One sentence in a regulation not substantively amended since 1994 sets the clock. An applicant “finally denied or revoked by the DOHA is barred from reapplication for 1 year from the date of the initial unfavorable clearance decision.” That is item 37 of Appendix A to 32 CFR part 155, unchanged in the 2025 CFR edition. One year. Not five, not permanently.

Ten items follow it: four narrow the reapplication, four more create a lost-earnings claim almost nobody files.

Is a revoked clearance a lifetime bar?

No. Item 37 sets one year from the initial unfavorable decision, and items 38 through 41 lay out a route back. Two conditions sit on it: the bar reaches only an applicant “finally denied or revoked,” and item 36 makes a decision final when no timely appeal is filed, no brief follows, the appeal is withdrawn, or the Appeal Board rules. Item 39 then lets the Director of DOHA refuse reconsideration outright.

Under 32 CFR 155.3(b) an unfavorable decision “denies any application … and revokes any existing security clearance,” at any level. A Top Secret case leaves no usable Secret behind.

One line from Department of the Navy v. Egan (1988) travels everywhere: no one has a right to a clearance. The humane half does not: “A clearance does not equate with passing judgment upon an individual’s character. Instead, it is only an attempt to predict his possible future behavior …” The same page warns that the prediction may rest on concerns “completely unrelated to conduct,” and at page 531 that determinations “should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan was a federal employee’s MSPB case; contractor employees have no MSPB appeal at all.

Which process are you actually in?

Part 155 covers contractor employees with collateral clearances, and 155.2(f) says it “does not apply to cases for access to sensitive compartmented information or a special access program.” Read that at its own scope: it excludes cases, not persons, so a collateral case is still part 155’s even if you hold SCI. An SCI revocation is not procedurally bare either. SEAD 4 section E.6 sets a floor: when eligibility is denied or revoked, “review proceedings, to the extent they are made available in EO 12968, as amended, Part 5, shall be afforded covered individuals at a minimum.”

Section 155.2(e) names three losses that are not adverse adjudications: a clearance withdrawn “because the applicant no longer has a need for access,” an interim “withdrawn by the DISCO during an investigation,” and one “withdrawn for administrative reasons that are without prejudice as to a later determination.” If no Statement of Reasons reached you, the status words employers screen on are worth getting right.

The procedures are live; the names are dead letters. Part 155 still says DISCO, an office that no longer exists, and the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility that DOHA’s site names as issuing the SOR now sits inside DCSA.

Why can’t you file the reapplication yourself?

Because item 38 does not let you: a reapplication “must be made initially by the applicant’s employer.” The applicant then gives the Director of DOHA the adverse decision plus “evidence that circumstances or conditions previously found against the applicant have been rectified or sufficiently mitigated to warrant reconsideration.”

Then 32 CFR 117.10(a)(7): “Contractors will not submit requests for determination of eligibility … for individuals who are not their employees or consultants.” Note the word consultants. And paragraph (f), an express pre-employment carve-out: where a candidate “requires access to classified information immediately upon commencement of employment,” the contractor “may submit a request for investigation prior to the date of employment,” provided “a written commitment for employment has been made by the contractor” and “the candidate has accepted the offer in writing,” with employment to start within 45 days of eligibility being granted. Self-sponsorship does not exist, and (a)(5) forbids stockpiling. But the gate is an accepted written offer rather than your first day, which is why finding a sponsoring employer comes first.

Item 39 is the next gate: the case proceeds only “if the Director, DOHA, determines that reconsideration is warranted.” Item 40 makes a refusal final and bars “further reapplication for an additional one year period from the date of the decision rejecting the application.” Item 41 gives a reapplicant no “greater rights than those applicable to any other applicant.”

Which produces arithmetic the regulation never states, and we label it ours. Twelve months under item 37 plus twelve under item 40 is twenty-four, but only in this sequence: initial unfavorable decision, 12-month bar, employer-filed reapplication, refusal of reconsideration, fresh 12-month bar dated from that refusal. It is not a two-year bar. A third clock at 32 CFR 155.6(b) is triggered by failing to cooperate and runs from the revocation date. Readers confuse all three with the 24-month reactivation window.

What new evidence can you put in front of an adjudicator?

Almost none, on appeal. Item 29: “No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.” But the Board is not a yes-or-no gate. Item 33 lets it “remand the case to an Administrative Judge to correct identified error,” and item 35 then requires that judge to “make a new clearance decision in the case after correcting the error(s),” itself appealable. Item 32 is what a remand runs on: findings unsupported by the record, procedures not followed, rulings “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Mitigation you assemble later has one door, the reapplication. Error in the decision you already have is a second, and it opens in months.

Those clocks are short and start in different places. The notice of appeal goes in “within 15 days after the date of the Administrative Judge’s clearance decision,” and item 28 adds that a notice arriving later “shall not be accepted … except for good cause.” The brief runs from that same decision date, not from the notice: 45 days, received rather than postmarked. Fifteen days spent on the notice leaves thirty. Only the answer clock runs from receipt, 20 days “from receipt of the SOR” under item 4, and answering a Statement of Reasons is where the record gets made. Item 15 puts “the ultimate burden of persuasion” on you.

What counts as changed circumstances is defined. Security Executive Agent Directive 4, the 2017 guidelines that 32 CFR 117.10(a)(2) names, lists nine factors at 2(d): the nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances, including knowledgeable participation; frequency and recency; age and maturity at the time; how voluntary participation was; presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; motivation; potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and likelihood of recurrence.

