How do I politely refuse to keep the government's secrets?

April 7, 2009 7:28 PM

How do I excuse myself from applying for secret clearance without having my boss think less of me?

My boss would like me to apply for a security clearance to help improve the chances of our company winning additional Department of Defense contracts. Most of my other co-workers claim that the process is easy and I have nothing to worry about. Currently, my work does not require a security clearance and I would prefer to keep it that way. After looking at the rationale of various adjudicators for denying clearance I am fairly confident that I would be denied a secret clearance. Also I do not wish to involve my partner or my friends in the application process, as I feel it would be both a hassle and a very large invasion of their personal privacy. I have made my reservations about applying for clearance very clear, but my boss continues to push me to do it.

• How do I tell my boss to politely stop bothering me without giving away the reason I believe I would be denied secret clearance?
• How do I handle the situation such that it doesn’t look like I have some nasty skeleton in my closet?
• What are the ramifications for not applying for clearance? Can I be fired? Can I be fired for being denied a secret clearance even if my current work does not require one?

posted by anonymous to work & money (25 answers total)

I don't know those answers, but if you want to know what information you'll have to provide, you can get a copy of the application form and see. Click on SF 86.

I'm doing mine right now (for 10-year renewal), and it seems to me more of a pain in the ass gathering all that information than an actual invasion of privacy. I've been investigated before, and I've been questioned in someone else's investigation. The references, they don't care so much about those people, per se; it's what those people say about you that matters.
posted by ctmf at 7:42 PM on April 7, 2009 [1 favorite]

Tell your boss that you're still trying to get yourself off an inaccurate listing with Homeland Security?

I am. It causes a lot of hassle, and I've been trying for several years to get it corrected. There's no way I could get a security clearance in the USA, and I'd have a lot of trouble getting one here at home, too.

Or, you could apply and be denied. The reason isn't given, as i recall, and you could use the Homeland Security excuse then.

.... just a thought.
posted by reflecked at 7:45 PM on April 7, 2009

As to whether you can be fired for refusing or for being denied, it might be specified in your employment contract or in your employer's HR policies, but employment is usually at-will, meaning that you can be fired for any or no reason, as long as it doesn't violate a protected right. (age, disability, sex, various protections against retaliation, etc).
posted by Pax at 7:49 PM on April 7, 2009

Oh, and if the reason you think you'll be denied a clearance is something you also had to cover up or lie about when you applied for your current job, obviously the "Can I be fired" answer is yes.

As to whether or not you could be fired for refusing to apply, I'd say probably not, but that you could be laid off, your position eliminated, and one just like it except requiring a Secret clearance created. You'd need to see an employment law person to see about that for sure.
posted by ctmf at 7:49 PM on April 7, 2009

The secret clearance really isn't all that big of a deal, invasion of privacy of your friends-wise. I think it involves filling out a form agreeing that you are who you say you are, and that you haven't engaged in treason lately. (From my memory of filling them out for others seeking such clearance.)

My understanding is that disqualifications are usually centered around whether you are at risk of being "compromised" rather than past behavior. Maybe you got thrown in jail at some protest a few years ago, that's one thing. A whole 'nother is if you are in a lot of debt, or have a history of same, and various bad guys could use that as leverage against you to get you to reveal information for them in exchange for relieving some of your debt.
posted by gjc at 8:15 PM on April 7, 2009

Have you ever thought about getting dual citizenship? I know that's a reason why some people hesitate. Good luck!
posted by veryhappyheidi at 8:22 PM on April 7, 2009

gjc: it's not a huge deal in terms of an invasion of privacy for your friends and references, but it can still be a "big deal" for them. I've had an investigator ask to meet with me personally as a reference. The questions were never particularly troublesome, but certainly went beyond "haven't seen any treason." I'm happy to do it for friends and don't mind the questions, but the meeting (as opposed to a phone call) was a bit much. All told, however, I doubt your friends would mind much at all, they want to help you.
posted by zachlipton at 8:41 PM on April 7, 2009

If your refusal to do this could be construed as costing your employer money then I would definitely fire you if I were your boss.
posted by BobbyDigital at 9:09 PM on April 7, 2009

The questions were never particularly troublesome, but certainly went beyond "haven't seen any treason."

