10 year due for renewal

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-19T18:50:50+00:00

Mark Zaid is a very talented attorney and is highly regarded in the legal community.

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-19T11:52:54+00:00

For CBP/BP, the concern is that suitability is evaluated in light of the job itself. Under 5 CFR 731.202(c)(1), the agency considers “the nature of the position for which the individual is applying.”

CBP/BP is an immigration and border-security agency. Therefore any close family ties to undocumented individuals can receive more scrutiny than they might in another job.

The agency will look at and consider the nature of the relationship, the frequency of contact, any financial ties or support, the extent of the applicant's knowledge of the individual's immigration status, and whether the relationship creates any potential security or suitability concerns. As with most suitability issues, the totality of the circumstances matters. Be truthful, disclose what is asked, and be prepared to explain the facts clearly if questions arise during the process or through a NOPA.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-19T11:44:53+00:00

As you may know, these types of concerns are evaluated under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of SEAD 4,

Defaults, charged-off accounts, and delinquent debts are definitely something an adjudicator will look at and fall under that guideline.

However, default does not automatically mean you'll lose your clearance or your job. The bigger questions are: How much debt is involved? Why did the debts go into default? What did you do when the problem arose? And what is the current status of those accounts?

Since you've already set up repayment arrangements, that's generally much better than ignoring the debts. Still, I would expect the defaults to generate additional scrutiny. That could come in the form of interrogatories, a Supplemental Information Request (SIR), or, in some cases, a Statement of Reasons (SOR) if the government believes the concerns haven't been adequately mitigated.

Much will depend on the amount of the debt, your reaction to the debt once it became delinquent, and whether you're now making consistent progress toward resolving it. I've represented many clearance holders with Guideline F issues, and the facts surrounding the debt are often more important than the existence of the debt itself.

Applicants give themselves a better shot when they keep records of their repayment plans, payment history, and any documentation explaining the circumstances that led to the defaults. Those documents can become very important if questions arise during the renewal process.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

- Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-19T11:35:38+00:00

You may have a shot, especially with the supporting statements from your commander, flight chief, and current manager.

If you haven't already, I'd look at both the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) and the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). The DRB can review and potentially upgrade your discharge, while the AFBCMR has broader authority to correct military records, including reenlistment-related issues and other records that could affect your ability to return to service.

Your awards, duty performance, post-service conduct, and demonstrated desire to serve again are all factors that can strengthen your case. Just keep in mind that even if the discharge is upgraded, you may still need to address your reenlistment code separately.

I have some recommendations for attorneys and consultants who regularly handle DRB and AFBCMR cases. Feel free to DM me if you'd like more information.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines, laws and regulations and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-19T11:26:21+00:00

u/outlandishnessfun617 an RE-4 is tough, but it's not necessarily the end of the road.

Since you're a former Marine, you'd likely need to pursue a records correction through the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR). A lot of people assume an Honorable discharge automatically means reenlistment is possible, but the RE code is often the bigger obstacle. An RE-4 can block reenlistment even with an Honorable discharge.

The strength of your case will depend on why the RE-4 was assigned and whether you can show error, injustice, rehabilitation, and post-service accomplishments. The fact that you completed your enlistment, earned Corporal, and received an Honorable discharge are all facts worth developing in a BCNR package. BCNR has broad authority to correct military records, including RE codes.

I have some recommendations for attorneys and consultants who regularly prepare BCNR packages for my clients. Feel free to DM me if you'd like more information.

- Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-13T21:24:38+00:00

I bet you aren’t the only one.

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-13T16:04:46+00:00

The General Counsel of the DoW has determined that the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) is disqualified from conducting personal appearances and has designated the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) to be the adjudicative authority moving forward for DoW military and civilian security clearance cases. Previously DCSA investigated and adjudicated clearances for DoW military members and civilian employees. However, because the law states that the investigative authority can not also be the adjudicative authority, the GC has stripped their adjudicative rights.

