| Falsification of Security Clearance Applications |
|
William Henderson for ClearanceJobs.com - November 23, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
“Failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process” is one of the most common reasons for the denial or revocation of security clearances. Of the approximately 1,300 security clearance cases decided by Administrative Judges of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) during fiscal year 2008, Personal Conduct was the second most frequently cited issue and appeared in 497 (38%) of the cases. It was almost always cited due to applicants concealing information related to one of the other issues, such as criminal conduct, drug involvement, and alcohol consumption.
Unfortunately in many falsification cases, the information the applicant tried to conceal would not have resulted in a clearance denial. But the act of providing false information on the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard Form 86—SF86) was often fatal to the cases. The issue of falsification is covered under the “Personal Conduct” criterion of the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information.”
SECURITY CONCERN
If an applicant can not be trusted to provide full and truthful answers to questions on the SF86 or to government security officials, it is extremely difficult to trust the applicant with classified national security information. Most conduct-related security issues can be mitigated by rehabilitation as evidenced by passage of time without recurrence of the conduct. However, concealing relevant unfavorable information or claiming unearned qualifications or achievements on an SF86 indicates a current unwillingness to comply with security requirements and casts serious doubts on an applicant’s honesty, trustworthiness, and judgment.
POTENTIALLY DISQUALIFYING CONDITIONS
Extract from the Adjudicative Guidelines
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative
In the current version of the Adjudicative Guidelines the word, “material” was removed from the phrase, “falsification of relevant and material facts.” Since all questions on the SF86 are considered relevant, any deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification, including information that would not have made any difference in the adjudication, may be cause for clearance denial.
In recent years the misrepresentation of educational qualifications has gained increased importance in security clearance investigations and adjudication. Previously educational degrees were merely verified. Today the bona fides of questionable post-secondary schools are being scrutinized.
MITIGATING FACTORS
Many applicants treat the SF86 as just another bureaucratic form and fill it out quickly without attention to accuracy or detail. Others view it as being comparable to an employment application form where a certain amount of “huffing and puffing,” as well as selective presenting and withholding of information are normal. Some honestly misunderstand the wording and the intent of the questions. Lawyers, work associates, and military recruiters occasionally give applicants bad advice about what must be disclose and what may be withheld on an SF86.
Mitigating alleged falsification is possible, if the applicant did not deliberately provide false information on an SF86. Mistake of fact, faulty memory, and misunderstanding can be plausible reasons for unintentionally providing false information. When applicants are given an opportunity to correct false information but repeat their false assertions, mitigation becomes impossible even if they later tell the truth. “Prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts” are critical to successfully mitigating this issue.
Adjudicators consider the “whole person” when assessing applicants’ intent to falsify and their subsequent actions to correct false information. Mature, highly educated individuals are less likely than young military recruits to convince an adjudicator that they misunderstood questions, inadvertently made mistakes, or incorrectly relied on the advice of other people. When falsification is admittedly deliberate but the applicant promptly attempts to correct it before being confronted, adjudicators can sometimes make a favorable decision if the falsification was an isolated, uncharacteristic lapse in judgment by an otherwise responsible, honest individual.
William H. Henderson is a retired security investigator, author of Security Clearance Manual, and regular contributor to ClearanceJobsBlog.com and ClearanceJobs.com.
Copyright © 2009 Last Post Publishing. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Henry45 (San Diego),
In my opinion, this should not adversely impact you being considered for employment or a security clearance. If this is your only issue, a 13 year-old incident should not be a problem. Good luck. |
|
 |
 |
 |
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on August 31, 2010 at 12:17pm
|
|
|
|
When I enlisted in the Corps in 1997 I had a felony Juvi theft charge which was later reduced to a Misd and then dismissed after community service and 6 mo. informal probation. It was sealed, expunged, removed from official records. My recruiter said I did not have to list it so he didn't.
I got out in 2004 and went back in in 2005. I got out again in 2009.
Now I am looking at getting a GS job with a clearance. I know I have to disclose the charge now, but how will that affect my previous military service and clearance ability? I have had a distinguished service record and even passed a police background which is far more reaching in depth. |
|
|
|
|
Henry45 (San Diego) on August 27, 2010 at 3:28pm
|
|
|
|
Preparing (New York),
There are several facets to your scenario that should be addressed/considered.
