When adverse employee information surfaces, the FSO should report it to the appropriate authorities.

A real-world moment for an FSO can feel like walking a tightrope between vigilance and fairness. You’re responsible for protecting sensitive information and keeping people safe, but you also want to treat each employee with respect and due process. When adverse information about an employee surfaces, there’s a clear, proper path to follow. The right move isn’t to ignore it or to run it down by yourself. It’s to report it to the appropriate authorities.

Let me explain why that matters. Security work is a team effort, built on trust and procedure. Adverse information—things that could affect a person’s eligibility or reliability—can signal a potential risk to national security or to a facility’s safety. Handling it with care preserves the integrity of the security program and protects everyone involved. If the information is mishandled, you risk leaks, misunderstandings, or, worse, a breach that could have been prevented. Reporting through the proper channels helps ensure a measured, expert response.

What counts as adverse information, anyway?

Adverse information isn’t a rumor or a hunch. It’s credible data that could bear on an employee’s trustworthiness or ability to safeguard classified or sensitive material. Examples include unexplained changes in behavior, conflicts of interest, unresolved financial difficulties that could create coercion risk, illegal activity, or investigations by authorized agencies. It can also be information gathered during a background check, a personnel review, or a security investigation. The key is that the information is specific, credible, and relevant to security.

Here’s the thing: you don’t have to decide whether it’s a “problem” on your own. You don’t become a one-person investigator. The proper procedure is designed so you can escalate efficiently and let trained officials determine the significance and the right course of action. That’s why the correct answer to “what should an FSO do?” is to report it to the appropriate authorities. This isn’t about blame; it’s about safeguarding people and securing sensitive information.

The exact route depends on your organization and contract, but the principle stays the same. For most federal or contractor environments, you’ll notify your facility Security Office or the FSO, who then connects with the responsible government security office, the Cognizant Security Office, or the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, as applicable. The important piece is promptness and proximity to the chain of command. You don’t wait for “the right moment” or “more evidence.” You log the information, document what was observed, and pass it along through the official channels. That preserves transparency and reduces the risk of bias or personal interpretation.

What happens after you report it?

Once you’ve raised the concern through the proper channels, investigators and security professionals take the lead. They assess the information, verify its credibility, and determine whether it warrants a formal inquiry or a review of the employee’s clearance status. Depending on findings, actions may include additional inquiries, a re-investigation, a downward adjustment of access, or, in some cases, a clearance termination. The process is designed to be thorough and fair, with safeguards for due process and privacy.

While this unfolds, you’re not simply stepping back and waiting. There are practical duties for the FSO right after a report:

• Preserve confidentiality: share details only with people who have a need to know.

• Document meticulously: note what was observed, when, and who was informed.

• Maintain professional demeanor: avoid rumors, speculation, or public discussion.

• Continue to monitor with care: stay vigilant for new information and report any updates.

Think of it like maintaining a safety net. The moment something unusual pops up, you don’t yank on the threads yourself; you call in the specialists who know how to handle the weave without tearing the fabric.

Why not handle it yourself, or ignore it?

There’s a reason the guidelines push you toward reporting. A personal investigation can drift into subjective territory, risk violating privacy, or create interference with formal inquiries. It’s also very easy to misinterpret something and wrongfully implicate someone. When you take matters into your own hands, you’re not just risking a mistake; you’re potentially compromising a broader security procedure. And ignoring adverse information can leave a facility vulnerable to insider threats or to external manipulation. The goal is to keep the process objective, standardized, and defensible.

A practical mindset for FSOs

If you’re stepping into a role where you’ll encounter adverse information, here are a few pragmatic takeaways that tend to serve well in the field:

• Know the policy inside and out. Your organization’s security manual and NISPOM-aligned procedures spell out who to notify, what to document, and how long to retain records. Familiarity pays off in real time.

• Create a simple, repeatable workflow. A concise checklist for “adverse information found” can cut down on hesitation and ensure nothing slips through the cracks.

• Practice discretion. Guard the information as you would guard a key asset—only share it with those who need to know, and never broadcast it in hallways or email threads unless the policy dictates.

• Build trust with the chain of command. A healthy report-to-action loop helps everyone act with confidence. When people know what happens next, it’s easier to stay aligned.

• Embrace accountability, not paranoia. Security isn’t about suspecting everyone; it’s about being responsible stewards of sensitive material. Balanced, fair handling protects everyone involved.

A few common scenarios, and how the right action looks

• Scenario: An employee’s unexplained financial trouble surfaces after a background review.

Action: Report to the Security Office or the appropriate authority so they can assess risk and determine next steps. This could involve a review of the employee’s clearance conditions or additional assessment.

• Scenario: There are credible reports of potential foreign influence or conflicting loyalties.

Action: Escalate promptly. Authorities will handle the sensitive aspects and ensure due process while preserving national security.

• Scenario: There’s a discrepancy in a security clearance file that doesn’t add up.

Action: Document the discrepancy and refer it to the proper officials for investigation. Don’t try to correct or assume the answer yourself.

What I wish someone had told me when I started out

Security work rewards patience and precision. It’s tempting to want closure fast, to want a verdict now. But the system is designed to protect people and information alike. If you feel unsure, pause, review the policy, and reach out to your line of authority. It’s better to stall for a moment and do it right than to sprint and misstep.

A closing thought

Adverse information is not an accusation; it’s a signal that a formal review may be warranted. The responsible, professional FSO treats that signal with seriousness, follows the reporting protocol, and stays out of the investigation itself. By reporting through the proper channels, you help sustain a secure, respectable environment where sensitive information is safeguarded, and where employees know there’s a fair process behind every decision.

If you’re thinking about the big picture, this is really about trust. Trust in the procedures that keep classified data safe. Trust in the people who carry out those procedures with integrity. And trust in the idea that when concerns surface, the right move is to report them to the right hands. That’s how facilities stay secure, and how teams stay focused on their core mission—protecting our people, our information, and our shared security.