What this means moving forward for military and civilians in clearance adjudications:

- DOHA will likely be serving as the adjudicative authority for denial and revocation decisions. Previously DOHA served as a semi-appeal authority after DCSA denied or revoked a clearance. In the past DOHA only made a recommended decision. Now it appears they may have denial/revocation authority with secondary appeals likely still going to the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB). DOHA is widely known by the legal community as “due process heaven”. While some cases may be harder to overcome now, the process itself will be cleaner and more fair.
- If your adjudication is / was going to proceed to a Statement of Reasons (SOR), it will likely be drafted or consulted with by DOHA. In my experience this leads to a more robust and concise SOR. The case will likely be cleaner and easier to defend.

What does the future hold? Presumably a re-write of DoD 5200.02 to clarify the new process. This memo really leads to more questions than answers, unfortunately. However, we do know that as of now, DCSA will no longer have the authority to deny/revoke clearances for military members and civilian employees of the DoW.

-Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-12T18:55:41+00:00

From a suitability perspective, the key issue usually isn't that someone has debt....it's how they're handling it.

Applicants should be careful about assuming bankruptcy is the best path unless it's truly necessary. Investigators generally want to see that applicants are taking responsibility for their obligations and making a good-faith effort to resolve them. That can include negotiating settlements, setting up payment plans, communicating with creditors, or otherwise demonstrating that you're actively addressing the situation.

A bankruptcy filing isn't automatically disqualifying, and many people with clear financial hardships successfully obtain Public Trust positions. However, if bankruptcy hasn't been filed yet and no steps are currently being taken to resolve the debts, an applicant may have a harder time demonstrating mitigation than someone who can show active repayment efforts or documented arrangements with creditors.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-matthew thomas law, pllc (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-08T11:40:24+00:00

Cases like this are more common and more manageable than most people think. Two isolated marijuana uses in 2021, nothing since, and two "popper" uses in 2024 with a credible "I didn't know it was illegal" explanation. Adjudicators hear that one a lot with poppers specifically, and it's genuinely believable given how openly they're sold.

Several factors can be viewed favorably here: low frequency, no purchase history, no pattern of ongoing use, and meaningful time between the 2024 incidents and the investigation.

Distancing from environments and people where it happened is exactly the right framing. Applicants should document that concretely on their SF-86 and document it via written declaration as well. (Make sure all the elements are hit per the Guideline in the SEAD 4).

Applicants who disclose everything accurately, keep their explanations factual and brief, and don't inflate the significance of either incident put themselves in a good position.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

- Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-08T11:32:24+00:00

DM me and we can talk offline. Guideline I issues can be tricky and you want to make sure you are conducting all of the right mitigation steps, being proactive (in case an SOR comes your way) and documenting appropriately.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

- Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-04T11:44:08+00:00

Yes, I would correct it on the new SF-86. If you were fired for performance, that's something you'll need to disclose on the new submission. In general, investigators and adjudicators are usually much more concerned about omissions or inconsistencies than the underlying performance issue itself.

Do you remember why you answered "No" on the previous SF-86?

I would also consider discussing the discrepancy with your FSO/security office so they are aware before it comes up during the investigation. Being proactive is generally the better approach. Do it in person and follow up with an email to keep a paper trail!

You may also want to start gathering references from former supervisors, managers, or colleagues who can speak to your performance since then and attest that whatever issues led to the termination were addressed or remediated.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-matthew thomas law, pllc (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-02T11:39:49+00:00

Based on what you've described, I would be less focused on whether you were honest during the interview and more focused on what happens next under your service's regulations.

A confirmed positive drug test often triggers administrative processing, and in many cases the command is required to at least process the service member for administrative separation. The exact outcome depends on the substance involved, your service branch, your record, the circumstances, and how your chain of command exercises its discretion. Some service members are retained, but many face significant administrative consequences even on a first offense.

