Your life is much more exciting to you than it generally is to the government. Hence many people are unnecessarily concerned that the contents of their SF-86 will somehow end up as fodder for water cooler talk or will somehow be a source of office gossip. The reality is that information included on the SF-86 is covered by the Privacy Act – that means what you include can not be broadly shared.
“For the vast majority of us who has held a security clearance, nobody really cares,” said security clearance attorney Sean Bigley. The details of what is and isn’t provided on an SF-86 generally comes to light when an individual is a public figure – like Jared Kushner. Or when your career tanks and you find yourself under criminal allegations – like the Department of Energy’s Sam Brinton. But as much as we may want to speculate around what is or isn’t included, you won’t find your SF-86 details published in the media – although they are certainly free to speculate and criticize public figures.
“On a micro level, in the workplace, people do have that concern about water cooler gossip,” said Bigley. The topic can also come up when a security clearance is denied – individuals may speculate about the reason, but that information should not be office fodder or discussion. “Yes, the Privacy Act does apply to government contractors just as it does to government agencies,” Bigley emphasized.
“Information government contractors are coming into possession of by way of their government contracts, if it’s personally identifiable information, that is protected,” said Bigley. “Your security manager is not supposed to be blabbing those details to other people in the office.
Human Resources and Security
We generally think of their being a wall between human resources and security – that’s because many of the details asked about in the SF-86 have no part in a general hiring decision, and many companies are concerned about how questions in the SF-86 may be used to color a hiring decision. But the line is more gray than black and white – particularly in smaller companies where HR and security may fall into dual-hatted roles.
Bigley gave the example of a contractor who lists drug use on the SF-86 – who may then be admitting to violating their employer’s drug use policy if they used while working for the company. In those cases honesty isn’t just the best policy – it’s the legal requirement – but it’s certainly worth noting that the employer would be within their rights to follow-up on the drug issue (most companies would not take that step, however).
An area where employers can run into issues is with pre-employment security clearance questionnaires and screenings – while it may seem like a way to save time and money, Bigley notes that using the clearance process to make employment decisions could certainly create employment law issues.
“There’s a lot of gray area here when it comes to what is and isn’t acceptable in terms of sharing between security and HR,” Bigley notes. And because much of the laws fall under employment law and vary state by state, what is acceptable in one state may be unacceptable in another.
While what can and can’t be said between HR and security may be murky, the one element that isn’t is whether information could be shared to third parties or externally with coworkers or other individuals.
“Water cooler talk, there is a firm line. Using information on the SF-86 for an improper purpose – gossip would clearly be that – that is a definite Privacy Act violation,” said Bigley.
And again, as we said before – few of us are as exciting as we’d like to think. Your security officer has likely seen it all – and when it comes to what to report, honest is certainly the best policy. For your career, and your integrity.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although the information is believed to be accurate as of the publication date, no guarantee or warranty is offered or implied. Laws and government policies are subject to change, and the information provided herein may not provide a complete or current analysis of the topic or other pertinent considerations. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
