The SF-86 asks many questions – but many security clearance applicants get hung up on the questions the SF-86 doesn’t ask, and whether there is information they need to share that seems ‘similar’ to a question on the form. A recent Reddit thread asked about sharing information about underage drinking on the form. The individual specifically asked about listing it under the ‘illegal drug activity’ section. That’s a hard no.
Where the SF-86 asks about alcohol is section 24: “In the last seven (7) years has your use of alcohol had a negative impact on your work performance, your professional or personal relationships, your finances, or resulted in intervention by law enforcement/public safety personnel?”
Nothing about that question would involve underage drinking that fell into the ‘normal’ realm. If your drinking affected your ability to attend school (you flunked out of college due to drinking) – that should be listed. If you used alcohol and then were cited or arrested – that would also need to be listed on the SF-86.
Like most sections of the SF-86, there’s clearly some ambiguity here – if you were ever cited for underage drinking – even by university safety personnel – per the parameters of the question, I would answer ‘yes.’ Even if there weren’t criminal charges involved, if an alcohol-related incident is something that could come up in a check of your college records, it’s better to share it. But if you were never cited for drinking and the consequences of your underage habits were of the typical teenage nature – no, you do not need to answer ‘yes’ to the question.
The Consequences of Over-Disclosing
The reddit thread included a comment by an individual who noted they had similarly shared underage drinking on the form and were notified by a background investigator during an interview that the information didn’t need to be disclosed. After not listing it on a future SF-86, however, they noted they were asked by that investigator why they had left it off the form. This is an example of why sharing erroneous information on the form can be a hassle down the road. Prior submissions are often cross-referenced in subsequent investigations. Once you’ve disclosed something, you’ll probably be asked about it down the road.
The key to the SF-86 is to fill out the form carefully. You certainly don’t want to not disclose something you should. But you also don’t want to create red flags that should have never existed in the first place.
