“Honesty is always the best policy, and like all things in the security clearance process: it depends.”
This is our mantra when answering questions from the ClearanceJobsBlog, but we also try to include actionable insights, our best policy interpretation, and maybe just a little bit of hope to those asking the questions in the first place.
We have noted before that if a salty prior employer lies about your work, performance, or ethics to a background investigator, adjudicators won’t take single comments out of context from the big picture. But what if the reference isn’t conniving at all, and is actually your own mother trying to cover for you?
Had my interview for TS with some prior issues with marijuana and underage drinking when I was in college years ago, which I disclosed in the SF86 and the interview. Investigator wanted references who knew about these, so I gave my friends who were there for each incident, and I told them my parents also know about these. My friends were called, and they verified on their end but when the investigator called my mom, she denied knowing about these, even though she absolutely knew about them. I should have clarified this with my mom, but she thought everything was expunged and could no longer be accessed. I also didn’t think the investigator would call my parents as I don’t think its too surprising my parents would refrain from “ratting me out” to the government.
Should I be worried? Or is would this not be the first time that parents have covered for their kid?
View the full thread here.
Adjudicators typically don’t base a denial or revocation on the word of a single reference anyway. And while denials don’t come from testimonies and only come from background investigators being led to official records, you were honest upfront and provided verifiers willingly.
Investigators on the thread offer words of encouragement that this happens more often than not, and that mothers may not remember everything about their kids. And generally, any reference won’t have all the facts about a security clearance applicant. This is the exact reason we have that ‘whole person concept.’
Much about the clearance process resembles the Pirate’s Code: “more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules.” This case-by-case system is meant to consider the whole person, increase process security, and allow the lowest-risk/highest-need candidates to complete the process. This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.Â
