-01T17:06:42-04:00

As an almost retired Army Major with an active TS/SCI, I know my clearance with go “inactive” automatically at 24 month’s post-separation unless I actively continue to use it. Why does the Chancellor of the University of Texas need a security clearance?

Response by SFC Quinn Chastant made Sep 8 at 2018 10:52 AM

2018-09-08T10:52:26-04:00

I am a retiree, as I am not a Consultant, or Contractor working with DoD, or the Intelligence Communities, I currently have no need of a Security Clearance. However, I have what is called institutional knowledge. while some is dated and may be of questionable value, I have kept current with a few aspects available through public sources on what I've dealt and worked with. If need be I could be requested to return, by having a clearance on file, it makes various agencies background checks easier to perform. Once revoked the clearance is filed and secured in National Archives. If f am recalled or rehired in any capacity a new back ground check would need to be instigated by the agency. That could take some time to accomplish, and I can not be read in until then, regardless of level I hold. Ultimately is should be up to the controlling agency to determine if I have a need to retain a security clearance based upon it's needs, not my desires. As for the what I know aspects, if I am in violation of a Non-disclosure statement, or applicable Federal Law/Statute. Then I or anyone else for that matter should be prosecuted for those violations. As for revocation of Clearances by Executive Authority, it is not my position to comment upon, my basic opinion is that such actions should not be done purely for Political Expediencies.

Response by SGT Javier Silva made Sep 17 at 2018 4:59 PM

2018-09-17T16:59:37-04:00

I can't really choose from any of the choices you provided, here is why.

I am a former Asst. Security Manager within the Navy. This is how the security clearance process is supposed to go (it's a little long). Remember, the agency overall responsible for the security program is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. They set overall process AFTER the laws and executive orders are done. After which, each department set their policies to either meet or exceed that of the ODNI, EOs, and Laws.

After all that, here we go:

1. ANY position within ANY department of the federal government that may gain access to classified must apply for a security clearance using the SF-86 (paper) or the eSF-86 (eQIP).
2. Each person is investigated to meet certain criteria. You may see an agent, for an interview, from OPM, DoD, or DoE (these aren't the only ones). Each contact (friend, family, etc.) that you have listed will also see that same agent.
3. After the investigation, a person's background information is adjudicated by an adjudicator at one of the Central Adjudication Facilities (DoD CAF) A unfavorable adjudication will kick off other things too long to list. A favorable adjudication will all person to receive an eligibility at the level required for the position.
4. EVERY person who receives an eligibility that will access to classified material MUST sign a NDA/NDS at the time that access is granted. EVERY person that receives access should also be receiving a briefing (this is usually part of the in-processing to a new unit by the security manager). Remember that a security clearance access and eligibility can be suspended and/or revoked for ANY reason (including and most frequently a DUI/DWI).
5. EVERY person that leaves a unit MUST complete and out-process for classified material. This is when ACCESS to the material is revoked at the exiting location. If you are moving to a non-security position, your eligibility will remain active for two years. During these two years, a person may find another position that requires a clearance without having to re-apply for the clearance. After that time, a person must re-apply for a clearance.

Response by CPL Gary Syme made Sep 18 at 2018 11:05 AM

2018-09-18T11:05:50-04:00

If you are fired from a job do you get keep access to business networks or accounts. I don't think so. This is just more of the "elite class" trying to help one of their own to cash in on state secrets and it is very distasteful.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Sep 20 at 2018 12:24 PM

2018-09-20T12:24:41-04:00

Only so long as the agency needs their continued advice or they could possibly transition to another position that needs the clearance.
If their insight is no longer needed or they were fired / asked to resign then the clearance should be removed as part of their out processing.

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Sep 20 at 2018 3:57 PM

2018-09-20T15:57:06-04:00

I think everyone feels that they need their clearance during an appropriate transition period, where you may be called on to assist with a matter that you personally have knowledge about. But regardless ... you have to have a NEED to know. So what does a former member of the govt or military need with a clearance except to make money? If a contractor needs a clearance to work on secure pieces of gear, that's their mission to make it happen. These State Dept wonks have no business keeping their fingers in the pie.

