The most common reasons people fail a public trust clearance are criminal conduct, lying on the application, unresolved financial problems, illegal drug use, misconduct at a prior job, and refusing to cooperate with the investigation. These are the factors listed in the federal suitability regulation at 5 CFR § 731.202, and adjudicators weigh each one against how serious the behavior was, how recently it happened, and whether you’ve shown real rehabilitation.1eCFR. 5 CFR 731.202 – Criteria for Making Suitability and Fitness Determinations Very little is automatically disqualifying. But some issues carry far more weight than others, and concealing any of them almost always causes more damage than the underlying problem.
Criminal Conduct
“Criminal or dishonest conduct” is one of the enumerated disqualifying factors. Adjudicators look at the nature and seriousness of the offense, how recently it happened, how old you were at the time, and whether there’s evidence of rehabilitation.1eCFR. 5 CFR 731.202 – Criteria for Making Suitability and Fitness Determinations Violent felonies and offenses involving fraud or theft carry the most weight, especially for positions that involve handling government funds or sensitive personal information.
A single old misdemeanor doesn’t necessarily end your candidacy if you can show it was isolated and you’ve stayed out of trouble since. A pattern of arrests is a different story. Even relatively minor offenses start to look like a reliability problem when they keep happening. The regulation doesn’t draw bright lines around specific crime categories, which gives adjudicators discretion but also means you can’t assume any particular offense is automatically safe or automatically fatal.
Dishonesty on Your Application
This is where most candidacies actually fall apart. Material false statements, deception, or fraud during the application process is a standalone disqualifying factor under 5 CFR § 731.202, separate from whatever you were trying to hide. An old drug charge you disclosed and explained is manageable. That same charge, concealed on your SF-85P and discovered during the investigation, is devastating.
The SF-85P asks for seven years of employment history, including the reason you left each job and whether you were ever fired, disciplined, or warned for misconduct.2U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions Investigators cross-reference your answers with official records, former supervisors, and personal references. Discrepancies that look like deliberate omissions, rather than honest mistakes about a date, trigger the dishonesty factor. Beyond losing the position, knowingly falsifying information on a federal form is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, punishable by up to five years in prison.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1001 – Statements or Entries Generally
Disclose everything the form asks about, even if you think it looks bad. Adjudicators are required to consider mitigating factors like your age at the time, how long ago it happened, and evidence of rehabilitation. Those mitigating factors don’t exist for dishonesty during the process itself.
Financial Problems
The suitability regulations don’t list financial problems as a separate factor. Instead, OPM evaluates financial irresponsibility under the “criminal or dishonest conduct” umbrella, reasoning that an unwillingness to pay your debts or a pattern of reckless spending raises questions about your honesty and judgment.4U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Decision-Making Guide Simply carrying debt is not a problem. A mortgage, student loans, and a car payment you’re current on are fine. The concern kicks in when the debt looks like you’re either unable or unwilling to manage your obligations.
OPM’s guidance identifies several patterns that can trigger disqualification:
- Unwillingness to satisfy debts, such as ignoring collection notices or letting accounts go to judgment without attempting to resolve them.
- Irresponsible spending with no realistic repayment plan.
- A history of not meeting financial obligations, including chronic late payments, multiple defaults, or repeated delinquencies.
- Deceptive financial practices, including tax evasion, check fraud, embezzlement, or false loan applications.
Tax debt gets special scrutiny. Failing to file required returns or owing back taxes to the IRS creates a direct conflict with the integrity expected of someone in a government role. Adjudicators do look at whether you’ve taken steps to fix the problem. Entering an IRS installment agreement and making consistent payments shows good faith, even if the balance isn’t fully resolved yet.5Internal Revenue Service. Payment Plans; Installment Agreements The worst posture is owing a significant amount and having done nothing about it.
The underlying concern is straightforward: someone under serious financial pressure may be more vulnerable to bribery or coercion. Acknowledging the problem and showing a plan to address it goes a long way toward mitigating this factor.
Drug Use
Illegal use of controlled substances “without evidence of substantial rehabilitation” is an explicit disqualifying factor under the suitability regulations. That phrase matters, because it means past use is potentially forgivable if you can demonstrate it’s behind you.