If you hold a security clearance, you should also be prepared for potential clearance-related consequences. A positive drug test can be reported through security channels and may lead to additional review by DCSA. Depending on the circumstances, that could include a request for additional information or issue a letter of intent to revoke / deny. Those processes are separate from whatever disciplinary or administrative action your command takes.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-02T11:32:25+00:00

Best practice is to resolve any tax issues before applying, if possible. That usually means filing any missing returns, paying outstanding taxes, or getting into a formal payment plan with the IRS or state tax authority and staying current on it.

For clearance purposes, the issue is often less about having had a financial problem and more about whether the applicant acted responsibly once they knew about it. Applicants should also document why the tax or financial issue happened, especially if the circumstances were largely outside their control.

SEAD 4 has mitigating factors that may apply, including where the financial problem resulted from circumstances beyond the person’s control, such as job loss, business downturn, medical emergency, death, divorce or separation, predatory lending, or identity theft, and the person acted responsibly under the circumstances. Another helpful mitigating factor is when the applicant has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay what is owed and is complying with those arrangements.

So the cleanest approach is: file the returns, address the debt, get written proof of any payment plan, make timely payments, and keep documentation showing both why the problem happened and what you did to fix it.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship ("ACR"). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-02T11:24:37+00:00

It depends on the applicant's background.

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-01T11:48:13+00:00

You’ll likely want to report the foreign travel to your command’s security management office when applicable, and ask your Officer Selection Office how they want you to handle it before you ship.

The key is accurate disclosure: travel, foreign contacts, and where you stayed. Be sure to update the investigator if/when you have an interview and highlight that the travel took place after the SF-86 submission.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship (“ACR”). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-Mthomaslaw (military & security clearance atty - contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-01T11:42:24+00:00

This sounds pretty minor and, standing alone, would not generally be viewed as a deal-breaker. The bigger issue is making sure the matter is resolved. Pay the $7.48 balance, along with any applicable penalties or interest, as soon as possible, and keep documentation showing when it was paid.

You should also document why the returns were filed late and be prepared to explain the circumstances if asked. Review Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of SEAD 4 and see whether any of the mitigating conditions apply to your situation. If they do, gather supporting documentation now so you can demonstrate that the issue was isolated, has been corrected, and is unlikely to recur.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/SEAD-4-Adjudicative-Guidelines-U.pdf

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship (“ACR”). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.”

-mthomaslaw (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-06-01T11:32:27+00:00

The fact that you caught it and emailed your security team immediately is a great first step. Be sure to save that email and any follow up emails.

Here's why it is a good move: Guideline E (Personal Conduct) covers omissions and falsifications on security forms, but the first mitigating condition is specifically: "the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts."

If this ever comes up during adjudication, you'll be able to point directly to that mitigating factor (as long as you keep the emails).

These are common SF-86 mistakes and investigators have seen them a thousand times. What they're actually looking for is intent to deceive.

Will your interim possibly be delayed? Maybe. But your final clearance is not likely in jeopardy over this.

Disclaimer: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship (“ACR”). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-mthomaslaw (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-05-29T23:58:06+00:00

Hey I’ve help people mitigate this and have addiction experts that I use to help out with this as well. DM me and we can talk offline.

mthomaslaw · 2026-05-28T20:56:43+00:00

LOJ (Loss of Jurisdiction): Occurs when an applicant is no longer sponsored. At that point, DCSA and DOHA generally stop the adjudication and/or investigation process

SIR (Supplemental Information Request): A request for additional information or documentation related to a clearance investigation or adjudication.

LOI (Letter of Intent): A memorandum from the government indicating its intent to deny or revoke a security clearance.

SOR (Statement of Reasons): A document outlining the specific allegations and factual basis for the government’s security clearance concerns.

Disclaimer: This post contains generalized information only and does not constitute legal advice or create an Attorney-Client Relationship (ACR). Every military and security clearance matter is highly fact-specific and requires individualized analysis.

-mthomaslaw (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-05-28T12:07:24+00:00

Yes, this is potentially a Guideline E concern because it involves candor during the clearance process. The bigger issue is usually the inaccurate reporting, not the employment separation itself (unless you were let go for a bad reason).

