If you have a complicated background, having an attorney review a draft version of your SF-86 prior to submission is often money well spent. Alternatively, the security clearance adjudicative guidelines offer a “safe harbor” for advice obtained from a U.S. government security official or Facility Security Officer.
If you are trying to get security clearance, you are going to need help from a lawyer in preparing the SF86 form. An attorney from our firm will guide you through the process and will make sure everything is done properly.
These should be friends, peers, and/or colleagues who are essentially aware of what you do in your spare time. While not specifically stated on the SF86, these people should be individuals who socialize with you outside of work. The three individuals, collectively, must cover the last seven years.
For example, Section 11, “Where you Have Lived,” on the SF86 requires you to list your residential addresses for the last ten years. In this section, you must list a verifier for the residences in which you lived for the last three years.
Conservation of judicial resources, and the requirement of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, is simply not relevant in this context, where a security clearance is deemed a privilege over a right. Given those realities, this author is admittedly surprised at the category of offense NOT included as an “EVER” question on the SF-86: sex crimes.
The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5)years imprisonment.
It says the average person takes 2 hours to complete the form, counting all the time for research.
1. Should I Tell People I'm Applying for a Security Clearance Job? The fact that you have a security clearance is not classified, so there's no reason you can't tell someone you have a security clearance.
For most Federal Government civilian, military and contractor positions, employees are required to complete a SF 86. This form, and its equivalent electronic version (eApp), have evolved over the years and the latest version was revised in 2017.
THE LAW AND YOUR SECURITY CLEARANCE The fact of the matter is that there really is no legal impediment to using an applicant's admissions of unreported criminal conduct against the applicant in a subsequent criminal prosecution.
The Standard Form 86, or SF-86, is the questionnaire used to obtain a Secret or Top Secret security clearance. And it's a whopping 127 pages. (We'll let that sink in.) It's packed full of questions that require a very high level of transparency and honesty.
In most cases, you should not put your security clearance in your LinkedIn profile. Due to national security issues, and personal security threats, publicizing your clearance status makes it easy to target you and exploit the information you have about the project you are supporting.
A: It's perfectly okay to specify that you have a clearance, as well as clearance type. It's also okay to list polygraph information and dates on your resume, according to intelligence agency resume guidelines, including those provided by the National Security Agency.
Under certain circumstances, an applicant's spouse or cohabitant may be subject to a security check. If you are processed for a Top Secret level clearance, a national agency check will be run on your husband or wife; however, this check would be conducted with their permission.
The short answer is no – your references won't see any portion of the SF-86. Any questions they are asked will be directly related to one of the adjudicative criteria, or questions on the SF-86 form.
Top secret clearance holders must have no significant financial concerns. If the background check reveals a considerable amount of debt, missed payments, tax evasion, collection judgments, check fraud, foreclosures, embezzlement or bankruptcies, your application might be rejected.
That may be one of two forms – the SF-85, or the SF-86. The SF-85 is used for public trust or lower-risk positions. The SF-86 is used for all security clearance determinations, including Secret and Top Secret clearances.
The comment was ostensibly referring to Standard Form (SF) 86, which all security clearance holders know to be the foundation of both their initial investigation and subsequent periodic reviews. Indeed, a review of that document shows that a security clearance applicant is required to report any of the following that occurred within the seven (7) years preceding the date on which the applicant signs the form: arrests; criminal charges, convictions, or sentencing; probation or parole; or, summonses (excluding traffic citations with a fine of less than $300 that did not involve alcohol or drugs). (See Question 22.1).
Similarly, a different federal law known as the Lautenberg Amendment bars anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime from access to firearms. Obviously, that would prohibit someone with a domestic violence conviction from working in most law enforcement -related positions – a fact that the government would need to know when evaluating a candidate’s suitability for such a position.
Finally, addiction science research that shows that someone who is involved extensively with illegal drugs or alcohol abuse at an early age is more likely to re-offend later in life, requiring perhaps a lengthier time of sobriety before meriting the fiduciary responsibility of a security clearance.
It is understandable that some applicants may bristle at the need to provide an affirmative response to Question 22.2 after answering “no” to the prior section; after all, many people make juvenile mistakes in their younger years, only to self-reform and/or mature. One can imagine the unpleasant reminder of a past mistake rearing its head every time a security clearance holder is up for periodic review.
