ACTIVE DUTY AND DoD CIVILIAN PERSONNEL CASES
These cases involve the denial or revocation of a security clearance to active duty and DoD civilian employees as well as adjudication of Special Access Program determinations. Procedurally these cases are controlled by DoD Regulation 5200.2-R (the “regulation”). These cases begin with a Letter of Denial or Letter of Intent to Deny/Revoke (LOD) the security clearance. The letter must be responded to within 10 days of receipt. Typically, the clearance is revoked and the case will then be set for an appearance before an Administrative Judge from the DoD Department of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Because the clearance has been revoked, the employee is considered to be an “appellant,” who is appealing the decision to revoke the clearance. The appearance will be held at the military facility or other local government office close to where the appellant works. The government is represented only by the Administrative Judge. There is no “prosecutor.” The appellant is not allowed to call witnesses. The appellant may provide written statements or other documentary evidence. The appellant may also make a statement or respond to questions of appellant’s counsel. The Administrative Judge will prepare a recommendation and forward it along with the record of the case to the service’s Personnel Security Appeal Board (PSAB) of the Central Adjudication Facility (CAF). The PSAB will either accept or reject the recommendation of the Administrative Judge. These appearances, due to the limited nature of the evidence presented, require that the appellant’s case be prepared well in advance and with great attention to the documentary evidence to be presented.
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
THE LISTING OF SPECIFIC OR CUMULATIVE CASE RESULTS IN THIS WEBPAGE IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR REVIEW. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT ACTUAL CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THE CASE RESULTS PROVIDED DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS LAW FIRM.
Legal Disclaimer
The Law Firm of Greg D McCormack, PC, trading as McCormack and McCormack, is registered as a Professional Corporation in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The information
provided in the web site is offered for informational purposes only. It is not offered as and does not constitute legal advice. The Law
Firm of McCormack and McCormack does not seek to represent you based upon your visit or review of this web site alone. The web site may
be considered advertising under the rules of the Commonwealth of Virginia. You should not make legal hiring decisions based upon
brochures, advertising, or other promotional materials. Click HERE to read our Privacy Statement and Legal Disclaimer.
GUIDELINE B DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
DOD federal civilian employee was given a Statement of Reasons to deny eligibility for access to classified information and/or occupancy of a sensitive position, under Guideline B (Foreign Influence – allegations of maintaining regular contact with family members of a foreign country) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference – allegations of dual citizenship with use of a foreign passport). Upon a determination to deny eligibility, the employee requested a personal appearance before an Administrative Judge for a recommendation to the agency. The Law Office of McCormack & McCormack represented the employee at the personal appearance. Result: Successfully presented sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concerns. Applicant met the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable access/clearance recommendation. Case decided for the employee by the agency concerned – access/clearance granted.
GUIDELINE H DENIAL - CLEARANCE RETAINED
Air Force, GS-09: Issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement), as a result of three allegations of drug addiction/dependence and treatment. McCormack & McCormack assisted the federal employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
GUIDELINES G, H and J DENIAL - CLEARANCE RESTORED
Retired USAF E-9, working as a civil servant with a long history of alcohol abuse, received a Statement of Reasons notifying him that the government intended to revoke his clearance based on his past substantial alcohol abuse as well as numerous alcohol related convictions - Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), H (Drug Use) and J (Criminal Conduct). McCormack & McCormack was retained and upon review of his records, it was noted that while the client had stopped drinking, he had not taken any action to enter a recovery program to assist him in remaining abstinent. After discussing the case with the client, he voluntarily entered a year long recovery program of his choosing and began working the program to the best of his ability. Upon completion of the initial phase, a written response was submitted to the statement of Reasons outlining his personal efforts to stop drinking as well as his efforts to remain abstinent. The AFCAF determined that we had mitigated all concerns listed and his clearance was restored without further appeal action.
GUIDELINE F DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Army/Federal Employee received a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke eligibility for a security clearance and sensitive compartmented information access under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), for five allegations of delinquent debts. The Law Office of McCormack and McCormack assisted the employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – clearance and access granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
GUIDELINES D, E, F and J DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Army/O-3 issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to deny a security clearance due to five allegations under Financial Considerations (Guideline F); four allegations under Criminal Conduct and Sexual Behavior (Guidelines D and J); and one allegation (failure to disclosure information) under Personal Conduct (Guideline E). The Law Office of McCormack and McCormack assisted the officer with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – CLEARANCE GRANTED by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
GUIDELINES B and F DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Navy/O-6 issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), for six allegations of questionable/significant U.S. currency transactions from various banking institutions; and ten allegations of foreign travel, foreign contacts, and foreign investment. Attorney Greg McCormack assisted the naval officer with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – CLEARANCE GRANTED by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
GUIDELINES B, E and J DENIAL - CLEARANCE RESTORED
Navy E-7 issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for allegations of inappropriate use of government equipment, failure to obey regulations and undisclosed contact with a foreign national. With The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack representation a written response was submitted to the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility (DoNCAF) with supporting documentation. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - CLEARANCE RESTORED with caution by the DoNCAF without a personal appearance.
GUIDELINES E, H and J DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for allegations of illegal use of marijuana. With The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack representation at the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals (DOHA) Personal Appearance we were able to show unknowing ingestion and no criminal conduct on the employees part, employee received a favorable recommendation from the Administrative Judge. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - CLEARANCE GRANTED by the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) with caution.
GUIDELINES D and E DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Army E-8, issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), for allegations of engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate member. The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack assisted member with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
GUIDELINE B DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for theft of government property allegations. The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack assisted employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – clearance granted by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
GUIDELINE E, F and J DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Navy E-6 issued a letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) for allegations of past misconduct and failure to pay his just debts and failure to disclose the debts on his application. With The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack representation at the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Personal Appearance, military member received a favorable recommendation from the Administrative Judge. Result: all concerns successfully mitigated - CLEARANCE GRANTED by the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB), member's previously withheld advancement was restored, and member was promoted to E-7.
GUIDELINES E and F DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), for allegations of financial delinquencies. The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack assisted employee with the preparation and submission of a response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns – CLEARANCE GRANTED by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
GUIDELINES D E and J DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline D (Sexual Behavior), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for allegations of indecent exposure (3 counts). With The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack representation at the Defense Office of Hearings & Appeals (DOHA) Personal Appearance, employee received a favorable recommendation from the Administrative Judge. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - CLEARANCE GRANTED by the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB).
GUIDELINES E, H and J DENIAL - CLEARANCE GRANTED
Department of Defense (DOD) federal employee issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to revoke security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline H (Drug Involvement), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), for an allegation of a positive random urinalysis test (marijuana). The Law Firm of McCormack and McCormack assisted employee with the preparation and submission of response to the LOI. Result: successfully mitigated all concerns - CLEARANCE GRANTED by the respective Central Adjudication Facility (CAF).
THE LISTING OF SPECIFIC OR CUMULATIVE CASE RESULTS IN THIS WEBPAGE IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR REVIEW. YOU NEED TO BE AWARE THAT ACTUAL CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THE CASE RESULTS PROVIDED DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY CASE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS LAW FIRM.