The Clearance Claim Reference: Active, Current, Lapsed, or Unverifiable

I keep this lookup open while sourcing for a cleared defense or government req. It takes the clearance phrases you meet on public profiles and resumes and says what each one proves, how it misleads, which of four grades it earns (Active, Current, Lapsed, or Unverifiable), and how long it takes to become a usable clearance. It also marks where the recruiter's questions stop and where the checks begin that only the facility security officer (FSO) can run. The FSO is the security lead at the cleared employer.

The four grades and the two clocks behind them

A clearance claim gets its grade from dates, not from wording. It is Active if the cleared role is ongoing, Current if that role ended 24 months ago or less, Lapsed if it ended longer ago, and Unverifiable if the profile gives no level or no date to measure. Every grade is provisional until the FSO confirms it in DISS, the Defense Information System for Security, which holds DoD personnel security clearance eligibilities.

Reciprocity means one agency accepts an eligibility determination another has already made. Transfer of Trust is the Department of War (DoW) route for it. Both grades in the middle of the table depend on two clocks. Both clocks start on the same day: the candidate's last day of affiliation with a sponsoring organisation.

• The continuous vetting clock, 45 days. Continuous vetting (CV) is the ongoing monitoring that replaced scheduled reinvestigations. DCSA reports roughly 4 million people enrolled. Under DISS Release 14.5, when a person loses their security management office (SMO) relationship in DISS, a 45-day grace period starts and CV enrollment continues through it. After 45 days without an active SMO affiliation, the person's CV status changes to "unenrolled". DCSA says unenrollment alone does not affect eligibility unless unresolved information requires action.
• The reinstatement clock, 24 months. DCSA's Interim Clearances page says prior eligibility is reinstated provided there has not been a break in service longer than 24 months. Past that, plan for an initial case.

A slower cycle runs underneath both. An updated Personnel Vetting Questionnaire (PVQ, meaning the SF-86 eApp and releases) must be submitted every five years at every eligibility level. The five years are counted from the "PVQ Date" in DISS.

Here is how it plays out. A candidate who left a cleared job 30 days ago is still CV-enrolled. One who left 8 months ago is unenrolled but probably reinstatable. One who left 30 months ago is a new case, whatever the headline says.

A profile date tells you which clock a candidate is on. Only DISS tells you whether the clock is right.

Status words on a profile: what each one proves

A status word in a headline proves only what the candidate believes about themselves. You can't grade "active", "current", "inactive", "clearable", or "eligible" until a dated cleared role sits next to it. "Active" is the most common of these words and the most loosely used.

The counts come from Refolk's index. The percentages and the ratio are derived from them. Two findings matter for sourcing:

• The two words come from different populations. Of the 25 sampled "current" profiles, 10 were at the US Air Force and 5 at the US Army. The "active" sample was spread across contractors and agencies. Its top employers were Boeing (2), Leidos, Northrop Grumman, the US Army, and the US Department of State.
• "Active" has drifted from its official meaning. SEAD 7, the executive-branch directive on reciprocity, uses "active" for someone who currently has access or holds a sensitive position. Pages written for candidates teach that a clearance "stays active 24 months after leaving a cleared job". So "active" in a headline often means "I am inside my 24 months", not "I am sponsored today".

On the last two rows: a "clearable" search in Refolk's index returned 47,752 US profiles. The top titles were founders and professors, so the keyword almost certainly matched unrelated words, and the count can't be used. I did not query "eligible". Grade both words Unverifiable and budget them as new cases unless the screening call turns up a dated adjudication.

Levels, add-ons, and polygraphs: what each one proves

The level tells you which investigation tier and form sit behind a claim. The add-ons (SCI, SAP) and the polygraph scope tell you which billets the claim can fill. Parse each part separately, because a candidate can be right about the level and wrong about the fit.

"TS/SCI" and SAP claims

TS/SCI claims Tier 5 eligibility plus SCI access. SCI is an add-on, not a special clearance level. The usual misreading is to treat SCI as a level above Top Secret, which inflates a TS-only candidate's apparent gap. My sources don't establish how SAP access is recorded. Treat any SAP claim as Unverifiable until the FSO speaks to it.

"DOE Q" and "DOE L"

DOE Q sits at Tier 5 alongside TS and SCI. DOE L sits at Tier 3 alongside Secret. DISS covers DoD eligibilities. My sources don't establish which system holds DOE records, or the intelligence community's. Ask the FSO which system they can query for a DOE or IC claim, and read the DOE personnel security FAQ before promising anything on a national-laboratory candidate.