If your SF86 proves to be inaccurate, or even seems to be inaccurate, you have opened yourself up to the charge that you have not been candid and forthcoming. That’s a violation of Guideline E of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Unlike most of the Adjudicate Guidelines, which instruct that a given situation or conduct “ could” raise a security concern and “ may be” disqualifying,” failing to provide full, frank and truthful answers “ will normally result” in an unfavorable clearance action.” You really want to avoid a Guideline E charge.
Sometimes the SF86 requires that you disclose embarrassing aspects of your past that you don’t really think of as your past, or who you are today, or that you’ve “rephrased” in your mind; your memory of the matter may be different than what the documentation shows or the recollections of others involved at the time.
Second, this form is ambiguous and you may misunderstand a question. Third, we all have to look in the mirror in the morning. Sometimes the SF86 requires that you disclose embarrassing aspects of your past that you don’t really think of as your past, or who you are today, or that you’ve “rephrased” in your mind; your memory of the matter may be different than what the documentation shows or the recollections of others involved at the time.
The first rule, which is to tell the truth, sounds easy enough in theory. Usually those involved in some past event can generally agree on the facts. But sometimes people have different recollections of what is true. The rule of thumb here is to assume that the adjudicator has or will get “the other side of the story.”.
When the facts surrounding some past event could be embarrassing if related by someone else involved, you should be the first to bring this out. Your response should make sense of the different views and recollections for your benefit and for the benefit of the process.
On the SF86, there are various sections which can elicit derogatory information in your background such as criminal conduct, drug and alcohol abuse, and financial issues . Although you are not required to list on the SF86 the names of individuals who can directly verify these issues, you will be asked for names during an interview with an investigator. For top secret clearances an investigator will be required to interview individuals who have direct knowledge regarding derogatory issues in your background. For instance, if you engaged in illegal drug use, an investigator will want to interview an individual who has observed you illegally using drugs. For financial issues, an investigator will usually interview your spouse (if you are married) as a spouse generally has the most knowledge regarding your financial responsibility.
While not specifically stated on the SF86, these people should be individuals who socialize with you outside of work. The three individuals, collectively, must cover the last seven years. What this means is that you don’t have to list three people who have each socialized with you for the last seven years. You can list one individual who has ...
A verifier is someone who has direct knowledge of a certain activity in your background. For example, Section 11, “Where you Have Lived,” on the SF86 requires you to list your residential addresses for the last ten years. In this section, you must list a verifier for the residences in which you lived for the last three years.
The next section in which you may be required to list a verifier is Section 12 , “Education.”. Here you must list verifiers for schools that you have attended within the last three years. Again this should be someone who has direct knowledge of your attendance such as a classmate or professor.
You can list one individual who has socialized with you for the last two years, one individual who socialized with you in three through five, and one individual who socialized with you in years six through seven. On the SF86, there are various sections which can elicit derogatory information in your background such as criminal conduct, ...
For Top Secret clearances, investigators are generally required to interview at least two coworkers at each job location in which you worked for six months or more.
Security clearance background investigations can be time consuming. Providing all the pertinent and relevant information on the SF86 Questionnaire when you complete it facilitates the expeditious completion of your background investigation, especially if it covers activities in two or more states. Specifically you should ensure that you list proper references and verifiers for various activities on the SF86.
The revisions to the SF-86 were designed to decrease applicant anxiety over the mental health questions and encourage those working in the national security sector who need mental health treatment to get it. Ironically though, the changes to the form themselves are giving some long-time national security professionals serious anxiety. If this sounds like you, understand that only a miniscule percentage of people with mental health conditions are found unfit to hold a security clearance, and that failing to seek needed treatment or comply with medical advice is often viewed as a far more significant concern. Also keep in mind that the government knows that the form is different now than it was the last time around. Applicants need not (and should not) over-volunteer information not specifically requested unless advised by qualified legal counsel or a mental health professional to the contrary.
In November 2016 the U.S. government released a revised version of Standard Form (SF) 86, the security clearance background investigation questionnaire. That revision, still in effect today, was most notable for its dramatic overhaul of the section covering an applicant’s mental health history. Although four years have since transpired, many current clearance holders are just now seeing the form for the first time as part of a five-year ( Top Secret) or ten-year ( Secret) periodic review. Their reactions range from nonplussed to bewilderment and depend largely on whether an applicant previously responded in the affirmative to any mental health questions on prior SF-86 ’s.