Allegations against the Department of National Defence for denial of Top Secret security clearance and revocation of reliability status

The Complainant alleged that, based on their voluntary disclosure during security interviews, they were denied a Top Secret security clearance and had their reliability status revoked, which resulted in their release from the Canadian Forces. NSIRA found that it had no jurisdiction to make findings and recommendations regarding revocation of reliability status and confined its discussion to matters implicating the security clearance decision only. 

The Complainant alleged that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff’s (VCDS) security clearance decision was flawed for several reasons, including that the Complainant’s sexuality influenced the VCDS decision; the VCDS did not take into account the Complainant’s mental health situation and failed to inquire about a mental health nexus in their case and provide accommodation; the decision did not meet DND’s security screening standards; the decision was inconsistent with the recommendation offered by the Complainant’s commanding officer; and the decision did not acknowledge a number of considerations that might mitigate the seriousness of the adverse information against the Complainant. 

NSIRA found the Complainant’s allegations to be unsubstantiated. Specifically, NSIRA found that the VCDS decision was not motivated by a concern or consideration of the Complainant’s sexuality or sexual orientation; that in the circumstances, no duty to accommodate was triggered for the purposes of the VCDS decision based on the Complainants mental health situation; that were unsubstantiated  the allegations that the VCDS failed to meet security screening standards and that DND failed to properly review the surrounding circumstances; that the assertion that the VCDS decision was improper because it was inconsistent with the Complainant’s commanding officer’s recommendation was unsubstantiated; and that the Complainant’s other allegations, including those with respect to considerations that might mitigate the seriousness of the adverse information against them, did not individually or collectively render the decision unreasonable. In addition, NSIRA found no violation of procedural fairness. 

However, NSIRA observed that certain exculpatory information was excluded from the Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA) before the decision-maker and recommended that this practice be rectified in the future. However, this omission did not amount to a breach of procedural fairness in the circumstances.