First, is your spouse knowledgeable of the child from the extra marital affair? If not, the issue of potential blackmail or coercion is in play and must be mitigated. The falsification of your SF 86/eQIP on 2 occasions is a cause for concern, but a mitigating condition is your effort to correct the omission during your personal interview.
If your scenario results in a SOR being issued by the servicing adjudication facility, it is routinely sent to your security manager. If you are a contractor, it will be mailed to your Facility Security Officer who will contact you to arrange delivery. If your clearance eligibility is revoked and you never received the SOR, you will have appeal/reconsideration rights. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on August 3, 2010 at 8:32am
|
|
|
|
I did not include my children on my e-qip application, because one was from the result of a extra marrage affair and I did not include them on my last application, 10 years ago. During my OPM interview I can clean before asked. My concern is I travel a lot for my job. If I am issued a SOR but can response because of being out of town, do I have any options? Is the SOR send by registered mail where I have to sign for it? I assume that could prove when I actually recieved the notice. |
|
|
|
|
Preparing for the worse (New York) on July 28, 2010 at 10:17pm
|
|
|
|
Omission_Fix (Lancaster, PA),
There is hope in most cases. If you were truly denied a final security clearance (meaning you received a Statement of Reasons indicating the reasons the Government was proposing to deny your clearance), you should have received a Memorandum of Determination (MOD) indicating that your clearance was denied and providing appeal procedures. I suggest you follow the appeal procedures, including a personal appearance before an administrative judge to plead your case. Otherwise, you must wait 1 year from the date of the MOD before you can be considered.
In general, the military adjudication facilities would lean to grant a clearance after a 1 year passage of time since your last use of an illegal substance, providing the use was experimental, and at least 1 year after the “falsification” of your security forms.
In my opinion, you should be able to obtain a clearance e in the future as long as you find a company that is willing to wait on the time it takes to get your case re-looked. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on June 22, 2010 at 7:57am
|
|
|
|
Omission Fix:
There is no information available regarding what percentage of applicants are successfully in obtaining a clearance after waiting a year or more following a clearance denial. My best guess is that the number of people who reapply after being denied is so small that any ratio of success/failure would be statistically invalid. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson on June 22, 2010 at 2:13am
|
|
|
|
After being denied a clearance due to answering "no" to the drug use question (Section 23), I now understand that whether intentional or not that answering the questions truthfully is the best route. My perception of the question has no play in the fact a failed drug screening constitutes "illegal use" and even though I am not a drug user, I answered incorrectly and needed to put that down.
My question is, what are the possibilities of obtaining a clearance if I am ever offered a position in the future (this time providing an explanation rather than omitting)? I worked hard academically and professionally (never on a federal level) and would really like to be given an opportunity to clarify and establish a "trustworthy" character indicative of the work environment. What can I do to get to this point? Help... please... |
|
|
|
|
Omission_Fix (Lancaster, PA) on June 16, 2010 at 4:18pm
|
|
|
|
Forgetful,
Depending on how long it’s been since you were 18, the type of investigation involved, and whether these 2 part-time jobs occurred during a time period that you showed yourself working elsewhere, if discovered it could cause your investigation to be expanded to resolve the discrepancy.
People make mistakes on their SF86. Honest mistakes are not a problem, but sometimes they delay the investigation from being completed in a timely manner. On the other hand, if you were fired from either of the 2 jobs because of misconduct, it creates a presumption that you intentionally omitted information about the jobs, which makes the matter much, much worse. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson on June 8, 2010 at 4:21pm
|
|
|
|
Forgetful,
Do not worry. Unless you were fired from these jobs for theft or left while under investigation for fraud, I do not see a problem. If something comes up and you are required to be interviewed, you can correct the information at that time. Good Luck. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on June 8, 2010 at 11:27am
|
|
|
|
I filled out and sent my eQip and a couple days later I realized i forgot to put two part time jobs I had when I was 18 that I only worked for a month to two months. I feel horrible for forgetting after all that work. Is this something that's gonna stop me from getting clearance (a very low clearance) considering I put everything else and have no drug related information or legal background issues? |
|
|
|
|
Forgetful on June 3, 2010 at 1:24pm
|
|
|
|
Albert (Charleston):
As Bill L. said there is nothing you can do to speed up the investigation and a final clearance deterimination, except make yourself readily available if and when you are contacted for an interview. It is almost impossible to get DISCO to reconsider an interim clearance declination, but I have heard of a few instances (out of 150,000 cases) where this occurred. In those few cases, the applicant sent DISCO information that fully mitigated the unfavorable information on which the interim clearance decision was made. In FY08 DISCO declined interim clearances in 39% of their cases, but only denied final clearances in 1%. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson on May 7, 2010 at 4:41pm
|
|
|
|
Albert (Charleston),
This is MY 2 cents worth until Mr. Henderson responds. I assume you are a DoD contractor as the term “interim declined” is normally placed in JPAS by DISCO (the adjudication facility for contractors). This means your eQIP was sent by your company to DISCO who denied your interim clearance and passed the eQIP to OPM to conduct the investigation.