Ah, mine was even more fun that that! The guy they got to interview me (this was in college, for a State Dept. internship abroad) actually asked me if I was sleeping with ALL of my housemates. (I was the only girl in the house).

Half-tempted to answer "yes, it's on the chore roster on the fridge, Jeff is Monday, Ryan is Tuesday..." but didn't, alas.

An ex-housemate of mine was within earshot at the coffeeshop where the interview was conducted and he nearly choked to death when he overheard the question. Being an ex-Army guy, he knew from intelligence stuff, and after restraining some pretty violent laughter, called me later on to say "umm...wow...did he really say what I thought he said?"
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:17 PM on April 7, 2009 [2 favorites]

Even if you aren't immediately fired for not procuring a security clearance, you might find that there's less and less work for employees that aren't either in process for a clearance or have one already.

If you've already conceded that you're going to get rejected for a clearance, then it already looks like you have a skeleton in your closet. There's nothing wrong with that. But you should probably avoid employers that do a lot of clearance work.

As for getting your boss off your back, I don't think it looks good.

Think of it this way, training is cheaper and easier than getting a clearance. But people with clearances are in demand, so he's offered to sponsor your clearance application. If someone comes along with a clearance - or who is likely to get one - that person doesn't even have to be able to do your job, as long as they're willing to undergo training. That person never has to do your job as competently as you. That's because the contracts for clearance work are lucrative enough that the clearance is more valuable than the competence of the person holding the clearance.

Sorry.
posted by clearlynuts at 9:45 PM on April 7, 2009

As to whether or not you could be fired for refusing to apply, I'd say probably not

In most states this is flat wrong. I would be shocked if you couldn't be fired for refusing to apply for a security clearance.

On top of the fact that most employers can fire most employees for most anything they want, you're talking about directly impacting the company's bottom line: fewer DoD contracts = less money.

But I want to emphasize that the money thing isn't the real reason. The real reason you can probably be fired for that is because anti-discrimination laws are set up as exceptions to the general rule that you can fire anyone for anything any time you want.

There is no exception I've heard of anywhere for "refusing to get a security clearance."
posted by toomuchpete at 10:13 PM on April 7, 2009

I am not your lawyer, but assuming you are an at-will employee, it's hard to imagine how your employer would not be free to fire you for failing to seek a security clearance.

I can also echo what others have said about the clearance process. A friend of mine seeking a federal judicial clerkship named me as a reference - all I got was one short (less than 10 minute) phone call from the person conducting the background check. I did not find the phone call or the questions invasive (they were mostly along the lines of, when did you last see so-and-so, how often do you see so-and-so, etc.).
posted by DavidNYC at 10:27 PM on April 7, 2009

A credit check or a job application is larger invasion of privacy than most government security checks.

Your boss isn't doing this for fun or to be a dick or to invade your privacy or whatever because it's a hassle for him and the company. He's asking you to do this because they need the work to stay in business. Staying in business is more important than your job.

If you don't get the clearance then you can't do the work. It's as simple as that.

If you were my employee and you refused to apply, regardless of how nicely you put it or what reason you gave... Keep your resume current. I'm not going to waste any time promoting you and when layoffs come, you're at the top of the list. And that's if I like you. When we get the contract that requires clearance and there's no other job to transfer you to then you're fired. You think we'll keep you around because of your paranoid principals? And we're going to gossip. To you it might feel like a righteous 5th amendment thing, but to us you look like the guy who runs away when the cop he asks you to take a breathalyzer.

If you applied and didn't get clearance I'd feel much better about you. At least you're a team player and we all know the government is a bunch of screwups, so it's probably nothing I need to worry about. I'm not going home and telling my wife that you've got Osama in your basement. If we got the government contract I'd take some time to try to find a job for you at the company that didn't require the clearance. I might even be willing to spring for some job retraining and if we had to let you go I'd give you a positive recommendation.

So to answer your questions:
1) You don't if you wish to remain at the company.
2) You don't without looking like a nut. (Maybe play the religion card? Ugh.)
3) You can be let go because there might well be no more work that you can do at the company. Companies change and evolve. Especially now.
posted by Ookseer at 12:49 AM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

As someone with a completely spotless record, but who would also not want to piss in a cup for a job because I find that to be humiliating and a profound breech of my personal space, I have to say that Ookseer has a great comment. I don't have to like it, but those are some facts.

