Part I: Statement of Reasons and Response

For the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as with most federal agencies, the talent acquisition process slows to a crawl at the vendor and personnel vetting stage. Unlike many agencies, however, the CIA is authorized to conduct background investigations for itself, as opposed to relying upon the DCSA.

The CIA’s specific vulnerability to foreign threats distinguishes its personnel security review processes from agencies similarly at risk, but whose “crown jewels” are not as valuable. Some CIA practices will resonate with veterans of the classified workspace nonetheless. For those seeking employment with the CIA, it is critical to familiarize yourself with the heightened security expectations of the Agency. And you need to be accepting of the wait; you are not the center of their concern, even as you are being hired. Your ability to be exploited against them is their central concern.

CIA, Office of Security

CIA personnel security matters—including security clearances, investigations, and adjudications—fall under the purview of the Office of Security (OS). Some of these functions occur out of Langley; others require a visit to the back office down the road in Chantilly. For CIA applicants who require a security clearance for employment, it will be the OS facilitating the process: from background check to appeal. There are two general offices working security vetting; the processes are generally the same with some minor variations.

When applying to the CIA, or when defending your clearance as CIA cadre, one of the most important facts to remember is that CIA is not just the average Federal agency. Employment by Langley is so competitive, the slightest defect in your profile can be fatal.

The review and appeals process is similar for both CIA applicants and industrial contractors. For CIA employees, review is a different beast. This article focuses primarily on applicants. But the appeals process for applicants and industrial contractors is largely identical, at least from the applicant’s perspective.

When working with CIA, it is best not to reference the CIA. If you are an applicant (and not employed cadre), you can acknowledge the relationship in the security review process because the clearance has already been declined. You are no longer a candidate for hire at that point. If you are cadre, all the usual rules supporting anonymization and non-attribution are still in play. As will be detailed in a future Procedural Points, cadre security matters are routed through the Special Activities Staff and the review embedded within the Personnel Evaluation Board (PEB) structure. For applicants, your return correspondence will come either from Stacy Dolan, Senior Appeals Analyst Office of Security, Appeals Staff, or Connor S. Knowles, Senior Adjudication Officer at a company based in Great Falls, Virginia otherwise known as “Knowles and Hoffman.”

CIA Appeals: Overview of the Process for Applicants

The initial security determination for applicants, favorable or unfavorable, comes from an Office of Security (OS) officer. Once the review is complete, if the decision is against you, you are denied the clearance from the outset. The process is unlike the Defense Department, where a clearance may not be denied or revoked until the latter stages of the adjudication.

CIA applicants who are denied access to classified information will have two opportunities to challenge the OS’s adverse determination. First, applicants may Request a Review (this is often called “First Level Review”). Second, if the first review is unsuccessful, applicants may further request an Appeal of Review (this is often called “Second Level Review”).

Notification of Security Determination and SOR

In the event your security clearance is denied, you will be notified in writing with a Statement of Reasons (SOR). The SOR provides both the reasons underlying the adverse security determination as well as the “rights” of the applicant. These are not judicially enforceable private rights, like the right of a criminal defendant to know the evidence used against them. Practically speaking, “rights” in this context are better thought of as “options,” as discussed in more detail below.

Remember, your clearance adjudication will occur under Article 2 of the federal Constitution (1789), which organizes the Executive Branch. It does not occur under Article 3, which is the source of the judicial rights with which many are familiar. It is perhaps better to understand a security clearance as governed by the concept of ‘privilege’ rather than ‘right.’

Your SOR will advise you of your right to:

1. Respond in writing to Request a Review of the security decision;
2. Retain an attorney to represent you (at your own expense);
3. Request your Investigative File (IF), including those documents and reports the CIA used to arrive at the decision to deny/revoke your security clearance; and,
4. Request a Personal Appearance (PA) or Virtual Personal Appearance (VPA).

Be mindful of any deadlines provided. Should you opt to request a review, you must do so in writing within the given timeframe: e.g., ten (10) days from date of receipt. At this point, you are not yet defending yourself. You are only informing the CIA of your intent to do so. No vast filing is needed by the 10-Day deadline; you are simply notifying the agency you want to request a review. You cannot email the request. You cannot fax the request. It must go by tracked mail.

For your defense, you will require your security records and Investigative File (IF). Request your records and IF when responding to your SOR to request review.

It is wise to coordinate with a security clearance attorney when pursuing a review. You must inform the CIA in writing if you do hire an attorney. This need not be done with your initial response. If you choose national security counsel experienced with the Langley docket, counsel will notify Security of representation through your power of attorney. Once you do retain counsel and inform the CIA, the CIA will maintain a direct line of communication with your attorney.

Reasons CIA Applicants are Denied Security Clearance

The CIA denies applicants access to classified information on much the same basis as other agencies: the Adjudicative Guidelines. Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4) outlines the adjudicative guidelines used in determining eligibility for access to classified information. These thirteen (13) guidelines are the code by which the cleared or clearable workforce lives their lives; break the deal, spin the wheel.

Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) requires a higher level of scrutiny, as laid out in Intelligence Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 704: Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information. For the most part, however, ICPG 704 is not as practically useful for applicants as SEAD 4 when seeking review of a security determination.

