The sponsoring government agency determines your security clearance level.

Who decides your security clearance level? A quick quiz moment: is it A) your direct supervisor, B) the government agency sponsoring you, C) the chief security officer of your organization, or D) the local police department? If you’re focused on CDSE Facility Security Officer topics, you’ve likely heard the same line of reasoning many times: the sponsor holds the keys, not your boss at work. The correct answer is B — the government agency sponsoring the individual determines the clearance level.

Let me explain why that’s the case and what it means in the real world.

Why the sponsor, not the supervisor, holds the decision

Think of security clearances as access permissions to information that could affect national security. The power to grant, modify, or revoke that access rests with the federal sponsor—the agency that needs you to handle sensitive material. Why? Because that agency is the one with the authority to evaluate the risks tied to the position and the information you’ll encounter. They have the resources to conduct thorough background investigations and apply the standards that fit the role you’ll fill.

Your direct supervisor, or the chief security officer of your organization, can contribute valuable input. They see you up close, understand your work habits, and can vouch for your reliability in daily tasks. But their input isn’t the final word. They don’t determine the level of clearance you receive, and they don’t unilaterally set the criteria. The formal decision rests with the sponsoring agency after a structured review process.

A quick contrast that helps anchor the idea: imagine you’re borrowing a highly specialized tool from the lab. The lab manager might supervise you and check that you know the safety rules, but the decision to let you use that tool in a sensitive experiment comes from the department head who oversees the program. The same logic applies to security clearances. The sponsor is the program lead for security, and they’re the one who signs off on access.

What the sponsorship process typically involves

Here’s the practical path you’ll see, in broad strokes, though specifics can vary by agency and role:

• A sponsoring agency identifies the need. They decide you’ll access particular information and require a certain level of clearance.

• Background investigation gets launched. This is where you’ll be asked to provide a lot of details about your history—employment, education, residences, foreign contacts, finances, and any legal issues. Fingerprints or identity checks may be part of the process.

• Adjudication uses established criteria. The agency consults published guidelines that weigh factors like trustworthiness, reliability, and potential risks to national security. The goal isn’t to punish past mistakes but to gauge future risk.

• A determination is made about the clearance level. Depending on the sensitivity of the information you’ll access, you might be granted Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret clearance (and sometimes other access classifications in specialized programs).

• The decision is communicated, with steps for appeal or review if needed. If there are issues, you’ll typically have an opportunity to clarify or rectify information.

What each player contributes (and what they don’t)

• Sponsoring agency: The gatekeeper. They fund and oversee the investigation, interpret the results, and issue or deny the clearance. They’re responsible for ensuring the level matches the job’s needs and the information you’ll handle.

• Your direct supervisor: The on-the-ground evaluator. They observe behavior, performance, and day-to-day conduct. They can flag concerns, provide context, and explain how you handle sensitive tasks, but they don’t set the final level.

• Chief Security Officer (CSO) or security office: The operational partner. They help implement policies, run internal security programs, and gather input. They’re part of the process, but their input is advisory, not the ultimate decision.

• Local police: Not the decision-makers here. Law enforcement may be involved in separate legal matters or background checks, but they don’t determine security clearance levels.

What safety and reliability look like in practice

When the sponsoring agency is evaluating your eligibility, they’re balancing several core qualities:

• Trustworthiness: Can you be relied upon to protect sensitive information and not reveal it inappropriately?

• Reliability: Do you consistently follow rules, show up, and maintain integrity in your work?

• Stability: Are there any personal or financial pressures that could impact performance or judgment?

• Loyalty to national interests: Do you pose potential conflicts that could compromise security?

These factors aren’t just about past behavior; they’re about how you’re likely to act in future situations where a mistake could have serious consequences. The adjudication guidelines are designed to weigh these factors in a fair, transparent way.

A few practical notes that sometimes surprise people

• Input isn’t a single meeting. The sponsor collects information from several sources, including your records and, in some cases, references or interviews.

• It isn’t a “yes” or “no” at the word go. Sometimes the result is a required follow-up, or a conditional clearance subject to ongoing monitoring.

• It isn’t personal by itself. A stumble in one area doesn’t automatically derail clearance if you demonstrate honesty, accountability, and corrective steps.

Common misconceptions that linger

• Misconception: Your boss has the final say. Reality: The sponsor does.

• Misconception: Local police decide clearance levels. Reality: They aren’t the arbiters for this process.

• Misconception: You can negotiate your way to a higher level after the fact. Reality: Levels come from the sponsor’s assessment and the adjudication criteria.

• Misconception: A clean record guarantees clearance. Reality: Even clean records have to be evaluated in context with the role and the information involved.

What helps the process stay smooth

• Full disclosure: Be honest about your history, even if it’s uncomfortable. Concealing information typically hurts more than it helps.

• Timely cooperation: Respond quickly to requests for information or clarifications. Delays can slow down the entire process.

• Clarity about your role: Know the level of access you’ll need for your duties, and be prepared to explain why. This helps the sponsor match the clearance to the job.

• Understanding the criteria: Familiarize yourself with the general purpose of adjudicative guidelines. It helps you grasp what the decision hinges on, even if you’re not doing the adjudication yourself.

A human lens on a technical process

If you’re studying for a Facility Security Officer role, you’ll hear a lot about policies, procedures, and frameworks. Yet at the heart of all that, there’s a very human calculation: can this person be trusted with information that could affect people, organizations, and, in some cases, national security? The sponsor’s decision is the culmination of that judgment, conducted with rigor and professionalism.

Relating it back to everyday work

On a practical level, you might relate this to how you handle sensitive data in your own organization. Even without a formal government clearance, the same instincts apply: protect the data you’re entrusted with, speak up when something feels off, and maintain a culture of accountability. The difference with a clearance is scale and official oversight. The same mindset—responsibility, transparency, and steady judgment—still matters.

A closing thought to keep in mind

So, who is responsible for determining your security clearance level? The sponsoring government agency. Your supervisor and CSO can support you, but the final call rests with the sponsor after a structured investigation and adjudication. And that process, though it can feel lengthy, is built to ensure that people granted access to sensitive information are the right fit for the role and the mission.

If you’re digesting CDSE materials, you’ll notice a steady thread: clear roles, defined processes, and a shared commitment to safeguarding information. That clarity isn’t just academic; it’s practical, it’s essential, and it’s how professionals stay trusted stewards of security in a complex, connected world.