There is no one you can contact to speed up the process. OPM assigns interviews based on the issues involved, your location and availability of investigators, primarily contract investigators.
Before conducting the interview, they will obtain a current credit report and results of national agency checks (FBI, etc) and local police checks. It is essential that your company provide DISCO/OPM with your current location. In my experience, your case will not be done in 30 days. I have an employee who was “interim declined” and after 60 days he has not yet been interviewed. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on May 6, 2010 at 10:08am
|
|
|
|
Mr. Henderson,
I just got sent back from Kuwait because I was given an "Interim Decline"; I know what it is all about. Who do I contact "Investigator" about getting the process started, I don't have a lot of time to get this cleared up in 30 days I will not have a job. Who can I call to interview with? |
|
|
|
|
Albert (Charleston) on April 28, 2010 at 12:33pm
|
|
|
|
James,
ClearanceJobsBlog launched a new private security clearance question and answer service. You can access it here:
http://www.clearancejobsblog.com/gettingupdating-a-clearance/new-security-clearance-question-and-answer-service |
|
|
|
|
Eric (ClearanceJobs.com) on April 23, 2010 at 4:56pm
|
|
|
|
Mr. Henderson, Is there any way to contact you with questions on a more private level? Do you offer a consulting service? |
|
|
|
|
James (Washington DC) on April 23, 2010 at 3:35pm
|
|
|
|
Susan (Boynton):
I don’t know for certain, but based on the title of the form (Investigative request for education registrar and dean of student’s record data) you have to assume that it asks about disciplinary issues. At many (if not most) schools disciplinary records are maintained by the office of the Dean of Students. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson on April 20, 2010 at 5:19pm
|
|
|
|
What questions are asked on a inv form 43? Is it just dates, attendance, gpa or does it ask about disciplinary issues and or any past problems. |
|
|
|
|
Susan (Boynton) on April 19, 2010 at 9:59am
|
|
|
|
I need help.....I had a secret security clearance, then I had to put in for my TS/SSBI. In my E-qip (2003) clearance I failed to mention in 1998 I was charge with a misdemeanor and two felony but the charge was nolle pros. At the time I thought the charges was drop and wasn't on my record, therefore I didn't put it on my 2003 e-qip. In 2006 I had to put in for my TS/SSBI, I had to fill out the e-qip form about three times (each time the SFO lost it) the third time I fill the form out, I stated that in 2004 i was charged and convicted of a misdemeanor and did weekend jail time for 3 weeks and place on probation. I also was forth coming to the investigator about my criminal background. Around Feb 2010 I was denied of all security clearance because of my criminal background and it was brought to my attention in the admin hearing that my three wreckless driving charges (1998, 2004, 2006) were misdemeanor. I did not appeal the judge verdict. I plan on reapplying for a security clearance next yr. What is my chance of getting my clearance back? |
|
|
|
|
07yamahahar107 (Central VA) on April 16, 2010 at 1:30pm
|
|
|
|
Andy (US),
It is extremely rare that an admission of falsifying a FS 86/eQIP would result in a criminal prosecution. I can see it happening if someone falsified information, received a clearance and then committed espionage, sabotage, etc. In your case, I suspect your clearance will be denied and your company will have to reassign or terminate you. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on April 6, 2010 at 9:45am
|
|
|
|
I am applying for a job with DOE as a security police officer. I have been offered the job and have accepted. The job requires a Q clearance, and I am 70% service connected for PTSD. I transitioned out of the Army in 2007 and my PTSD was severe, although, with help thru the VA I am getting better.
