Part II: Personal Appearance and Appeal

For more information on CIA SOR and requesting review, see Part I: Statement of Reasons and Response.

Examine Your Investigative File and Compile Your Defense

Your Investigative File will shape your defense and the evidence that would be most apt. In some cases, the best defense may be straightforward. As adjudicators review your collection of and response to evidence, they are watching how you deal with ‘facts’: are you empirical in your thinking, or are you emotional in the same? You cannot be both, and emotion does not sell well at Langley. If the Investigative File contains false facts, you need to go beyond a simple response to the Investigative File, and generate mitigating facts of your own.

If simple documentary proof clearly shows that the security concern alleged in your SOR did not occur, then simple documentary proof may be all that is required. The security concern does not need to be mitigated because the security concern is not founded in reality. Prove the reality, and the security concern goes away. That is the ideal situation.

More likely, the security concern is founded, but there may be mitigating factors the CIA did not take into account. For example: say the SOR raised concerns under Guideline F – Financial Considerations, citing your filing for bankruptcy in 2023. What they may not know is that you filed for bankruptcy following substantial medical debt, entered financial counseling to establish a sound plan, and have been making good on your financial obligations ever since. Such proactive steps to take ownership and resolve an issue can go a long way toward mitigating security concerns under Guideline F.

However, it matters when those mitigating circumstances unfolded. Office of Security reviews and appeals only consider information applicable to the time at which the security determination was made. Not since. Consider the above sports betting example. A responsible plan—made and followed through—might mitigate a Guideline F risk by demonstrating sound judgment and a positive trajectory. Seeking professional treatment for gambling addiction, entering financial counseling, and thereafter meeting all financial obligations: all of this speaks well to one’s self-control and reliability.

If the decision to deny security clearance was made on February 14, 2026, and you did not take these rehabilitative measures until March of 2026, those positive changes will not impact the review of this particular security decision. But it may serve you well with any future security determinations, whether from the CIA or elsewhere.

Personal Appearance (PA) or Virtual Personal Appearance (VPA)

The Personal Appearance is your first opportunity to address the security concern(s) outlined in your SOR. These are held at Chantilly, Virginia or online with Chantilly, the CIA’s back office. You are permitted to bring your attorney, but you must notify the Office of Security ahead of time.

A critical point to remember is that representation by an attorney is at the discretion of Langley, it is not a right. Security reviews are conducted under Article II of the federal Constitution (1789), not Article III. So, the due process protections associated with criminal proceedings do not attach to security reviews. Adjudicators are generally receptive to counsel for the applicant or holder, but the role of the attorney is very different than one sees on TV’s Matlock or Suits.

The timeframe varies, but it may well be a year or even two years before your PA date. Langley addresses matters on a first come, first serve basis. You cannot jump the line; if you are successful in jumping the line, you may have jumped into a declination.

Remember: they are reviewing your response, and how you respond. Your PA is best utilized as a vehicle for producing evidence. This review is driven by facts, not personal pleas for second chances.

A record of your appearance will be maintained in your security file. Take the extensive wait time to ensure the record reflects you in the best possible light.

Review of Initial Security Determination, or “Second Level Review”

For applicants (the process is a little different for Langley cadre), Security makes the decision, which is then subject to First Level Review. First Level Review includes the Personal Appearance, at which you have one last chance to file your written reply. After the Personal Appearance, staff complete a report, the report goes to a Senior Adjudicator you never meet, and the decision is sustained or reversed. An Office of Security official (other than the one who initially denied your security clearance) reviews the decision. If you forego the Personal Appearance, you also forego the opportunity to present any information above and beyond what was already relied upon for the initial security determination unless you supply a written reply.

As with the first decision, you will be notified of the result along with the underlying reasons. If denied, you will be advised of your right to seek a secondary review in the form of an appeal.