"Public Trust"

A Public Trust position is not a security clearance. Moderate-risk Public Trust is investigated at Tier 2 and high-risk at Tier 4, both on an SF 85P. Secret runs on an SF 86 at Tier 3. A Public Trust determination therefore gives no head start on a Secret. For a cleared billet, grade Public Trust as no clearance. My sources also don't establish whether the 24-month reinstatement rule applies to Public Trust. Ask the sponsoring agency's security office.

Polygraphs

Both billet types are common. One cleared job board's posting data put TS/SCI with a CI polygraph at 7.6% and TS/SCI with a full-scope polygraph at 7.9%. The denominator isn't stated, so read that as "roughly as common as each other" and nothing more. Always take the required scope from the contract, not from the agency's reputation (see the NSA conflict below).

When the req is a full-scope billet, the scope and the date window belong in the search itself, not in a filter you apply later by hand. In Refolk you can ask for both in one plain-English line. The 24-month clock then becomes part of the query, not a spreadsheet column.

How long each path takes to a usable clearance

Confirming an existing eligibility takes days. A new investigation takes most of a year. On DCSA's FY26-Q3 industry figures, an initial Secret averaged 197 days and an initial Top Secret 243 days. Transfer of Trust in the Department of War averaged 1 to 2 days.

What sits inside those numbers:

• Adjudication is the biggest share, and the employer can't speed it up. An initial Secret broke down as 21 days to initiate, 59 to investigate, and 117 to adjudicate. An initial TS was 20, 97, and 126.
• Initiation is the part the employer controls. In FY2026 Q2, 3.4% of packages were rejected at initiation, and each rejection cost an average of 12.5 days. A clean package from the FSO is the only lever on a new case.
• SEAD 7's five business days is not a hiring timeline. It measures a defined reciprocity determination, not the whole hiring process. SEAD 7 separately gives the investigative service provider 10 business days to hand over the record. DCSA's own reciprocity fact sheet says end-to-end reciprocity once averaged 65 days.
• The reporting method changed. DCSA now reports the average of all cases rather than the fastest 90%. The two kinds of figure can't be compared. For FY26-Q1, one source gives fastest-90% figures of 227 days for TS and 156 for Secret, and another gives 205 and 92 for the same quarter.
• The data itself is shaky. A GAO review found 86% of agency personnel-vetting timeliness data inaccurate.

Where the recruiter's checks stop and the FSO's begin

The recruiter reads the profile and asks about level, dates, sponsor, and polygraph. Only the FSO checks eligibility, CV status, and affiliation in DISS. The candidate fills in no security questionnaire until a tentative job offer (TJO) has been signed.

The DISS Account Management Policy v2.0 is explicit: "Industry companies are authorized to verify prospective employees' eligibility for access to classified information in DISS prior to an offer of employment being extended." It continues: "However, they may not use DISS for recruiting purposes." The NISPOM rule never mentions verifying a job candidate. An FSO interviewed by ClearanceJobs put the questionnaire line plainly: "Under no circumstances should an applicant complete a security questionnaire (SF85/SF85P/SF86) until a formal TJO has been executed between both parties."

I found no primary source that lists which clearance questions a recruiter may lawfully ask. The safe line is to ask about facts the candidate can state from memory (level, dates, sponsor, poly type) and nothing from the questionnaire itself. Collecting SF-86 information before an offer creates discrimination risk. If your legal team has a list, theirs wins over mine.

1. What is the highest eligibility you have held: Secret, Top Secret, or another level? Any add-ons, such as SCI, that you can name at an unclassified level?
2. Roughly when did your last investigation or questionnaire submission (PVQ or SF-86) complete?
3. Which organisation last held your clearance, and what was your last day of affiliation with it?
4. Have you taken a polygraph? Which type, counterintelligence or full scope, and roughly when?
5. Are you in a role today that sponsors your clearance?

How to grade a clearance claim, step by step

Grading a claim is eight steps across four owners. The sourcer parses and dates the claim, the recruiter asks, the FSO verifies and files, and DCSA adjudicates. The first three steps take minutes and decide whether the name goes on the slate. The last five decide the start date.

Step 2 is where most slates go wrong, so do it with the dated work history in front of you, not the headline. If you sourced in Refolk with a date window in the ask, the end date of the last cleared role is already on the record you are reading. The matrix below is how I turn steps 1 and 2 into a slate decision before anyone gets on a call.

Write the result into the candidate record in one fixed format, so the hiring manager and the FSO read the same thing.

