A ClearanceJobsBlog reader recently asked a question that hits a common nerve in the clearance community:
“A friend of mine is up for renewal on his SF-86 and is trying to decide if he should move forward with the renewal or just walk away from his clearance all together. He was let go from 2 jobs a few years ago within a span of 2 years. One was due to a security incident (improper file storage of CUI on personal device) and another was due to a company finding out that he held a 2nd job (both were full time) without approval (over employment). He had held multiple jobs a few times in the past but never got approval for it. He is currently only working 1 job. There are no other known issues. What should he do?”
It’s a fair concern. The SF-86 isn’t just paperwork. It’s the backbone of your eligibility for access to classified information. And when you’re facing a reinvestigation or need to re-certify your information, it can feel like everything in your past (or previously unreported present) is suddenly back under a microscope.
Let’s break down what actually matters.
First, Understand What the SF-86 Really Is
The SF-86 is a risk assessment tool. Investigators and adjudicators aren’t asking: “Are you perfect?” They’re asking: Are you reliable, trustworthy, and honest over time?
Every submission becomes part of a permanent record and is compared against prior forms for consistency. Many applicants assume that “more issues = automatic denial.” But that’s not how the system works.
In reality, most DoD security clearances are approved, with a small amount actually denied annually. What matters isn’t how many issues you have, it’s the severity, recency, pattern vs. isolated events, and mitigating factors.
The Big Risk Areas Adjudicators Look At
Personal conduct is a major factor, particularly honesty on the SF-86 form. Omissions, inconsistencies, or deliberate misstatements can be more damaging than the underlying issue itself, as they call into question overall trustworthiness.
One investigator on the thread notes, “Neither of these incidents alone is too serious, but the two together may be perceived as forming a pattern…Seems like neither of these incidents raised any red flags preventing the third company from picking up the clearance.”
The Real Question: Are Your Issues Mitigated?
Adjudication is all about mitigation.
You’re in a much stronger position if you can show that issues are in the past, you’ve taken corrective action, and you’re transparent. In this case, the applicant would want to use the additional comments section to clearly articulat why they mistakenly stored CUI and document additional security awareness training or corrective action. For the issue of multiple jobs, the individual should take accountability but also outline why they took the path of two positions – and why it won’t happen again.
This case is also an example of where it may be easier to mitigate on a largely automated Secret clearance investigation. But if the case is a clearance upgrade to a Top Secret, issues that may avoid scrutiny in a cursory check but that may dredge up additional adverse details with increased interviews (such as with former security officers or employers) – it may be best to walk away from the Top Secret clearance and look for a Secret security clearance position.
If there’s one takeaway from cases like this, it’s this: trying to hide or minimize issues is worse than the issue itself.
Much about the clearance process resembles the Pirate’s Code: “more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules.” For this reason, we maintain ClearanceJobsBlog.com – a forum where clearance seekers can ask the cleared community for advice on their specific security concerns. Ask CJ explores questions posed on the ClearanceJobs Blog forum, emails received, and comments from this site. This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