My concern is I will not pass my Q clearance because of PTSD history. I was told while doing my Q clearance they were able to gain access to my VA mental health record and prescriptions. If this is true, I am scared that I will be denied my clearance because of my history with PTSD. I am very worried and do not want to leave my present job and roll the dice on my q clearance if this is the case. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
hawk1 (Idaho) on March 25, 2010 at 1:40pm
|
|
|
|
I intentionally falsified my SF-86 relating to past marijuana use (I lied about the frequency and most recent use). When I was finally interviewed by the OPM investigator I came clean immediately. Recently, I received documentation from DOHA asking me to "admit" or "deny" the areas that I falsified.
At this point I couldn't care less about the clearance (secret) or my job because in the reasoning section they point out that falsifying the SF-86 is a FELONY. Does anyone know how how often individuals are charged with a felony for lying on the SF-86? |
|
|
|
|
Andy (US) on March 23, 2010 at 7:59pm
|
|
|
|
HH (Huntsville): What was your DOHA case number? I'd like to read it before I comment. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson on March 14, 2010 at 12:24am
|
|
|
|
I am writing my response to DOHA in hopes to get my secret clearance back. I had mine denied during an SSBI investigation and told I could re-apply in one yr. It was denied on 2/26/2008 due to being fired from a job in 2001/2002 due to viewing pornography (4-6 visits to a website over a 2 mth period).
It was an isolated incident and can be mitigated, but my response to the investigator and my SF86 in 2007/2008 showed being fired because of company restructuring...so I lied and admitted it back in 2008 to DOHA but they told me to wait a yr.
So how do I mitigate my error in judgment? It was something I wanted to block out of my mind...a blackspot on my career...but in the end I should have been candid and was not. Any advice for my reapplication? |
|
|
|
|
HH (Huntsville) on March 9, 2010 at 1:09pm
|
|
|
|
I work for a contractor and may soon need to get a secret clearance, I tried pot once about 6 years ago and never since. I have on occasion throughout the past few years taken my wife's painkillers for recreational, but no more than a handful of times. My concern is that I am not changing companies but I have to fill out an SF86, my conduct could be grounds for termination. However I want to be truthful on the SF86, any advice? |
|
|
|
|
Hugh on February 20, 2010 at 11:50pm
|
|
|
|
TS Applicant,
The dual US/NATO country citizenship of your spouse will probably not be a problem. The assault/PTSD will be looked at for the severity and recency, as well as whether you completed treatment or on medication. The investigators will most likely visit your attending physician and ask simply whether you have a condition which would impair your judgment, reliability or ability to protect national security. If the doctor’s answer is “no”, you should be okay. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on February 18, 2010 at 11:12am
|
|
|
|
Applying for a TS clearance (already hold a SECRET); my spouse is a dual US-NATO country citizen. And, I went through a VA PTSD treatment program (3 months) for an assault a while back. Other than that, I have no other derogatory info. How are my chances? |
|
|
|
|
TSApplicant (anywhere) on February 16, 2010 at 8:41pm
|
|
|
|
JasonAmes:
You should have no problem getting a final secret (or higher) security clearance. Of the 150,000 security clearance applications processed each year by the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) only 5 applicants were denied clearances in 2009 by Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judges because of Psychological Conditions. A July 2009 article at www.Army.mil reported that the US Army Central Clearance Facility’s “adjudicative history indicates that 99.98 percent of cases with psychological concerns obtained/retained their security clearance eligibility.” Interim clearances are more difficult, but I don’t think an interim clearance will be important in your situation. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on February 12, 2010 at 6:16pm
|
|
|
|
I have mild generalized anxiety, no depression. Mostly it's around presentation anxiety. I have a standing prescript for amitryptaline and klonapin. Both of which I take on occasion if I can't sleep or if my irritable bowel flares up. I don't drink, smoke or take drugs. No criminal history. Only 1 traffic ticket in 20 years.
Dang near perfect credit rating. Never been late on a single payment. No financial problems ever in my adult life. Never been fired and have been a stellar, award winning employee for 15 years. I have applied to a company that contracts with a Federal health agency. I don't know the level of clearance required, but I think it is Secret.