The use of "partner" has me thinking that you have a same-sex SO? If you tell your boss that, and it's still a problem, is that maybe a whole different kettle of worms where you live?

Since you don't give a hint of why you might not pass (drugs, criminal history, heredity, sexual preference? ... even what country or state you're in), it's difficult to say how you should handle this.
posted by lilywing13 at 1:34 AM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Given what you've laid out so far, the answer to "How do I do this without my boss thinking less of me?" is You don't.

First off, security clearances aren't at all intrusive to your family or friends. They'll be asked how they know you and whether you're trustworthy. The last time I was listed on someone's clearance, I did the interview over the phone while standing in a Wendy's parking lot. Unless your references include a wanted felon, they'll be fine. The government simply does not have the time to track down every possible gap in your credibility.

Second, it will look to your boss like you're not even trying to help the company out. Imagine if one of your employees refused to take a college course because it's too hard and he was certain he'd fail. You say you've made your reasons clear, but your boss wants you to try anyway. If I'm your boss, I'm thinking at this point that A) you think I'm a big idiot, or B) there's something else you're not telling me that will disqualify you and cause me to want to fire you.

Which problem do you want your boss to have to deal with -- A) an employee who has no security clearance, or B) an employee who has no security clearance and won't follow a perfectly reasonable direction even after being assured that it won't come back to bite that employee?
posted by Etrigan at 1:59 AM on April 8, 2009

Nth-ing what others have said. A secret-level background investigation is just not all that intrusive, and especially not to your family/friends. Yes, it's a PITA to fill out the SF86, and you feel like you're inconveniencing your character references, but the questions will be about things like alcohol use, drug use, financial probity and other such things. Got debt in the past? Cop to it. Non-current, casual drug use? Cop to it. Recovering alcoholic? Queer? All okay, so long as you're currently up to date, legal, dry and out. It's the "What sorts of things might someone use as leverage to get OP to spill classified info?" questions they're really asking.

I think you should consider seriously applying for the clearance. Worst case scenario: it's denied, and you're back where you are now, only instead of refusing to do as your boss has requested, you've done it, albeit with less than optimal results.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 4:20 AM on April 8, 2009

Your interest may actually be inverted. Refusing to apply for clearance seems almost cut and dried cause for termination. However, if you apply, and are denied clearance, terminating you becomes a stickier problem. Some (many?) causes for denial of clearance are actually kinds of behavior / characteristics which are protected by the courts in one way or another -- and depending upon how risk averse is your HR department might actually cause them to transfer rather than lay you off if they need a cleared person for your seat.
posted by MattD at 5:33 AM on April 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's the "What sorts of things might someone use as leverage to get OP to spill classified info?" questions they're really asking.

This bears repeating. It's not so much that that want to know for the sake of knowing, it's that they want to know what could possibly be held over your head to tempt you to talk, if it ever came down to that.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 6:48 AM on April 8, 2009

Double n-thing what many others have said - the process is hardly intrusive to your friends & family. They will not be investigated, just briefly interviewed. I have been a reference for several people and it's all questions about the clearance-seeker, not the interviewee. The process for low-level clearances is pretty low-key. It is mostly just a pain to collect all the information to fill out the forms.

Also, if you think you will be denied a clearance because of past drug use or various other actions in your past, there's a good chance you are mistaken. As others have said, the qualifying criteria is mainly whether or not you are susceptible to blackmail/extortion/etc. Plenty of people have received clearances with all kinds of questionable past actions.

If you really don't want the clearance and you have something more nefarious in your past, you could simply apply, be rejected, and have that be it. If you want other reasons to give your boss, you could try the personal invasion-of-privacy card. Particularly for high-level clearances, you have to report all travel out of the country, and may be sworn to secrecy for life on certain projects. Someone in my office used this as an excuse to only keep a low-level clearance rather than receive a higher classification. If you have an understanding boss, you could try to explain that you don't want to deal with that burden in the future.