Marijuana
Marijuana confuses people most, because many states have legalized it and federal law has not. It remains a Schedule I controlled substance, and federal employees are still subject to Executive Order 12564 requiring a drug-free workplace. OPM has issued guidance clarifying that agencies cannot automatically disqualify someone based on marijuana use alone. Each case must be evaluated individually, and agencies are told to treat past or recently discontinued marijuana use differently from ongoing use.6U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Assessing the Suitability/Fitness of Applicants or Appointees on the Basis of Marijuana Use
The guidance requires agencies to consider rehabilitation evidence: how much time has passed since last use, a commitment to refrain in the future, and any counseling. Harder drugs and ongoing use of any controlled substance face much steeper odds, but the door is not shut for past marijuana use if you’re honest and can show it won’t continue.
Alcohol
Alcohol becomes a suitability issue when it reaches a level suggesting you can’t reliably perform your job or that you pose a safety risk. The regulation targets “alcohol abuse of a nature and duration” that would prevent job performance or threaten the safety of others. Casual drinking is irrelevant. Multiple DUI convictions, alcohol-related incidents at work, or a documented pattern of impaired judgment from drinking are what raise red flags. Evidence of treatment and sustained behavioral change works in your favor.
Misconduct at a Prior Job
Being fired, forced to resign, or formally disciplined at a previous job doesn’t automatically disqualify you, but “misconduct or negligence in employment” is the first factor listed in the suitability regulations. Adjudicators care about what happened and how relevant it is to the job you’re applying for. Termination for chronic tardiness at a retail job a decade ago is very different from being removed from a government contractor role for mishandling sensitive data last year.
The SF-85P specifically asks whether you’ve been fired, quit after being told you’d be fired, left by mutual agreement following misconduct charges, or received formal discipline for workplace misconduct in the past seven years. If any of those apply, disclose them. The seriousness of the conduct, the surrounding circumstances, and any rehabilitation all come into play during adjudication.
Refusing to Cooperate
The regulations include “refusal to furnish testimony” as a disqualifying factor. If investigators ask you to sit for an interview, provide records, or clarify inconsistencies in your application, stonewalling them is treated as its own basis for an unfavorable determination. Cooperation, even when the questions are uncomfortable, is part of the process.
What Does Not Disqualify You
Two things people commonly assume will sink them usually don’t.
Mental health treatment is not a disqualifier. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency has stated that seeking treatment is evidence of good judgment, not a liability, and that it is “exceedingly rare” for mental health conditions alone to result in a denial.7Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. Behavioral Mental Health Treatment Not an Automatic Disqualifier Mental health only becomes relevant when a condition causes behaviors that affect your judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness, and even then the fact that you’re in treatment weighs in your favor.
Dual citizenship alone is not disqualifying either. Active exercise of foreign citizenship, such as voting in foreign elections, accepting benefits from a foreign government, or using a foreign passport for travel, can complicate a case when it suggests a potential conflict of interest. These issues are more commonly decisive in security clearance adjudications than in public trust ones.
How Adjudicators Weigh Mitigating Factors
None of the disqualifying factors operate as absolute bars, with the possible exception of ongoing illegal drug use with no rehabilitation effort. For every negative factor, adjudicators are required to consider mitigating circumstances:
- Nature and seriousness. A bar fight at 19 is treated differently than embezzlement at 35.
- Circumstances. What led to the behavior, and whether it was an isolated response to unusual pressure.
- Recency. The more time that has passed without recurrence, the less weight the conduct carries.
- Your age at the time. Younger applicants generally get more benefit of the doubt for past mistakes.
- Rehabilitation. Completed treatment, sustained behavioral change, and a clean record since the incident.
- Connection to the job. A financial offense matters more for a position managing government funds than for a role with no financial responsibilities.
The strongest position, if you have something in your background, is to disclose it fully, put meaningful time between yourself and the conduct, and bring concrete evidence that things have changed. Adjudicators are trained to distinguish between someone who made a mistake and moved on and someone who presents an ongoing risk. Giving them the evidence to draw that distinction is the single most useful thing you can do.
If You’re Found Unsuitable
An unfavorable suitability determination can result in outcomes ranging from cancellation of your eligibility to debarment from federal competitive service for up to three years.8eCFR. 5 CFR 731.204 – Debarment by OPM Debarment means you cannot even apply for covered positions during that period, and OPM can impose additional debarment periods if warranted.
You have the right to appeal. An unfavorable suitability action taken by OPM or a delegated agency can be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board.9eCFR. 5 CFR 731.501 – Appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board The deadline is 30 days from the date you receive the agency’s decision.10U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. How to File an Appeal The Board reviews whether the charges are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. If some charges are sustained and others aren’t, the case gets sent back to the agency to decide whether the action is still appropriate based on what was actually proven. Missing the 30-day window effectively waives your right to challenge the determination, so treat that deadline as non-negotiable.