I have seen psychologists and a psychiatrist in the past, which is who gave me the prescript. Should I forget this deal? Do I have a chance here? I don't need one to get the job, just have to have the ability to get one after. I'm thinking that's very risky to leave my current job and then maybe get denied and be out of work. |
|
|
|
|
JasonAmes2009 (CA) on February 11, 2010 at 4:27pm
|
|
|
|
DB (Germany):
Bigamy is felony or at least an alternate felony in most jurisdictions. This makes it a potentially disqualifying conditoin for a security clearance. However, like most other potentially disqualifying conditions, it can be mitigated. See my article on the “Effect of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearances” at http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/72/efffect-of-criminal-conduct-on-security-clearances for information about mitigation. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on February 1, 2010 at 5:45pm
|
|
|
|
Accepted a job offer that requires a Secret clearance. Can you please tell me if I will be denied a clearance based on following info:
1990 Married a German citizen
1991 Joined the Army
1993 Married someone else
1996 Legally divorced my first husband and declared my 2nd marriage invalid/annulled
I was just stupid. My first marrage was a mistake and I wanted to start a new life and get away from him. I lost contact with him after I left Germany unitl he contacted me in 1996 and I immediately filed for divorce then. At that time, my second marriage was falling apart and I applied to get that one annulled simultaneously. Both were legally finalized in 1996.
I am happily married now (over 10 years) to a wonderful man.
Will this adversely affect my security clearance (Secret)? Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
DB (Germany) on January 29, 2010 at 4:25am
|
|
|
|
Really Confused,
I think you completed the form correctly. IF you are denied an interim clearance, it will probably be based on you currently taking medication. I do not think this will result in a final denial of a clearance eligibility. Normally, the investigators will contact your attending physician and ask the questions posed on the Medical Release portion of your SF 86/eQIP, specifically whether the person under investigation has a condition that could impair their judgment, reliability or ability to safeguard national security information. If the physician answers “no”, there should not have a problem being granted a clearance. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on January 26, 2010 at 11:59am
|
|
|
|
I recently filled out the sf-86 for an interim secret clearance however, I'm a little concerned about my answer to question 21.
n the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental
health condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition?
Answer “No” if the counseling was for any of the following reasons and was not court-ordered:
• strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or
• strictly related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment.
Here's my situation: I was never court-ordered to counseling or court-ordered to the hospital I was briefly hospitalized for less than 48 hours in 2003 after issues of depression (not being able to sleep, separation anxiety from my parents, and being raped at college) I have seen a therapist and psychiatrist, but no longer see a therapist and currently see a psychiatrist every year for medicine checks. I am currently stable and I was stable when I graduated in 2007 from college. The past situation was a temporary one caused by the items mentioned above, I have resolved the situation by running each day, therapy, medication.
I responded on the sf86 by answering NO to the question however, I gave an explanation similar to the one above however it was more detailed.
Is this a reason to deny interim secret clearance?
I feel I have mediated it by explaining that it was a temporary situation and have explained my onging and consistent treatment plan and have also explained that my mental instability doesn't exist anymore. I also included my psychiatrist's contact information and signed the health waiver consent form.
I also explained that I was really confused and unsure how to answer the question as yes or no
yes-was court-ordered and not under any of the above listed
no-not court ordered but under one of the following
should I have answered yes, is this going to look like I'm trying to hide something? I'm really not hiding anything, I was just really confused and answered it to the best of my knowledge |
|
|
|
|
Really Confused on January 20, 2010 at 11:16pm
|
|
|
|
Burned Out (Bagdad),
Unfortunately, I do not have a quick favorable answer for you. Your interim Secret was granted by your unit upon review of your eQIP/SF 86. I assume there were no issues/derog info on the form so an interim was granted. When your investigation got to the adjudication facility (CAF), they also had info regarding your April positive UA.
The mitigating guideline for minor/experimental drug use is generally passage of time of 1 year. This supports an individual’s intention/demonstration not to use illegal drug in the future. Since your use was recent, the CAF issued a memorandum of intent to deny your clearance eligibility, aka SOR. Obviously, it was sent to where you were when the eQIP was submitted or to your home base and never got to you. Since you did not answer the memorandum (that you did not get), the CAF denied your clearance.