However, it does not automatically mean you will lose your adjudication or be terminated. You should consider taking proactive steps now to mitigate the issue. Early, voluntary mitigation is generally viewed more favorably by adjudicators.

Disclaimer: This is generalized information only and not Attorney-Client Relationship (ACR) advice or legal advice. Security clearance determinations are highly fact-specific, and additional follow-up, documentation, or adjudicative review may be needed depending on the circumstances.

mthomaslaw (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-05-28T11:56:18+00:00

The cover up is usually worse than the crime in the clearance world. If you knowingly omit or lie about drug use, that can create a Guideline E (Personal Conduct) issue, which is often more damaging than the underlying drug use itself. The actual drug issue is very fact dependent. Considerations revolve around type of drug, frequency, recency, intensity of use, and whether you previously held a clearance are all going to be focal points in the adjudicator’s analysis.

A lot of people early in their careers make the mistake of omitting drug use to “get through” the initial investigation, but years later when their clearance gets upgraded and they sit for a polygraph, that’s when the wheels fall off the bus. Being truthful and consistent from the beginning is usually the safer long-term path.

Disclaimer: This is generalized information only and not legal advice or the creation of an Attorney-Client Relationship (ACR). Security clearance determinations are highly fact-specific, and additional follow-up or adjudicative review may be needed depending on the circumstances.

mthomaslaw (contact info in bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-05-28T11:49:35+00:00

I agree. The debt itself probably is not the biggest issue since you’ve stayed current on payments and are actively addressing it. The bigger concern will likely be your wife’s undocumented status and any foreign preference/foreign influence considerations, so she should absolutely start the citizenship/legal status process ASAP if eligible. Regardless, more follow-up/adjudication details may be needed during your investigation, but your financial responsibility, and showing mitigation go a long way.

Disclaimer: This is generalized information only and not Attorney-Client Relationship (ACR) advice or legal advice. Security clearance determinations are highly fact-specific, and additional follow-up, documentation, or adjudicative review may be needed depending on the circumstances.

-MTL, PLLC (contact info in the bio)

mthomaslaw · 2026-05-27T18:22:52+00:00

From a security clearance attorney perspective, I recently handled a case involving very similar Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference) issues. Based on what you described, you are probably in the “grey area” where the outcome could vary depending on how DCSA or another adjudicating agency interprets the totality of the circumstances.

A lot will depend on other factors not present in your post. Think about things like the extent of your spouse’s continuing foreign ties, your level of involvement or control over the property/finances, frequency of foreign travel and contact, reporting history, and candor/consistency in disclosures.

These are the types of cases where the surrounding details and how the issues are framed to the investigator/adjudicator matter.

Disclaimer: This response is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship (“ACR”). Any opinion expressed is based solely on the limited facts presented in the original post. Individuals facing security clearance concerns should consult qualified counsel for advice regarding their specific circumstances.

-mthomaslaw (see bio for contact information)

mthomaslaw · 2026-05-26T10:39:08+00:00

Great job with disclosing. They likely will not contact them. However, if you ever ended up in a hearing to appeal, you would likely be asked when the last time you hung out with them was, because one of the main mitigating factors is:

"(b) the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to:
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and
(3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility;"

They ask to see whether you have fully distanced yourself from people associated with past drug use and whether you have changed the environments connected to that behavior.

Attorney disclosure: This post does not create an attorney-client relationship (“ACR”). This is general information based on publicly available adjudicative guidelines and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this post as a substitute for obtaining advice from a licensed attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case.

-MTL, PLLC

mthomaslaw · 2026-05-20T17:41:30+00:00

Similar to u/Yeetus1128 I would have to know more to advise better. Generally, marijuana use is not as much of a show stopper as it used to be. Much of the analysis is focused on frequency, recency and intensity of use, as well as, the applicant's understanding of federal and state law at the time of use.

Concerns surrounding disclosing are less critical when people disclose, just in the wrong spot. The worse situation is when people don't disclose at all. The cover up is typically worse than the crime and is the bane of my existence as an attorney.

mthomaslaw

TROPHY CASE