Report cites delays in clearance appeals process at State

The State Department's process for handling appeals from employees whose security clearances have been withdrawn can be unnecessarily lengthy, inspectors found in a recent report.

The inspector general's report, which contained several redacted passages, said the department's panel hearing appeals "does not have a specified time in which to meet" when someone's clearance is taken away, which "may further delay the process" for people whose jobs and pensions hinge on their ability to regain clearances.

The appeals panel convenes only after the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security decides to revoke a clearance. The report also said, "The appeals panel is causing a delay in the revocation process due to the temporary absence of one or more panel members." Panel members typically include the department's assistant secretary for administration or its director general; when these individuals are unavailable, they are to delegate their tasks to subordinates.

The IG called upon the department's administrators to "convene an appeals panel and render a decision within a reasonable time, such as 45 calendar days" after getting notice of an employee's desire to challenge a revocation.

A source with the Concerned Foreign Service Officers, a small group of State workers who oppose what they call the "misuse" of the security clearance process, said the report came after several CFSO members contacted lawmakers and the department's inspector general. But some of their concerns went ignored in the report, the source said.

The report stated that CFSO members alleged that the department suspended security clearances for reasons other than risks to national security, and did so arbitrarily. Decisions to revoke clearances and appeals were influenced by "bias, prejudice and ignorance," and the department referred cases to other agencies unnecessarily, group members claimed.

But the inspector general found little evidence to support these charges. The report concluded that, in every closed case, clearances were rescinded for national security reasons. There was no evidence of bias or prejudice, and the department "administered the revocation process equitably," the report said. Appeals panel decisions "were based upon specified investigative and adjudicative guidelines," the IG stated.

The CFSO source said by focusing on closed cases, the inspectors failed to fully investigate the allegations, including those of four workers who claimed misuse of the process but whose cases remain open.

"The system is broken," the source said. "Cases are dragging on for years and years."

The report said that "the shortest processing time was one and a half months, and the longest was 59 months."

It also included several informal recommendations. State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security should better organize case files, the IG said, and the department's investigators should have an improved file-sharing system to expedite cases.

The State Department's press office referred questions to the inspector general's press office, which did not respond to requests for comment.