There are several things wrong with this (procedurally and morally). First, your Security Manager should have been monitoring JPAS and seen the SOR entry. I fully understand that this is not a priority duty in a combat zone. Second, the military CAFs should have a policy that SOR’s NOT be issued for deployed personnel unless the issues are mental health related (a danger to themselves or others) or affiliation/association with a questionable group. The bottom line is that you should be able to appeal/request reconsideration of your clearance denial, but I would not expect a favorable decision before April (1 year after the positive UA). You can start by submitting a request through Freedom of Information, (address is on the INSCOM website for Army personnel) to get a copy of your file. This file should contain a copy of the SOR and the final letter of determination (LOD) denying your clearance. Good luck and keep your head down. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on January 19, 2010 at 12:38pm
|
|
|
|
Jake (California),
The questions on the SF 86/eQIP regarding criminal conduct need to be answered regardless of the judicial outcome (dismissed, expunged, etc). I do not think 1 incident 10 years ago should have a negative impact on your eligibility determination. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on January 19, 2010 at 12:20pm
|
|
|
|
Forgetfull,
You should list the Art 15 on your eQIP/SF 86. The question asks for SSBI for TS in the past 10 years "have you been subject to ... disciplinary proceedings under the" UCMJ? Most likely, you will not be questioned, but if you are questioned regarding your failure to list it on your original form for the Secret clearance, just admit that it was an oversight - do not dwell on the minor nature of the infraction. I do not think this will cause a denial of a TS eligibility. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on January 13, 2010 at 10:00am
|
|
|
|
All of these postings are very informative, and educate myself in the realm of the "security clearance" world. Seriously, I have to throw some humor in it, and all those that have done the SF86 know where I'm coming from. Here's my battle and advice, information, or procedures are welcomed. I'm currently in Iraq, holding a PSD position. This requires at least a secret clearance. In April 2009 I had a 6-month suspended Article 15 for positive UA. However, I had a interim-secret. Since April I've held positive ground, no issues or anything. Towards the end of Sept or beginning Oct 2009 our CO mentioned to me that my clearance had been pulled (revoked) or similar to that effect. I asked if he knew why, and told me because of the failed UA. Mind-you that it was for prescription med's, but i'm still in the same boat with persons that test for real-drug substances . Either way I'm asking for avenues or advice on how to either get my clearance back, or other options are. I keep reading about people talking to their investigator, but I've never talked to any one, except for the civilian personnel that were helping us with our SF86 online. And what are the differences from interim-secret to secret. |
|
|
|
|
BurnedOut (Baghdad, Iraq) on January 12, 2010 at 3:05pm
|
|
|
|
I'm in the process of getting a job with a defense contractor, and they've told me I'll be required to get a clearance. 10 years ago I was busted in a prostitution sting. The charges were utlimately dismissed or dropped after I paid a small fine and took a class. I had no wife or girlfriend at the time, but am now married with kids. The criminal and court records have all been expunged, but I certainly won't count on hiding this. How critical will this be to me getting a clearance? Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Jake ((California)) on January 8, 2010 at 7:07pm
|
|
|
|
have question in regards to an SSBI. I recently been awarded a secret clearance in Dec 2009. I was just informed that I need to get an SSBI done for a TS.
When I viewed my SF86 again I forgot to (not on purpose) list a company grade Article 15 that I received in 2004. The Non judicial punishment was at the lowest level . I was ordered to forfeit $100 which was suspended . It was a ridiculous Article 15 for derilication of duty for not properly administrating a policy. The Article 15 was placed in my restirced fiche so it wouldn't harm me in any way. I want to come clean even know this is small stuff.