Appeals

The appeal is the second and final opportunity for CIA applicants to challenge an adverse security determination. Unlike the initial decision and first review, appeals are determined by a panel. For applicants, this panel includes the deputy head of whatever office originally sought to hire you, as well as the senior officials from the Recruitment and Retention Center and Personnel Security Group.

In some cases, the appeals panel may also be attended by others; they will not have voting authority, but do have relevant expertise. For example, a representative from the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, if relevant, may participate in that particular case.

Barring direct intervention from the Director of the CIA, there is no further level of review after the appeal. However, it is possible to reapply to the Agency after one year has passed from the first security decision. With the current timelines, it is highly likely that the time between that original decision and your appeal would span well beyond the requisite one year.

How long does appealing a CIA security determination take?

Plan to wait 12 to 14 months from the time you initiate the review to the scheduling of the Personal Appearance. Another 6 to 8 months may pass before you have a decision ending the First Level Appeal. And it can take another 12 months for the completion of Second Level Review. Or, it can all be over in 6 months. Everything depends on the needs of Langley.

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.”

What due process rights do CIA applicants have?

No one has a “right” to a security clearance. CIA applicants do not have an easily enforceable judicial private “right” to appeal, nor a “right” to the full and unredacted Investigative File. These “rights” that do exist are generated as administrative due process and stem from Executive Order 12968, CIA regulations (AR 7-7), and EO guidance (ICD 704 and 704.3). All of these are explicit about the fact that they grant “no procedural or substantive rights” and do not “create any right to administrative or judicial review.” This has been repeatedly held in courts. See: Moyar v. U.S. Dep’t of Def. (D.C. Cir. May 31, 2024); Hameem v. U.S. Dep’t of Def. (D.D.C. Jan. 22,2024), Baugh v. CIA (E.D. Mich. February 13, 2025).

If Langley fails to provide the rights it has extended, one could theoretically raise a due process issue as constituting harmful error in a U.S. District Court. Chances of prevailing are very slim, and the litigant needs to plan on $60k in resourcing just to get started.

Much of this process is within the discretion of the Agency. The CIA Director is within their authority to decide that, in any given case, appeal procedures are contrary to national security interests, and thus unavailable.

Is it worth it to appeal a CIA security clearance determination?

Yes. Even if one loses, one does not want bad facts sitting on the top of one’s security file, or summarized on multiple security databases throughout the Executive branch. In deciding whether or not to pursue an appeal, there are some key considerations to determine whether an appeal is worth it in your case. The sheer time it takes to move from initial notice of denial to a Personal Appearance is quite the barrier. However, it is worth considering pursuing appeal if you wish to keep your options open: either for reapplying to the CIA, or (more likely), another job requiring clearance from another, less stringent agency.

Applicants are eligible to reapply to the CIA after one year from the initial security decision. However, you cannot do so while your security decision is under review/appeal. That being said, you are able to cancel the review/appeal process at any point, thereby freeing yourself up to reapply. If you have been able to substantially mitigate the initial security concern(s) over the course of two years spent on the review process, it may be worth canceling the appeal. New information—including recent positive developments in your situation—would not be taken into account.

The most accurate assessment of costs and benefits to you would come from a frank discussion with legal counsel. A tested security clearance attorney can leverage their experience with the CIA to determine the most viable option given the particulars of your situation.

Does my attorney need to have a security clearance to represent me before the CIA Office of Security?

No. Outside attorneys are approved by Langley for LSAs, or Limited Security Agreements (LSAs) accompanied by Non-Disclosure Agreements (LSAs). Some attorneys are rejected. For CIA applicants and contractors, it is not generally required for their legal counsel to have a security clearance. Many have nothing classified to share because they have not yet had access. Additionally, the Investigative File you request will be issued in compliance with FOIA, and will not contain sensitive information.

The issue of attorney security clearance is more germane for CIA employees whose access to classified information has been revoked. They must not discuss anything classified with their attorney without their first obtaining an Agency security clearance, access approval, or security approval beforehand. This is one of many factors that distinguishes the review process for employees from that of applicants and contractors.

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.