§ 147.28 Introduction

Quick Answer: What This Section Does

§ 147.28 introduces the rules governing temporary access to classified information before a full investigation is complete.

It applies to:

• interim access decisions
• early-stage clearance eligibility
• individuals awaiting final adjudication

👉 In practice, this section answers an important question:

“How can someone be granted access to classified information before their investigation is finished?”

---

What This Means in Practice

Most applicants assume:

👉 no access is granted until the full clearance process is complete

That is not always the case.

In certain situations, individuals may receive temporary or interim access while their investigation is still ongoing.

This section establishes that:

• minimum investigative standards must still be met
• temporary access is not automatic
• risk must still be evaluated before granting access

Adjudicators are not asking:

👉 “Is this person fully cleared?”

They are asking:

👉 “Can this person be trusted enough—for now?”

That distinction matters.

---

How This Rule Is Actually Used

This section applies when:

• an investigation has started but is not complete
• an agency needs to grant access quickly
• the individual meets minimum screening thresholds

👉 It is the foundation for interim clearance decisions

These decisions are explained in more detail in how interim security clearances work and why some applicants are approved quickly while others are not.

---

Full Text of § 147.28

§ 147.28 Introduction

The following minimum investigative standards, implementing section 3.3 of Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, are established for all United States Government and military personnel, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, employees of contractors, licensees, certificate holders or grantees and their employees and other individuals who require access to classified information before the appropriate investigation can be completed and a final determination made.

---

Why This Matters for Your Case

This section reflects a key principle:

👉 access decisions can happen before full adjudication

Two applicants may apply at the same time:

• one receives interim access
• one does not

Because:

👉 interim decisions are based on early risk signals

This is why some applicants are delayed even at the beginning, as explained in what causes security clearance delays and why some cases do not receive interim approval.

---

Where Interim Access Decisions Go Wrong

Most problems arise when:

• issues are visible early in the record
• disclosures raise questions during initial review
• financial, criminal, or foreign concerns are present
• inconsistencies appear in the SF-86

From the applicant’s perspective:

👉 “I haven’t even been fully investigated yet”

From the system’s perspective:

👉 “There is already enough information to raise concern”

---

How This Section Connects to Interim Clearance Decisions

This provision directly underlies:

👉 interim clearance determinations

Interim access decisions are based on:

• initial review of your SF-86
• early database checks
• preliminary risk assessment

If concerns are identified early:

👉 interim access is often denied

To understand how these decisions are made, see what an interim clearance denial really means and what it signals about your case.

---

How This Section Fits Into the Clearance Process

This rule is part of the broader framework under the security clearance statutes and regulations governing investigation and adjudication.

It operates at the very beginning of the process described in the security clearance process from application through final decision.

It affects:

• early access decisions
• hiring timelines
• project assignments
• initial risk evaluation

---

How This Section Interacts With Other Rules

This section works alongside:

• investigation standards (§147.19 and Standard A/B/C)
• expansion rules (§147.21)
• adjudication standards

Together, these determine:

👉 whether access can be granted early
👉 how risk is assessed before full investigation

---

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 Interim Decisions Are Made

The most important question is not:

👉 “Will I get an interim clearance?”

It is:

👉 “What does my record show before the investigation is complete?”

---

The Record Controls the Case.