If I list it now will OPM or the adjudicator deny my clearance and revoke my secret based on the fact that I plainly forgot to list this? I have no other blotches in my records what so ever. I have been out of the service since 2005. |
|
|
|
|
Forgetfull on January 3, 2010 at 9:04pm
|
|
|
|
Me (Washington, DC):
An NACLC (National Agency Check with Law and Credit checks) is an investigation, not a clearance. The NACLC is used as the basis for granting a Secret clearance and determining eligibility for certain non-critical sensitive positions that don’t entail access to classified information. The US military often has an NACLC conducted on new recruits even if a security clearance is not immediately required. If you have a Secret clearance you can certainly apply for jobs that require a Secret clearance. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on December 30, 2009 at 7:52pm
|
|
|
|
Wanda:
An SF50 is a “Notification of Personnel Action.” It is issued to US Federal employees when something changes in their employment status. It has nothing to do with security clearances. If you had a security clearance from 1999 to 2004, it terminated in 2004 and is no longer eligible for reinstatement. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on December 30, 2009 at 7:43pm
|
|
|
|
How can I obtain my SF50. I worked for a foreign company that was contracted thru the military (federal government). I was employed 1999-2004, is my secret clearance still active? How can I find the answers now that I'm a civilian in the states. |
|
|
|
|
Wanda Dennise Robinson (Clarksville, Tennessee) ) on December 30, 2009 at 1:21pm
|
|
|
|
I currently hold a NACLC clearance. Is this a security clearance and can I use this clearance to apply for clearance or cleared jobs? |
|
|
|
|
Me (Washington, DC) on December 30, 2009 at 8:17am
|
|
|
|
No. You must be sponsored by a cleared contractor or a government entity. To be sponsored you must be employed by a cleared contractor (or hired as a consultant) in a position that requires a clearance. As an exception, a candidate for employment may be submitted for a clearance if the cleared contractor has made a binding offer of employment and the candidate has accepted the offer. Both the offer and acceptance must be in writing. The offer of employment must indicate that employment will begin within 30 days of
receiving the clearance.
Try searching job sites for the word "clearable" or "able to be cleared" and similar. |
|
|
|
|
Eric on December 28, 2009 at 10:08am
|
|
|
|
Is there any way to get a security clearance on my own or must I be employed by someone who puts it in for me?
There is a certain company I would like to work for but it's a position with a clearance. Unless you already have one you don't get an interview. I was wondering if there is something I can do on my own in order to get a clearance. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
Mark (Charlotte, NC) on December 23, 2009 at 8:43pm
|
|
|
|
Anonymous208702:
There is no definitive answer to your question. No doubt there have been numerous cases involving foreclosures that have resulted in different decisions depending on individual circumstances and the specific adjudicative agency involved.
California's "anti-deficiency" laws may protect you from liability to the lender in the event the proceeds from a foreclosure sale are not enough to fully pay the loan. If you are protected by California’s anti-deficiency statutes, that will be a major consideration when your case is adjudicated. But that alone may not be enough to mitigate the security issue associated with your “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.”
The reason for the foreclosure, the foreseeability of the problem, and your actions before, during and after the foreclosure will also be considered. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on December 22, 2009 at 4:47pm
|
|
|
|
Currently, I have a TS/SCI with CI polygraph clearance.
My wife is a realtor. Since, the real-estate market collapsed
a few years ago, my wife's income has significantly decreased. As such, we are struggling each month financially. Our mortgage company has modified our loan.
Unfortunately, with my wife's limited income, we still cannot meet all of our monthly financial obligations. We would like to downsize, but we cannot sell our home, because we are "underwater". What would happen, to my clearances, if we just walked away from the house, and let the house go into foreclosure? |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous208702 (California) on December 21, 2009 at 10:11am
|
|
|
|
John:
Even though the terms “active, current, and expired” are commonly used to describe security clearance status, the terms “current clearance” and "expired clearance” are misnomers.
Investigations can be “current or expired” but not clearances. Clearances are either active or terminated. A security clearance terminates when the person is debriefed. For most people this occurs when they leave the employment where the clearance was granted. For a terminated clearance to be eligible for reinstatement at the same agency (or reciprocally reinstateable by a different agency), there can be no more than a 24 month “break in service” and the last security clearance investigation must be no more than 5 years old for a TS clearance (10 years for a Secret and 15 years for a Confidential). Additionally, clearances may be ineligible for reinstatement if a security issue has surfaced since the last clearance adjudication. Reinstatement of SCI eligibility follows the same 24 month/5 year rule; however, current policy states that a new SF86 may be required if a break in access of more than 60 days has occurred or if a polygraph exam is required.
These are the rules regarding clearance reinstatement, but in the world of SCI not all the agencies follow all the rules all the time.
