§ 147.33 Additional requirements by agencies.

Quick Answer: What This Section Does

§ 147.33 explains that while minimum investigative standards apply across the federal government, individual agencies may impose additional requirements based on the sensitivity of the information involved.

It governs:

• agency-specific clearance requirements
• additional screening standards
• differences between agencies
• limits on how far agencies can go

👉 In practice, this section answers a critical question:

“Why do security clearance requirements vary depending on the agency?”

---

What This Means in Practice

Most applicants assume:

👉 all security clearances follow the same rules

That is not entirely true.

While baseline standards exist, this section allows agencies to:

• impose stricter requirements
• apply additional scrutiny
• tailor standards to mission-specific risks

Adjudicators are not asking:

👉 “Does this person meet the minimum standard?”

They are asking:

👉 “Does this person meet our agency’s specific risk threshold?”

That distinction matters.

Because:

👉 not all clearance decisions are equal across agencies

---

How This Rule Is Actually Used

This provision allows agencies to:

• require additional investigative steps
• apply stricter adjudicative standards
• evaluate risks unique to their mission

However:

👉 agencies cannot exceed the overall framework established under federal standards

This creates a system where:

• minimum standards are consistent
• but application varies

This variation is explained in why two identical security clearance cases can result in different outcomes depending on how adjudicators evaluate risk.

---

Full Text of § 147.33

Temporary eligibility for access must satisfy these minimum investigative standards, but agency heads may establish additional requirements based on the sensitivity of the particular, identified categories of classified information necessary to perform the lawful and authorized functions that are the basis for granting temporary eligibility for access. However, no additional requirements shall exceed the common standards for background investigations developed under section 3.2(b) of Executive Order 12968. Temporary eligibility for access is valid only at the agency granting it and at other agencies who expressly agree to accept it and acknowledge understanding of its investigative basis. It is further subject to limitations specified in sections 2.4(d) and 3.3 of Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information.

---

Why This Matters for Your Case

This section reflects a critical principle:

👉 clearance decisions are consistent in structure—but flexible in application

Two individuals with identical records may:

• be approved by one agency
• face delays or denial at another

Because:

👉 each agency evaluates risk differently

This is especially important when transferring or applying across agencies, as explained in how security clearance portability works and why your clearance may not transfer seamlessly.

---

Where Applicants Misunderstand This Rule

Most issues arise when applicants assume:

• a clearance from one agency guarantees approval elsewhere
• standards are identical across the government
• prior approval eliminates future risk

From the applicant’s perspective:

👉 “I already have a clearance”

From the system’s perspective:

👉 “We are applying our agency’s standards”

---

How This Section Connects to Temporary Eligibility

This rule directly affects:

👉 interim or temporary access decisions

Temporary eligibility granted by one agency:

• may not automatically transfer
• may be limited in scope
• may require additional review

This is explained further in how interim security clearances work and why temporary access decisions vary across agencies.

---

How This Section Fits Into the Clearance Process

This provision operates within the broader framework of the security clearance statutes and regulations governing investigations and adjudication.

It affects:

• agency-specific clearance decisions
• program-level access
• Special Access Programs (SAPs)
• inter-agency transfers

Those decisions are still evaluated under the security clearance adjudication process and how risk is assessed across federal systems.

---

How This Section Interacts With Other Rules

This section works alongside:

• investigation standards (Standard A, B, and C)
• transferability rules (§147.22)
• temporary eligibility rules (§147.29–147.32)

Together, these determine:

👉 how consistent standards are applied
👉 where agency discretion begins

Return to the full statute list in the Security Clearance Statutes and Regulations resource page, or explore how these rules are applied in practice in the Security Clearance Lawyers Resource Center.

---

Why Insight Into the System Matters

Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.

They are made by:

• adjudicators
• administrative judges
• agency decision-makers
• reviewers who rely on the written record

Understanding how these individuals evaluate risk, credibility, and mitigation is not theoretical—it is structural.

At National Security Law Firm, our security clearance lawyers include attorneys who have worked:

• as administrative judges and adjudicators responsible for deciding clearance cases
• inside federal agencies evaluating whether individuals should be approved or denied
• within military legal systems handling sensitive national security matters
• in roles directly applying the adjudicative guidelines to real-world cases

Our cases are not handled by a single attorney working in isolation.

They are reviewed through our internal Attorney Review Board, where multiple experienced attorneys analyze the record, test arguments, and refine strategy before submission.

This mirrors how the government evaluates cases—through layered review and institutional scrutiny.

Clients often come to us after receiving advice that focuses only on:

• legal arguments
• explanations of past conduct

But security clearance cases are not decided that way.

They are decided based on:

👉 how the record will be read, reused, and defended by decision-makers

That is the difference between a response that explains—and a record that supports approval.

You can read what clients say about their experience working with our team in our 4.9-star Google reviews, which reflect both outcomes and the level of strategic guidance we provide throughout the process.

---

Speak With a Security Clearance Lawyer Before Agency Differences Impact Your Case

The most important question is not:

👉 “Do I meet the minimum standard?”

It is:

👉 “How will this agency evaluate my record?”

---

The Record Controls the Case.