Response by Cpl Douglas Loven made Sep 22 at 2018 5:59 AM

2018-09-22T05:59:53-04:00

Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Sep 25 at 2018 10:56 AM

2018-09-25T10:56:10-04:00

check the block! There are a lot of civilians who work for the government that do not have the "NEED TO KNOW" so why do they have security access or a current clearance? I think a veterans should be able to keep their clearance leave fir 10 years in case they are called back to service.

Response by PO2 Kevin Parker made Sep 30 at 2018 10:45 PM

2018-09-30T22:45:29-04:00

Ours were good for two years after we got out. If not used they go away. If used at a different job set, it just saves the company you are working for time and money. So I don't think it should be an indefinite time frame. It took me almost two years to find a job that required one.

Response by SSG Randall Ford made Oct 5 at 2018 8:58 PM

2018-10-05T20:58:36-04:00

Not unless needed for a new position with one that coincides with the new position no matter how low it goes. Why have a top notch super duper secret if al that is needed a confidential or none at alĺ. Look at how many from the Russian and American secrets that were traded due to an unnecessary clearence allowed.

Response by SrA John Monette made Oct 5 at 2018 9:22 PM

2018-10-05T21:22:17-04:00

unless they require it for a legitimate reason, no. of course, they still will not be able to speak of any classified information due to the possibility of prison and/or fines.

Response by SPC Juli Reid made Oct 8 at 2018 12:40 PM

2018-10-08T12:40:33-04:00

Without adequate protections in place, losing your clearance could be construed as for cause. A clearance can be a huge benefit to transitioning to another position somewhere else. This is a much more complex subject when you really think about it.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Oct 12 at 2018 10:46 AM

2018-10-12T10:46:24-04:00

I held a TS clearance for most of my 22 year military career. When I retired I no longer needed it. Why would I even consider needing it unless I went back to work for the Government and the job required it....(Never going to happen)

Response by GySgt Thomas Reichard made Oct 15 at 2018 3:35 AM

2018-10-15T03:35:42-04:00

You need to remember "Security Clearance" does not give you ACCESS to anything. A clearance, when granted is valid for 10 years. It doesn't mean you can see or touch anything though.

When you receive your clearance you then need to go through the process of being granted access. If you are in 1st Bn. you may or may not be able to look at documents re. to 2nd Bn. for example. When you transfer to another unit, part of the checkout process is going to security where you will have your access revoked. Upon reporting you do the opposite, this time maybe not being granted access to any material at all.

The Billet you fill will have a lot to do with it. I've held Top Secret clearance but gone to new units where I could only view Secret information.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Oct 15 at 2018 7:55 AM

2018-10-15T07:55:47-04:00

When I got out of Service in 1993 I transitioned directly to a position trucking military munitions overseas and USA for 10 years. Afterwards I also moved diretly into an 8 years position as a military instructor @ Fort Knox, Fort Benning and Overseas. Both requires clearances. I did get an automatic (can't do that now) interim while I was re-investigated.
I currently have let it lapse as of 2014, because I became an EMT in Louisville and currently now work @Larue County Jail as a Supervisor of a Road Crew - both which required a Kentucky 'Public Trust' investigation. The fact that I had a TS paved the way so I was cleared in 2 weeks. The request moved straight through the process and was returned pronto.
So there can be benefits, but you have to be debriefed and your clearance is suspended. I always had to update sign an new Official Secret Act form at each debriefing.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2018 7:37 PM

2018-10-15T19:37:09-04:00

Looking at defense industry technology jobs lately, my answer is yes, at least long enough to move into a job that requires an existing, active clearance. I only a Secret clearance, but looking at jobs, many of them require an active TS/SCI. Not eligible to get one. Not unlikely to steal silverware. Active TS/SCI. (Makes me wonder if perhaps the TS/SCI classification is being spray-painted all over the place without a whole lot of rhyme or reason to it.)

Response by SFC Dennis A. made Oct 17 at 2018 2:27 PM

2018-10-17T14:27:05-04:00

When they leave or retire their clearance should end, if they are called back for whatever reason they need to be re-vetted to see if the still qualify for a security clearance.

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 17 at 2018 2:37 PM

2018-10-17T14:37:02-04:00

Only for as long as the new administration believes it is useful to keep them in the loop.