Most people use the term “current clearance” to mean a clearance that is not active but eligible for reinstatement and use the term “expired clearance” to mean a clearance that is not active and no longer eligible for reinstatement because one of the time limits has been exceeded. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on December 16, 2009 at 3:04pm
|
|
|
|
After retirement from the Air Force as Chief Intelligence of a Bomb Wing my TS/SCI expired now I find it impossible to apply to positions I am qualified to fill without an active clearance. It is a catch 22 problem. |
|
|
|
|
John (Charlottesville Virginia) on December 16, 2009 at 12:26pm
|
|
|
|
William Jones:
It’s strange that you were interviewed about a new hire. There is no requirement to interview a coworker or a supervisor unless the Subject of the investigation was there for more than 6 months. DoD5200.2-R (Personnel Security Program) which applies to everyone within DOD states at paragraph C9.1.5.: “Coworker Responsibility. Coworkers have an equal obligation to advise their supervisor or appropriate security official when they become aware of information with potentially serious security significance regarding someone with access to classified information employed in a sensitive position.” I think that the personnel security regulations of most other federal agencies have similar wording. But now that the person is no longer there, there is no responsibility imposed on you by a regulation and there is no readily accessible channel for reporting your concerns. You can seek out a security clearance investigator and ask if he/she will take the information and pass it on. If you are still concerned about reprisal by the individual, you can ask the investigator to make you a confidential source. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on December 12, 2009 at 1:16am
|
|
|
|
What is the advice for when an investigator asks questions about a new hire, and you really have nothing derogatory to tell, then weeks later after the clearance is granted the employee starts blabbering in the office about potential federal crimes? Case in question: new employee gets TS/SCI, then a month later starts to talk about hacking into her rental tenant's email accounts because they are habitually delinquent in their rent. Employee ends-up being a problem child and fortunately moves-on from the agency (OMG: now working for Homeland Security!) No one said anything because time showed the employee had a vindictive and litigious streak that deterred anyone from pressing the issue. So what are the "expansive" responsibilities of the office employees in interviews? |
|
|
|
|
William P. Jones (District Heights Maryland) on December 9, 2009 at 3:20pm
|
|
|
|
Job Seeker:
The Adjudicative Guidelines state: “The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.” If it is not possible to investigate a “sufficient period of a person’s life,” then it is not possible to grant a security clearance. Clearances are not granted based on just the absence of unfavorable information. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on December 7, 2009 at 7:46pm
|
|
|
|
DC:
I recommend you go to the security office that initiated your clearance request. Provide the information in writing and get written acknowledgement that you provided the information. The investigation is opened and begins before the field investigator receives the paperwork. |
|
|
|
|
William Henderson (Pacific Grove, CA) on December 7, 2009 at 7:41pm
|
|
|
|
I surely have faith in the investigations used for U.S. applicants because it is very easy to get information about any of us. We simply have no means from hiding any information. My concern is those born outside the U.S. are easily able to obtain employment in the U.S. Can we be sure our investigators can get all information about those people?
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
|
Job Seeker (Washington Metro Area) on December 7, 2009 at 3:17pm
|
|
|
|
This whole "security clearance" kabuki dance just seems so irrelevantly ritualistic.
Tell the investigator everything bad you've ever done. Please.
The guys who have REALLY done bad, black-mailable things aren't going to tell. And the investigator isn't going to find out. All the other petty disclosures are just so much security theater.
The government needs to find a better security model than this farcical "clearance" system. Because the emperor ain't got no clothes. |
|
|
|
|
Vladimir (Chevy Chase, MD) on December 4, 2009 at 4:43pm
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to correct a falsification on the SF-86 before the investigation begins or, if the investigator contacts you before the investigation begins so that you can be up front about any falsification? |
|
|
|
|
DC on November 30, 2009 at 4:58pm
|
|
|
|
Exactly the reason why I always tell SUBJECT's it is better for you to tell me about any issue than for us to find out about it during the course of the investigation. |
|
|
|
|
Investigator (Central VA) on November 29, 2009 at 5:53pm
|
|
|
|
Am I correct in recalling that the only thing more serious than omission is fabrication? I seem to remember that while omission is a very big problem, making stuff up out of whole cloth, no matter how small, is literally impossible to mitigate.
My advice is to tell them everything. After so many sleepless nights and "what if"s and "did I forget that" I told my investigator pretty much every bad thing I have ever done in my entire life, far beyond the scope of the SSBI or even the TS with lifestyle. And you know what? It was absolutely fine. Seriously, just be honest. You can't change the past. Either you meet the standards or you don't; all you can do is tell the truth. |
|
|
|
|
Max (Arlington, VA) on November 26, 2009 at 6:25pm
Edward Reponte (AUSTIN Texas) on November 25, 2009 at 8:15am
|
|
|
|
|
