Until recently, certain military members, DoD civilians, and contractor personnel whose SCI eligibility was adjudicated by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) had access to a newer due process option: a virtual personal appearance before a DCSA senior adjudicator after receiving a Statement of Reasons. That program has now been stopped — and the reason why matters more than the headline.
A Department of Defense legal determination concluded that DCSA cannot conduct those personal appearance hearings because DCSA is also the government entity responsible for conducting background investigations. Under Executive Order 12968, the personal appearance must occur before an authority other than the investigating entity. The agency that investigates the case cannot also be the agency conducting that part of the review.
What Changed
Effective December 8, 2024, DCSA implemented a revised security review process that allowed covered individuals to submit a written response to a Statement of Reasons and request a virtual personal appearance before a DCSA senior adjudicator before a final denial or revocation decision.
The new legal determination concluded that DCSA is an "investigating entity" under Executive Order 12968. Because of that, DCSA is disqualified from performing the personal appearance function the order requires.
As a result, DCSA must stop conducting personal appearance hearings and refer those cases to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals — commonly known as DOHA. DCSA must also identify cases already decided through that process and refer them to DOHA for further review.
Does This Eliminate Due Process?
No. This does not mean clearance holders lose the right to respond to adverse information. It means the personal appearance function cannot be handled by DCSA if DCSA is also the investigating entity. That distinction matters.
The problem was not that individuals were receiving too much due process. The problem was that the Department concluded the process was being handled by the wrong component.
What If You Already Had a DCSA Personal Appearance?
If your case was already decided through the DCSA personal appearance process, it may be subject to further review by DOHA. That does not automatically mean the outcome will change — but it does mean the procedure used in your case may now receive another look.
If you are currently responding to a Statement of Reasons, facing a proposed denial or revocation, or waiting on a decision, pay close attention to any new instructions from your security office, DCSA, DOHA, or your sponsoring agency.
What Has Not Changed
The adjudicative guidelines have not changed. The same substantive issues still govern clearance adjudications, including:
- Financial problems
- Foreign influence and foreign preference (Guidelines B and C)
- Personal conduct
- Criminal conduct
- Drug involvement
- Alcohol-related concerns
- Misuse of information technology
- Security violations
The government will still evaluate whether the facts raise a security concern and whether the available mitigation is sufficient. What changed is the procedural path for certain cases — not the standards by which those cases are judged.
Why This Matters
Security clearance cases are not just about the facts. They are also about timing, procedure, documentation, and how mitigation is presented. A strong response to a Statement of Reasons can make a significant difference. So can understanding where your case stands procedurally and who will ultimately decide it.
As a former CIA officer who operated under EO 12968 adjudications throughout a 25-year career, I have seen these procedural distinctions matter in ways that are not obvious from the outside. The end of the DCSA personal appearance program is a reminder that clearance due process is technical. The rules are not always intuitive, and they can change quickly.
The Bottom Line
The Pentagon has determined that DCSA cannot conduct security clearance personal appearance hearings because DCSA is also an investigating entity. Those hearing functions must stop, and affected cases are to be referred to DOHA.
If you have no active clearance issue, this may not affect you directly. If you have received a Statement of Reasons, participated in a DCSA personal appearance, or are facing a proposed clearance denial or revocation, this development may affect how your case is reviewed and what procedural options are available to you.
This article discusses a recent Department of Defense legal determination affecting security clearance due process under Executive Order 12968. The change directs personal appearance functions to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Procedures may continue to evolve as the Department implements the change. Last reviewed June 16, 2026.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. If you have received a Statement of Reasons or are facing a clearance denial or revocation, the procedural landscape just changed — and how you respond matters. I work directly with clearance holders navigating exactly this process, with 25 years of CIA experience on both sides of these adjudications. Schedule a consultation.
This article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. NFA and firearms laws vary by state and change frequently. Consult a qualified attorney before making any legal decisions.
Related Articles
How to Start a Classified Government Contracting Company: FCL, Sponsorship, and DCSA Requirements
A Facility Security Clearance isn't something a company applies for — it's something it's sponsored into. A DCSA-certified Facility Security Officer and Insider Threat Program Senior Official explains the FCL process: sponsorship, FOCI review, Key Management Personnel clearances, and the NISPOM obligations that don't end at approval.
Foreign Ownership Rules May Soon Reach Thousands of Uncleared Defense Contractors
DoD's proposed DFARS Case 2021-D011 would extend FOCI disclosure to any contract or subcontract above $5 million — classified or not — reaching an estimated 37,740 entities that have never filed an SF-328. What the eligibility gate means, who it touches, and what prudent contractors should do before a final rule issues.
The CMMC Affirmation Trap: How an Annual Signature Became a Recurring False Claims Act Risk for Defense Contractors
CMMC's annual affirmation requirement converts a cybersecurity compliance gap into recurring False Claims Act exposure. DOJ's Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative recovered $52 million across nine settlements in FY2025 — every case rested on a misrepresentation, not a breach. What the MORSECORP, Swiss Automation, and Raytheon/Nightwing settlements teach, and what prudent contractors must do before signing.