Well, I guess what I'm getting at is a clearance is top down CYA, like say I sold 72 M-60 machine guns to MS13 to pay off my gambling debt, and a journalist discovers in 5 minutes that I posted that to twitter before I got my job of working at the armory, and the journalist is going to ask the Commanding General of the post why no one noticed that before I got the job and did exactly what I said I'd do. So thats very top down outside agency approves you.
That's different from bottom up, a supervisor is supposed to handle (aka, fire from job) someone who spouts off about how proud they are to be racist, etc. Nobody ever asked a commanding general "how come you hired someone who flaked out and went nuts" "well, stuff happens". On the other hand its precisely the job of her immediate supervisor in a bottom up fashion to notice she's, well, gone nuts and is saying stuff that opens the company to hostile working environment lawsuits.
I'm not even commenting on her, uh, peculiar belief system, but the mistaken idea about how clearances work.
Clearances are a mix of pre-crime / CYA / shouldda known type stuff.
A direct report going insane in public is totally a supervisor direct report problem.
Clearances also vary a lot over time... 50 years ago the Soviets could bribe a gay guy into giving up secrets... today the gay guy is probably happily married and nobody cares so its no longer a clearance disqualification. On the other hand I can't imagine any scenario in the history of business where an employee stating in public that they hate the race of their CEO and some managers and coworkers would result in anything but firing, like forever pretty much everywhere.
Someday, after we stop punishing people for it, I imagine weed use will no longer be a clearance issue. How do you extort someone for secrets because they're a casual user of a cool legal substance? I suspect it'll never be acceptable in any workplace to ever say in public "I hate (some level of manager) because he's a (insert race here)"