Four of those nine stay live across a year. Recency, rehabilitation and likelihood of recurrence are the obvious three. The fourth is forward-looking: the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress. Guideline E names actions that answer it. Paragraph 17(d) credits an individual who “has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling … or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors,” and 17(e) credits “positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.” Elapsed time is 17(c), mitigating where “so much time has passed … that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” Both halves have to hold. That paragraph carries seven conditions; (f) and (g) cover unsubstantiated information and unwitting association rather than time. See the whole-person concept.

One sentence keeps this article honest. SEAD 4 paragraph 2(e) says “a single criterion may be sufficient to make an unfavorable eligibility determination even in the absence of a recent occurrence or a recurring pattern,” and that further investigation “may be terminated … in the face of reliable, significant, disqualifying, adverse information.” It is a method, not a promise, with an off switch. It also has a side door: 2(g) lets an adjudicator who sees serious concerns recommend eligibility anyway “with an exception as defined in Appendix C,” where a waiver is eligibility granted “despite the presence of substantial issue information that would normally preclude eligibility” and a condition adds security measures instead. Complete mitigation is not always the target.

One category is harder, and its trigger is present tense. SEAD 4’s Appendix B implements the Bond Amendment, which prohibits granting or renewing eligibility for anyone “who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or is an addict as defined below,” and says a waiver “may not be authorized with reference to this prohibition.” An addict there is someone who “habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare” or has “lost the power of self-control” over the addiction. That is a status test, not a permanent consequence of past use: someone whose unlawful use has ended is outside it, and the appendix says a person it does reach “will receive the agency’s established administrative review procedures.” Three further disqualifications reach only SCI, SAP and Restricted Data, and can be waived meritoriously. The conviction one is conjunctive: a sentence exceeding one year and incarceration of not less than one year. A felony served on probation does not meet it.

Will a future employer see the revocation?

It is recorded. SEAD 4 section E.5 requires adjudicative determinations be entered in Scattered Castles, JPAS within DoD, or OPM’s Central Verification System, “or successor databases.” DoD retired JPAS for DISS and is moving to NBIS; that clause is what carries it. A sponsoring employer’s security officer queries that system of record.

What the rules require of your employer is narrower than assumed. Under 32 CFR 117.10(a)(2)(ii) a contractor “will immediately deny access to classified information to any employee when notified of a denial, revocation, or suspension of eligibility.” That is an access rule. It says nothing about terminating you, and reassignment to unclassified work is a private decision the regulation does not reach, as during a continuous-vetting suspension. Beyond that, no primary federal source documents how contractors treat a candidate with a prior revocation, and no hiring statistic exists.

Where should you look for work while the clock runs?

Mostly not here. ClearedJobs.NET is a clearance-specialist board, and most roles on it are written against active or current eligibility, which is what a revocation removes. Saying otherwise would be an advertisement. Three channels serve better.

Company careers sites first: large defense firms run substantial unclassified and CUI-side work that never reaches a cleared board, and applying directly reaches the manager who might later sponsor you. Second, USAJOBS. Federal suitability sits in a different legal box: in the subpart A revised effective 17 January 2025, 5 CFR 731.101(d) says determinations under that part are “distinct from … any determination of eligibility for access to classified information … made under E.O. 12968, E.O. 10865, or E.O. 13467.” Part 731 reaches only “covered positions,” narrower than everything on USAJOBS. And distinct is not sealed off: the factors at 731.202(b) are the same conduct that fills clearance files, including “illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other controlled substances, without evidence of rehabilitation” and material false statements. See our guide to public trust positions. Third, general commercial boards: volume, speed, and no help getting back into the cleared market.

How long will a reapplication take?

Unknown, and anyone quoting an average is guessing. GAO-26-107100 (December 2025) found “more than 60 percent of the data we reviewed were not reliable across eight reporting requirements and seven agencies,” and that published figures understated the time. Seven agencies, not the whole system. See our siblings on denial rates and which jobs genuinely require a clearance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the one-year bar start on the date of my appeal decision?

No. Item 37 runs “from the date of the initial unfavorable clearance decision,” and it reaches you only once that decision is final under item 36. Initial need not mean a judge’s decision: item 5 lets the Director deny the clearance and direct revocation outright if no timely answer to the SOR arrives, and DOHA says defaults are a real population.

Can I appeal and reapply at the same time?

Not in sequence, and item 36 is why. While a timely appeal is pending the decision is not final, so item 37’s bar has not attached. The appeal is confined to the existing record under item 29, though the Board can remand for a fresh decision. The reapplication in items 38 through 40 is the route for mitigation gathered afterward.

Can I be paid back for the year I lost?

Rarely, but the claim exists and has a deadline. Item 42 lets an applicant petition, under oath, “for reimbursement of loss of earnings resulting from the suspension, revocation, or denial” of the clearance, attaching the favorable decision. Item 43: claims “must be filed with the Director, DOHA, or designee, within 1 year after the date the security clearance is granted.” Item 44 requires clear and convincing evidence that the action was the primary cause and “was due to gross negligence of the Department of Defense.” Item 45 caps the amount and excludes counsel’s fees.

Do I need a security clearance attorney?

This article is not legal advice and cannot assess your case. The regulations establish the right and leave you the bill: item 8 lets an applicant appear “with or without counsel,” item 45 bars reimbursement of counsel’s fees, and EO 12968 Sec. 5.2(a)(3) gives federal employees counsel “at their own expense.” Whether to use it is a question for an attorney who has read your file.

Find the date of the initial unfavorable decision and write it down. Not the SOR date, not the appeal date, not the day your badge stopped working. That date is what item 37 measures from, the only fixed point in a system whose own auditor says the published timelines cannot be trusted. Everything after it is evidence for someone who will not see it until an employer opens the door: nine named factors, four still live, weighed by an adjudicator making what the Supreme Court called a prediction rather than a verdict.