The SF-86 does not ask about soliciting or engaging in prostitution, but it does ask about criminal conduct. Because prostitution is illegal in all but a few highly regulated areas of Nevada, security clearance holders should think long and hard if a prior stint with a prostitute is something that needs to be listed on their SF-86.
One ClearanceJobsBlog subscriber admitted to engaging his prostitute visits in the comments section of the form for their secret investigation in 2021 (kudos for honesty) but was wondering how long they should continue to flag the engagements:
Hello everyone, posting about something I’ve previously posted here (man does time fly). I have a question about something NOT on the SF86 but is under SEAD4. So, I did my secret investigation back in 2021. During that I put in the additional comments section at the bottom about my history visiting prostitutes which started in 2013 and stopped in late 2016 and going to a counselor for it. Talked it over with the investigator and never heard anything back about it. The question I have is that since there’s no specific question about it how long do I need/should keep reporting it on my SF86? I feel like not including it would look weird after I did report it. Asking because I recently read a post where a guy answered an IC security questionnaire about visiting prostitutes 15 years prior and them freaking out about it not being on his SF86.
The reason I added it was because a psychologist at an IC agency said I was lying about there not being a question about prostitution and that she was adding a note for the investigating agency to follow up. This was a different investigation from the 2021 investigation, and I lost the CJO because I couldn’t get behavioral health records in time. Any feedback is appreciated.
The good news is that this applicant has mitigating circumstances on their side: time passed, disclosing it in the first place, seeking help from a licensed therapist, etc. Potential blackmail does not seem to be a factor in this situation. Since it has come to light in a previous – and relatively recent – investigation, the best advice is to continue to list it in the comments section for consistency and note during any interviews that you already flagged it and just wanted to bring it up in the interest of full transparency. This can be a bit of a catch-22 situation – theoretically, the reporting timeframe since your last investigation may mean you no longer have to report the information. But because you previously disclosed it, it likely will be a factor an investigator or adjudicator will follow-up on either way. When in doubt – and the reporting period is within a year or two from the incident – it’s likely wise to include it. Also consider seeking the assistance of a security clearance attorney or advisor who may be able to give you the skinny on the agency you’re applying to and their specific suitability guidelines or scruples when it comes to disclosing the prior issue.
The investigator may have some follow up questions (don’t be discouraged). Honesty remains the best policy.
The iffy news? Meeting suitability requirements really is dependent on the agency and position you are applying to. Even if you do cover your bases, you may have a conditional job offer rescinded if the agency desires to do so.
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
