§ 147.2 Adjudicative Process Explained: How Security Clearance Decisions Are Actually Made

Quick Answer: What This Section Does

§ 147.2 defines how security clearance decisions are made.

It explains that adjudicators evaluate the “whole person” by weighing multiple factors over time—not by applying a strict rule or checklist.

👉 In practice, this means clearance decisions are based on judgment, consistency, and whether your record can be approved without doubt—not just whether a specific issue exists.

---

What This Means in Practice

Most people read this section as if it creates a formula:

• consider these factors

• apply these guidelines

• reach a decision

But this section does not create a formula.

👉 It creates a framework for judgment.

It tells adjudicators to:

• look at your entire life over a meaningful period

• consider both positive and negative information

• evaluate patterns—not isolated events

• decide whether approval is clearly consistent with national security

That last part is critical.

Because under this standard:

👉 any unresolved doubt is resolved against the applicant

This is why clearance decisions often feel unpredictable from the outside—but are highly consistent from inside the system.

To understand how this framework fits into the broader system, see the

→ Security Clearance Insiders Resource Hub

---

Full Text of § 147.2

§ 147.2 Adjudicative process

(a) The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. In evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors:

The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;

The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;

The frequency and recency of the conduct;

The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;

The voluntariness of participation;

The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes;

The motivation for the conduct;

The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress;

The likelihood of continuation of recurrence.

(b) Each case must be judged on its own merits, and final determination remains the responsibility of the specific department or agency. Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security.

(c) The ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of eligibility for a security clearance is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be an overall common sense determination based upon careful consideration of the following, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person, as explained further below:

Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States.

Guideline B: Foreign influence.

Guideline C: Foreign preference.

Guideline D: Sexual behavior.

Guideline E: Personal conduct.

Guideline F: Financial considerations.

Guideline G: Alcohol consumption.

Guideline H: Drug involvement.

Guideline I: Emotional, mental, and personality disorders.

Guideline J: Criminal conduct.

Guideline K: Security violations.

Guideline L: Outside activities.

Guideline M: Misuse of Information Technology Systems.

(d) Although adverse information concerning a single criterion may not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or emotionally unstable behavior. Notwithstanding, the whole person concept, pursuit of further investigations may be terminated by an appropriate adjudicative agency in the face of reliable, significant, disqualifying, adverse information.

(e) When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the person:

Voluntarily reported the information;

Was truthful and complete in responding to questions;

Sought assistance and followed professional guidance, where appropriate;

Resolved or appears likely to favorably resolve the security concern;

Has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and employment;

Should have his or her access temporarily suspended pending final adjudication of the information.

(f) If after evaluating information of security concern, the adjudicator decides that the information is not serious enough to warrant a recommendation of disapproval or revocation of the security clearance, it may be appropriate to recommend approval with a warning that future incidents of a similar nature may result in revocation of access.

---

How This Section Fits Into the Clearance Process

This section governs:

👉 how your case is evaluated—not what the outcome must be

It works together with the

→ Adjudicative Guidelines

and is applied after the investigation has built your record.

That means:

• investigators create the file

• adjudicators interpret it under § 147.2

The quality and consistency of that record determine how this section is applied to you.

For a full process breakdown, see the

→ security clearance process guide

---

Why This Matters for Your Case

This section explains something many applicants miss:

👉 clearance decisions are not based on individual factors—they are based on how everything fits together

The “whole person concept” means:

• one issue rarely decides a case

• patterns matter more than isolated events

• consistency matters more than explanation

Even more important:

👉 if the record creates doubt, the decision goes against you

That is the standard this section enforces.

---

Related Statutes and Guidance

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.

---

What Actually Wins Clearance Cases

Most people read these rules looking for a clear answer.

They assume:

👉 “If I meet the standard, I should be approved.”

That’s not how this system works.

These regulations don’t decide your case.

👉 They’re used to justify the decision after it’s made.

What actually drives the outcome is:

• how your record is written
• how risk is framed under the guideline
• whether the file supports approval

That’s why two people with similar facts can get different results.

👉 The difference isn’t the rule—it’s how the case is built under it.

If you want to understand how to actually win a clearance case, including how to structure mitigation and avoid credibility issues, read our guide on how to win a security clearance case using proven mitigation and record-control strategies.

---

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 Your Case Is Evaluated Under This Standard

The most important question is not:

👉 “Do I meet these factors?”

It is:

👉 “How will my record be interpreted when all of these factors are applied together?”

We offer free, confidential consultations to help you:

• understand how your case will be evaluated

• identify potential risks in your record

• take control of how your case is documented

→ schedule a free consultation

---

The Record Controls the Case.