Negative perceptions and misperceptions about the U.S. government’s personal vetting (PV) process or obtaining a security clearance can have negative consequences.

The authors used various data collection methods to identify and analyze common negative perceptions and misperceptions of the PV process and offer recommendations for enhancing applicant engagement and improving information transparency and accuracy so the government can address them.

Clearing Up the Confusion from Misperceptions About the Security Clearance Process

Ryan Andrew Brown, Sina Beaghley, Douglas Yeung, Emily Higgs, Ethan Doshi, Prateek Puri

ResearchPublished Dec 23, 2025

Negative perceptions and misperceptions about the U.S. government’s personal vetting (PV) process or obtaining a security clearance can have negative consequences. For example, they can deter otherwise-qualified individuals from pursuing positions in the government. Applicants’ misunderstandings about adjudication criteria can also lead some to omit or falsify information, making it harder for the U.S. government to assess security risks posed by applicants. Other applicants might share too much unnecessary information, which slows down the process and increases costs.

To identify common perceptions and misperceptions, the authors used multiple approaches to data collection and analysis. They interviewed subject-matter experts, manually reviewed online videos and websites, used large language models (LLMs) to analyze blogs and social media posts about the PV process, and analyzed how a generative artificial intelligence chatbot addressed hypothetical users’ concerns about navigating the PV process (specifically regarding substance use and foreign contacts).

Using these analyses, the authors provide key findings related to the negative impacts of these perceptions and misperceptions about the security clearance process and offer recommendations for the government to address them, including ways to enhance engagement with applicants and improve information transparency and accuracy.

Key Findings

Prospective PV applicants struggle to find clear, authoritative sources of information.

  • Many applicants noted that they are unsure about what and how much to report, what aspects of personal history can be mitigated, and where to get answers or updates on the PV process. Additionally, the quality and accuracy of advice from some U.S. government sources vary significantly.

Applicants frequently experience uncertainty, frustration, and distress during the PV process, which might dissuade future applicants.

  • Applicants are frequently confused about how to best communicate with managers, security officers, and background investigators when they are uncertain about how to respond to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Standard Form 86.

Applicants perceive multiple aspects of personal history as inherently disqualifying, which could lead to them concealing information or deterring them from applying.

  • The U.S. government emphasizes the “whole-person concept,” under which the individual’s full life course is evaluated. However, rumors and beliefs about several automatic disqualifiers, such as felonies, the use of certain drugs, mental health issues, and dual citizenship, still circulate and give applicants the false impression that such issues are “automatically disqualifying.”

LLM chatbots can provide useful information to applicants about the PV process, but the usefulness depends on context; LLMs can also be unintentionally misleading or even misused.

  • LLMs generally recommended that applicants be honest and transparent, and LLMs frequently alluded to the whole-person concept. However, there are potentially problematic issues with how LLM chatbots reinforce preferences about what to disclose and how to engage with the PV process.

Recommendations

  • Develop and publish plain-language and easy-to-comprehend content about the PV process and targeted content to address inaccurate sources of PV-related information as counter-messaging to correct specific misperceptions. The U.S. government could develop an official online resource that includes applicants’ common questions and concerns and provides clarifying, straightforward answers in plain language. The government could also develop specific information campaigns to offset specific misperceptions.
  • Provide up-to-date resources and potentially targeted training for security officers, human resource officers, military recruiters, and others who interact with PV applicants, particularly resources regarding the importance of transparency and honesty from applicants in all interactions during the PV process.
  • Provide mechanisms for individuals to anonymously ask questions and receive authoritative answers regarding the PV process in general and specific topic areas related to the U.S. government’s adjudicative guidelines. One option could be to establish a call-in line for applicants to ask general PV process questions and seek clarification related to specific topic areas that they might be confused about. Another option could be to explore an LLM chatbot with specific guardrails and access to official and up-to-date PV-related policies and practices.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Brown, Ryan Andrew, Sina Beaghley, Douglas Yeung, Emily Higgs, Ethan Doshi, and Prateek Puri, Clearing Up the Confusion from Misperceptions About the Security Clearance Process. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3543-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council Program Management Office (PAC PMO) and conducted within the Personnel, Readiness, and Health Program of the RAND National Security Research Division.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.