Really, even if you won't use the clearance for your current job, it is a huge benefit to have one - it's like an instant salary raise at any company you might apply to in the future, and a HUGE incentive for them to hire you over someone without a clearance. Unless you're strongly opposed in principle to keeping government secrets, it's a no-brainer to go through the process.
posted by RobotNinja at 7:23 AM on April 8, 2009

The use of "partner" has me thinking that you have a same-sex SO? If you tell your boss that, and it's still a problem, is that maybe a whole different kettle of worms where you live?

This is not an issue with the US Department of Defense. I think the majority of the colleagues who are working with my husband on the project he had to get a super-duper clearance for are gay.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:33 AM on April 8, 2009

Get thee to the top of the H.R. chain immediately, V.P. or whatnot, whomever has actual corporate power and is also sworn to keep personnel's personal matters confidential, better still if they have a clearance themselves. Whomever you would go to if you had cancer and had to notify the company, but didn't want the world to know -- that's the person. You give them the entire story to keep in confidence because:

- they're the one best placed to tell you whether your fear is legitimate or not

- they're the one best placed to defend your position if it is

- they'll actually be in the room if the company tries to fire you over it

If there's another person or two you trust at work whom the boss might listen to, bring them in too. The only thing better than a highly placed voice saying "this issue is legitimate" is a chorus of voices saying so.

However -- in the last few years, there's been a trend toward making things "secret" and "safe" in government work contracts. Where I work, we've had to employ new measures to support this in recent years... most of which seem pretty useless, but it's just what we have to do. Most of the newer contracts coming through have the new restrictions, so while most companies wouldn't fire you for refusing to apply for a clearance (they'd be entitled to, but it would look bad), you could well end up either fired or relegated/demoted to a low-ranking position simply by being shut out of most of the new projects.

You're likely over-reacting. I've a couple friends that I was interviewed about for clearances whom I was certain would run into problems... and they sailed through without a scratch. But even resisting the idea does make it look bad, so that's why you go get help instead.
posted by Pufferish at 10:52 AM on April 8, 2009

It's been several years since I've had a Secret clearance, but my recollection is similar to gjc's in that the application for a Secret clearance is not that intrusive. You basically fill out a form and they do a credit and criminal history check. Maybe things are different now (post Sept. 11th), but I think they save the interviewing of friends and acquaintances and the more extensive investigation for people seeking Top Secret clearances.
posted by Alexdan4 at 1:21 PM on April 8, 2009

Sidhedevil: being gay, not a problem at all. Being secretly gay, possibly a problem.

The question the investigator would have to decide if that were the case is: If I threaten to out you as gay, will you give me the classified information I ask you for?

Keep in mind that most people would not trade BIG NATIONAL SECURITY SECRET for not being outed. That's not how it works, though. People trade (small, innocuous bit of info, nobody even knows why it's classified) for not being outed. They feel bad about it, but it's such a small piece of info, not really useful for anything. What's the harm?

Then it ramps up, and eventually they're trading BIG NATIONAL SECURITY SECRET for not being ratted out about the other espionage they have already committed.

So it's not as small a deal as it may sound to have secrets. That said, most everybody in the world has skeletons in the closet of some sort, and end up getting a clearance, so OP, you may be overestimating how big a deal yours is. One way to find out - you can't get what you don't ask for.
posted by ctmf at 3:47 PM on April 8, 2009

Echoing that Secret is not a big deal. They just want to affirm you are who you say you are and that you haven't blown anything up lately. A military forum I was reading when I had to apply said it was akin to a credit card application- almost no one gets declined.

Also keep in mind what others have said.. they are principally concerned with any information someone who knew you had access to sensitive data could use against you to blackmail you or that makes you likely to be coerced. You can do a lot of "bad" things and still get a clearance if you are honest about it from day one.

I think a lot of fears about clearances are unfounded simply because most people assume that every little foible means you can't get a clearance. If that were true no one would have clearances!
posted by zennoshinjou at 9:08 AM on April 9, 2009

also Alexdan4 is right to my knowledge- the interviews of references only happens for TS and above. A friend of mine got either Secret or Confidential ( I can't remember) and the extent of his reference check with me was a postcard mailed to my house where I had to put an X in the box saying yes he was who he was and yes I knew him.
posted by zennoshinjou at 9:10 AM on April 9, 2009