Any adjudicative guidelines that informed the CIA’s decision to deny your security clearance should be noted in the SOR, along with a brief explanation of the underlying reasoning. For example:

Example of a Security Clearance Denial Letter from the CIA

STATEMENT OF REASONS

                                                                                                17 March 2026

                                                                                                Office of Security, Appeals

Dear Applicant,          

The U.S. Government has disapproved your request for access to classified information on 14 February 2026. Individuals who are granted access to classified information must adhere to strict security standards as outlined in the enclosed document. Any doubts as to whether an individual should be granted access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.

The security clearance determination was based on Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Personal Conduct, Financial Considerations, and Use of Information Technology.

In your application, you reported that between 2022 and 2023, you unlawfully placed wagers on Syracuse Orange basketball games in Syracuse, NY. You claimed not to have been aware of the prohibition against betting on New York state college athletics; you further claimed not to have gambled since graduating college (May 2023). In your interview, you then disclosed that you currently hold accounts with two sportsbooks: DraftKings and Fanatics.

After further questioning, you admitted to accessing additional sportsbooks, ESPN Bet and FanDuel, by using an account in your brother’s name. You explained that you viewed participation in sports betting as central to the culture of the information technology workplace and therefore integral to career advancement. Additionally, you claimed your brother was both aware of and consented to the continued use of his accounts. Our investigations revealed evidence to the contrary, including repeated encouragement from your brother to seek professional evaluation and treatment for a suspected gambling addiction.

Please note that the U.S. Government recognizes the importance of mental health and encourages proactive management of addiction and other mental health conditions in a manner conducive to wellness and recovery. Seeking treatment is viewed positively and may serve to mitigate security concerns in future.

To request a review of this security clearance determination, see the attached guidance.

Note how the SOR lists specific adjudicative guidelines (again, found in SEAD 4) underlying the security concerns. In this case, Guideline E – Personal Conduct, Guideline F – Financial Considerations, and Guideline M – Use of Information Technology.

Understand the Structure of the Decision Made against You:

If there are false facts, you need to correct them. But even as you correct false facts, you need to argue, to the alternative, that you have mitigated using the criteria in SEAD-4 for the Guidelines cited. If you stray from the structure, you risk being tagged as ‘deflecting’ to avoid accountability.

Remember: throughout this process, they are not only reviewing your response, but also how you respond. You are informing their profile of you, as a security citizen, through your actions in responding to their critique of, yes, your previous actions. The experience is existential in the extreme; if it makes you uncomfortable, this may be a signal Langley is not for you, at this time.

Responding to a CIA SOR: Requesting Review and Investigative File (IF)

Respond in writing within the given timeframe, following the attached instructions to the letter. Your 10-Day deadline is for simply giving notice of the appeal; you may then submit your written reply at any point up to, and including, the day of the Personal Appearance. Remember: unlike a criminal defense, it is the challenged applicant or holder who bears the burden of proving they are not a security concern.

Your response to a CIA SOR should:

State your request for review

Make clear your intent to request review of the security determination. You do not need to present counterevidence in your request for review. Your initial response to the SOR is not your defense; it is your request for the opportunity to present a defense.

State your request for your Investigative File (IF):

Even if you do not plan to pursue employment with the CIA, it is still prudent to learn what you can about the basis for their security determination. You need not pursue review to request your IF.

Be aware, however, that you do not have a “right” to see any and all evidence used to arrive at this determination. It is up to the Agency’s discretion whether sharing any part of your IF suits national security interests. The scope of information provided will be in line with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act.

State your Request for a Personal Appearance (PA) or Virtual PA (VPA)

Make clear your request for a personal appearance: the PA is when you will provide any additional information or countervailing evidence. You may not have a complete idea for the shape of your defense until after reviewing your file.

What are the Advantages/Disadvantages of a Personal Appearance vs. Virtual Personal Appearance?

The virtual option was slow to arrive at Langley; DHS actually led the security community in developing this option. There are differing opinions as to whether an in-person Personal Appearance is superior to a Virtual Personal Appearance. The applicant or holder should choose the option that makes them most comfortable, but they should choose one or the other.

Other considerations may include:

Cost

The CIA will not imburse you for travel and hotel costs, attorney fees, or any other expenses incurred through the review process: whatever the outcome. Bear that in mind when planning your personal appearance or deciding on legal representation. An attorney located in or near Washington D.C. may be advantageous, for instance.

Demonstration of Commitment

The Personal Appearance can almost be pro forma, a ‘capstone’ to your written reply, but it shows commitment to Langley’s process, and that is your primary goal. You want to show the CIA you can be a member of their team; this is not an EEO complaint, vindicating your rights. It is a security review to successfully win a privilege.

Dan Meyer, Esq. is a Partner at Tully Rinckey PLLC’s Washington, D.C. office and has dedicated more than 25 years of service to the field of Federal Employment and National Security law as both a practicing attorney and federal investigator and senior executive. He is a lead in advocating for service members, Federal civilian employees, and contractors as they fight to retain their credentialing, suitability and security clearances.

Tully Rinckey attorneys understand that issues involving security clearances can be challenging, and they will handle your matter with the attention and tact it deserves. If you have additional questions, our team of dedicated security clearance attorneys is available to assist you today. Please call 8885294543, or schedule a consultation online.

All representations are solely those of Mr. Meyer, and are not to be attributed to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.