Response by TSgt Francis Dane made Oct 21 at 2018 7:18 PM

2018-10-21T19:18:50-04:00

One consideration is that some individuals need to be consulted after leaving the position, and that consultation requires that the former employee has clearance to discuss the topic. It’s not the ex-employee’s need to know; it’s the new employee’s need to ask.

Response by SGT Gregory Tibbs made Oct 22 at 2018 8:32 PM

2018-10-22T20:32:13-04:00

These people earned their security clearance, broke no laws or did anything against natural security, so leave them alone.

Response by PO1 Tom Follis made Oct 23 at 2018 8:46 PM

2018-10-23T20:46:41-04:00

Back in the 80s I was assigned to a surface ship. A certain “job” on a submarine required a certain amount of attention that, at the time, I was the only one available. The job only took about a week and required a secret clearance. It took longer to get the clearance than to complete the job. Once the job was complete, my clearance was pulled. I was never so glad to be rid of it. Everyone I knew was doggin me out wanting to know what I was doing. That was minor stuff. A secret/top secret clearance is a pain that grows the longer you have it. I DO NOT believe it is necessary for one to retain a clearance any longer than needed.

Response by PO2 Vince Walsh made Oct 28 at 2018 11:16 AM

2018-10-28T11:16:38-04:00

If you vote for a Kremlin sponsored U.S. Presidential candidate and brag about it, if you attempt to frame/railroad a duly elected president, during and after the election, if you use or attempt to use said clearance for the purposes of self enrichment, (ie: a commentators job on say, CNN) then I would opine that you shouldn't have any more access to sensitive material than any other inmate at the federal penitentiary where you SHOULD be residing. The question alone would be ridiculous at any other time in history. My friends, when a major women's magazine names a 65 year old mentally ill MAN as "woman of the year" and anyone who questions such a thing is immediately branded a klansmen/Nazi, I have to say that the emperor truly has no clothes. I'm afraid if we don't get a handle on the absolute nonsense, lies and just general horseshit, that we may begin a process known as "circling the drain". (And it physically hurts me to say something like that)

Response by SFC David Pope, MBA made Nov 5 at 2018 8:30 PM

2018-11-05T20:30:13-05:00

When it comes to National Security Advisors the clearance level should be maintained. The reason is they are constantly being called in to help with situations that they were involved with prior to leaving their position. Also retired generals spend five years as military advisors and are constantly brought in for situations. I have seen both occur during my military career. Also many retirees work for the DoD because our retirement is crap!

Response by PO2 Louis Fattrusso made Nov 8 at 2018 2:15 AM

2018-11-08T02:15:58-05:00

If they need to be recalled or become a retired annuitant, the process of requalification is too long and costly.

Response by SFC Christopher Taggart made Nov 18 at 2018 4:28 PM

2018-11-18T16:28:17-05:00

nope

Response by Bill Husztek made Nov 20 at 2018 9:56 PM

2018-11-20T21:56:24-05:00

Consider a security clearance as if it were a .50 caliber sniper's rifle issued to a trained sniper. It would be just as logical to have the sniper take his gun with him when he is discharged on the off chance he may be called back in service.

Having clearance holders wandering around hawking their superior value to news and TV outlets on the basis of a level of access for a specific job as if it were a certificate of achievement or superior status. Security clearances for retired personnel, or a sniper's rifle are not achievement awards, they are tools. They are for the convenience of the organization and its mission. Not for the increase of the individual's wealth.

Their existence unnecessarily exacerbates the Nation's security risks.
To have them actually creates a security liability of surplus people not in the organization having an implied interest in their old job.

No, absolutely not! Any other arguments are non-sense.

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Nov 25 at 2018 9:20 AM

2018-11-25T09:20:30-05:00

Why?

Response by 1SG Clifford Barnes made Nov 25 at 2018 1:33 PM

2018-11-25T13:33:45-05:00

They do only the access is stopped. Your next position may not require the access. Your clearance only goes away if it expires and you don’t resubmit in a timely manner

Response by CMSgt Marcus Falleaf made Sep 4 at 2023 9:12 AM

2023-09-04T09:12:17-04:00

My clearance began in 1976 at NSA and my knowledge of NSA would probably still be relevant in some ways.