The security clearance application asks for a lot of information – and requires security clearance holders to name names. And those names can cause a lot of anxiety if you have shady relatives, neighbors, and friends. When do security clearance holders need to worry about their associations – and when are they okay? It’s worth noting that the form asks for references, relatives, and individuals to verify information about the applicant – not to catch your criminal relatives or make you feel bad about your origins.
Sean Bigley:
We’re talking this segment about guilt by association for security clearance holders and specifically what to do about that shady family member or friend who you might not like to report on your SF-86, but may have an obligation to do so. So Lindy, I think you know some people might chuckle at this topic. Hopefully most clearance holders don’t have shady associates, but we can’t help who we’re related to, and I know that for some folks that’s the problem. Is this a topic that you see come up frequently?
Lindy Kyzer:
Oh, I mean, who doesn’t have shady family members Sean? You’ve never met my cousin Frank before. So this comes up and this actually, the way I see it come up with security clearance cases, and I’d be curious to get your feedback on that. I have seen specific cases where someone did not list a relative who was required to be listed on the form because that individual had a criminal record or some other issue, and then they lost their security clearance because again, this one case, this guy repeatedly deny that this dude was his brother.
I mean, who hasn’t tried to deny their brother’s existence at some point, but he just went to the mattresses like, “No, I don’t have a brother. This guy’s not my brother related to me because he was in prison,” obviously he lost his security clearance for lying on the form. Actually, I mean, I don’t know the ins and outs, but I can’t speculate, but I doubt he would’ve lost his security clearance if he had simply listed, “Hey, my brother is in prison. This is why I haven’t had contact with my brother in X, Y, Z months, or I’m not associated with his criminal activity.” Again, like you mentioned, using the additional comments section on the form is a great idea, but what I’ve seen is where folks who are nervous or worried about the relatives, don’t list them, and then that comes back to bite them.
Sean Bigley:
Yes. The irony in this is precisely what you alluded to, which is in most cases had the individual listed the relative on the SF-86, if they were required to do so, it wouldn’t have been a problem. Now obviously, you have some discretion about who you list as, for example, people who know you well and things like that. So I certainly wouldn’t list somebody who is incarcerated or who has a lengthy criminal history as a reference when you can avoid doing so. Now, probably shouldn’t also be associating with those type of folks if you want to get or keep the clearance, but that’s a whole other ball of wax.
The issue here really is the issue of candor. It’s not so much in most cases the association because as you pointed out, the reality is most of the time this comes up, it is an estranged relative and somebody says, “My dad, who I haven’t spoken to in 20 years is in prison,” or, “My brother has this lengthy criminal history and yeah, he’s my brother. I can’t disown him, but I keep him at an arm’s length and I have nothing to do with anything that he’s involved in.” I mean, most of the time that’s going to be sufficient because we don’t get held to account for something that another adult does that we have no control over. That’s kind of the reality of life in a democratic society.
Lindy Kyzer:
So why does the government care about relatives on the form? And I think it comes down to that kind of association, bond of affection, blackmail issue. So maybe can you speak to that if you know have some relatives that you’re going to have to list that you’re like, “Oh man, I don’t,” or you’ve written about this before too, references or folks that the government might talk to who might actually lie or say things that you’re not eager for them to say. Is there a way that candidates can get ahead of that or information that they should provide on the form if they have some kind of scandalous relatives out there?
Sean Bigley:
Yeah, I mean, absolutely. At the end of the day, I mean the exception to the rule is if you are somehow involved in what these people are doing, I mean obviously if that’s the case, then I would say probably don’t waste your time applying for the clearance. But the government doesn’t know that until you tell them. They are going to sort of assume that there is some affiliation there. If the person’s actively involved in criminal activity or you’re benefiting from it somehow, or more commonly you are by associating with them, opening yourself up to situations where you could be either exploited somehow or put in a situation where you’re surrounded by a criminal element or drugs or something else that the government doesn’t like. So they don’t like the idea that you could be exposed to that as a clearance holder and potentially tempted to engage in illegal activities.
So as long as you can affirmatively incredibly disclaim that and say, “No, I don’t have any contact with this relative,” or, “This person who used to be a friend many years ago is not in my life anymore,” whatever the situation is, as long as you can demonstrate that sort of bond is not continuing and is something that you have either worked to minimize or cut off entirely, therefore eliminating the potential for these type of situations, that’s most of the time going to cut it. Now, there are kind of some exceptions to the rule though that we need to talk about, and that’s where this gets a little tricky for people and that there are a handful of agencies, predominantly law enforcement agencies that have specific kind of suitability criteria where they say, “You know what? Because of your relationship with this person, we don’t think that you’re a good fit for our agency because we think that there’s too much of a risk that this person is going to pressure you to abuse your position to benefit them.”
For example, if you are somebody who has a relative or a spouse who doesn’t have legal status in the United States, that is something that comes up actually with surprising frequency. People who are applying to DHS components that deal with immigration issues, ICE, CBP, USCIS, that usually doesn’t fly and they just say, “Thank you for your application, but we’re sorry we’re not going to be able to move forward with this process.”
Similarly, if you have a relative with an extensive history of drug related crimes and you want to go work for the DEA, that might be a problem. I have seen it also come up in cases where somebody wants to be a prosecutor or some other kind of law enforcement related position and they’ve got a close relative on trial or serving time or something like that. And that’s generally a problem as well. But outside of those kind of very specific scenarios, most of the time it is precisely as we discussed earlier, which is a non-issue, as long as you are fully forthcoming about it, and as long as you are very clear that you recognize the issue and you are doing whatever needs to be done to keep that person from influencing you.
Lindy Kyzer:
So don’t try to hide your shady relatives because the government will always find out.
Sean Bigley:
They generally do. I mean, I’m sure there are people who have gotten away and haven’t been discovered with omitting folks. I always tell people like, “Don’t tempt fate on this one. The penalties are pretty severe if you get caught falsifying stuff.” You got to ask yourself, “Is this job really worth the risk of being prosecuted,” and hopefully for everybody, the answer to that is no.
Lindy Kyzer:
And share what you know and you don’t need to share what you don’t know, too. I feel like it’s similar with relatives as it is with foreign contacts too because I’ve had that come up. People have messy family situations, so you might have half siblings or relatives that you’re not in contact with or don’t know about. So, I feel like indicating what you know on the form without feeling a need to chase down what you don’t know or what is going to put you at more risk to try to verify is good advice when it comes to relatives as well, in my experience.
Sean Bigley:
Yeah, I completely agree. And that brings up another point as well. We’ve talked in the past about speculation on the form and how so many applicants really dig themselves a hole by needlessly speculating about things that they have no way of proving or disproving, but as soon as they put it out there, now the onus is on them and the government’s kind of saying, “Well, you made this assumption based on something.” So most of the time speculation is a terrible idea. You are, as you said, generally just obligated to report what you know, so we see cases where somebody has an estranged relative they haven’t spoken with in years, they don’t know their address, they don’t know some other data point, date of birth, whatever. The government’s not expecting you to go chase down that relative that you’re estranged from and haven’t spoken to in decades. You just put ‘unknown’ and then you use the comment section to explain the situation and that that’s really the only information you have. You’ve given them what they have and generally that is going to be sufficient, absent really unusual circumstances.
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.
