Over at the ClearanceJobsBlog Discussions Forum they’re discussing upcoming updates to the SF86. Among the likely changes:
- Clarification on (il)legal marijuana use in the wake of many states legalizing recreational marijuana use.
- Adding Chapter 12 Bankruptcy questions.
- Clarification on the residences/where you lived section.
One of the things it doesn’t look like will be included? Clarification on what ‘foreign contacts’ need to be listed. Which has added fuel to the fire of debate surrounding what exactly makes up ‘continuing contact’ in the social media age.
One comment writes:
A negative response to the second clause of the definition (sharing affection, influence, common interests, obligation) would negate the need to list anyone, even if a positive response is given for close/continuing contact–at least that’s how a lot of people interpret it. You can have close/continuing contact with a foreign national but if you believe you don’t share affection, influence, common interests, or obligation, you (in theory) wouldn’t be lying if you answered ‘no’ on the SF86.
There enters one of the greatest debates one faces in filling out the SF86 – what to share, and what not to. The truth is withholding information is much more likely to create issues than disclosing information – in most cases. But there are some instances where ‘oversharing’ information unnecessary to the investigation could get you unnecessarily denied. The same omission may slide through a secret clearance investigation and then leave you without a job if you eventually need a top secret clearance and a polygraph. Another comment in the same thread concludes:
Opening oneself up to a “lack of candor” impression because they are splitting hairs and quibbling isn’t an approach I recommend. One can argue they are technically correct all day long. And still not have a clearance. I lean towards over report than under report but then I have debriefed, and escorted out at least 8 or 9 people in my current position. Normally because they felt they could talk around a point of questioning. I say report honestly and frankly. Because if one dwells on it and requires a polygraph…it will show up.
Without further clarification on what constitutes a continuing relationship with common interests, many security clearance applicants may be found pouring over their most recent social media activity, determining what internationally-based social media groups they may be a part of. And if you find yourself with an ongoing interest and recent activity, it may be worth reporting – for the sake of your sanity during a future polygraph, anyway.