Claim as written:
Level: | Add-ons: | Poly scope and date:
Last cleared role: [employer], ended [date or present]
Gap today: [n] months | CV window: [inside 45 days / unenrolled]
Grade: [Active / Current / Lapsed / Unverifiable] (provisional)
Likely path: [Transfer of Trust / reinstatement / new case]
Planning range: [1 to 2 days / 197 days Secret / 243 days TS]
Open for FSO: eligibility, CV status, affiliation in DISS
Source of each answer: [profile / candidate call / FSO]

How clearance claims go wrong

Most clearance mistakes come from one of eight readings that sound reasonable. The fix is nearly always the same: date the claim, then let the FSO confirm the three DISS fields separately.

1. "Active" with no current sponsor. SEAD 7 uses "active" for someone who currently has access or holds a sensitive position. The false positive is a candidate between contracts who still writes "active", and Refolk's 40.7 : 1 ratio suggests many do. Check: read the end date of the last cleared role, then have the FSO confirm affiliation in DISS.
2. Reading "inactive" as a status. "Inactive clearance" is common recruiting language, but it is not a precise government status. It hides which clock the candidate is on. Check: the FSO reports eligibility, CV status, and affiliation as three separate fields. Grade from those, not from the word.
3. Running the 24-month clock from the wrong date. Unenrollment happens at day 45, but eligibility survives it, so "unenrolled" does not mean Lapsed. A 30-month gap, though, is an initial case, however recent the investigation feels to the candidate. Also check the five-year adjudication-age condition. It is cited secondhand (see the next section).
4. Polygraph scope mismatch. The classic version is a CI-only candidate put up for a full-scope billet. Sources conflict on NSA: one says NSA requires a counterintelligence-scope polygraph, while others list NSA as full scope. Check: take the scope from the contract's poly requirement and get the date of the candidate's poly.
5. Treating Public Trust as a clearance. It runs on an SF 85P, not an SF 86, so it gives no head start on a Secret. A Tier 4 Public Trust candidate on a Secret req is a new case.
6. Promising a start date from SEAD 7's five days. The five business days measure a defined reciprocity determination, not the whole hiring process. Quote the ranges in the timeline table and leave room for the TJO, the FSO check, and the briefing.
7. Using DISS to source candidates. DISS policy prohibits it. Collecting SF-86 information before an offer creates discrimination risk. Either one can cost the employer more than the req is worth.
8. Comparing timeline figures across reporting methods. Fastest-90% figures and all-case averages can't be compared. A jump from one to the other is not a real slowdown, and a drop is not a real speed-up. Note the method next to every figure you quote.

Disputed and changing rules, and how to re-check them

Several rules in this domain are disputed, cited secondhand, or under review. Treat each one below as a point to re-check at the source before you commit to a date, not as settled fact.

• Where the 24-month rule comes from. DCSA's Interim Clearances page states the 24-month limit. A practitioner source attributes it to DoDM 5200.02 §7.14.b. On that reading, someone separated for no more than 24 months, whose favorable adjudication closed within the previous five years, can have eligibility granted again on a signed SF-86C with no new investigation. That citation is secondhand. Read the DoDM text before relying on the five-year condition. I have not established whether 32 CFR 117 or the CDSE reciprocity job aid states the limit.
• The five-year extension. The FY2026 NDAA, Public Law 119-60, contains Section 1626. It only requires a review of whether extending the inactive period to as much as five years is feasible and advisable. It does not grant an extension. The enacted Intelligence Authorization Act includes a section titled "Reforms relating to inactive security clearances", whose substance I have not verified. Re-check by reading the enacted text on congress.gov, not a summary.
• When the PVQ date rule took effect. The five-year PVQ cycle counted from the "PVQ Date" in DISS is in DCSA's industry CV guidance. The guidance file and one law-firm blog give different effective dates. Use the DCSA document as the authority.
• NSA polygraph scope. Sources conflict, as noted above. The contract's stated requirement settles it for your req.
• When the FSO checks DISS. DISS policy permits a check before an offer. One FSO account says FSOs only get involved after a tentative offer. Agree your company's practice with your FSO before the first slate, not during the first offer.
• Systems of record outside DoD. DISS holds DoD eligibilities. My sources don't establish which systems hold IC and DOE records, or how SAP access is recorded. Ask the FSO which systems they can actually query.
• Published timelines. The switch in reporting method and GAO's finding that 86% of timeliness data was inaccurate mean every published figure is a range, not a commitment.

Re-run this check whenever DCSA publishes a new DISS release, a new quarter of industry timeline figures, or new CV guidance. Those are the three places where the numbers in this reference will move first.