I generally recommend that security clearance applicants carefully read the questions on the SF-86, listen carefully to the questions asked by their background investigator, and only answer those questions. Volunteering extra information is often just a ticket to trouble. Experienced investigators know this and may employ moments of strategic silence during the background investigation interview. I certainly did that when I was an investigator many years ago, and I was consistently amazed at how many people couldn’t handle 20 or 30 seconds of silence. It seemed that interviewees felt compelled to fill the void – often with information that proved helpful to the government, but not to their own cause.
The Drug Use Explanation
Like most things, however, there are exceptions to the rule of only answering the questions asked. The big one is where mitigating information exists that might help contextualize derogatory information or show that it no longer poses a security risk. The trick is understanding which information is mitigating and which may subjectively seem mitigating but actually makes the situation worse.
Take, for example, drug use. If you experimented once with cocaine, but you only did so because of lowered inhibitions from alcohol intoxication, that could help explain a singular lapse in judgment. Alternatively, it could implicate an entirely new concern about alcohol consumption.
I use this scenario because it comes up routinely in my practice. Deciding how to handle it requires a judgment call based on a case-specific assessment of facts and circumstances. In some cases, we’ve found that the way to thread the needle is to raise the alcohol intoxication in mitigation but couple that with extensive, preemptive efforts to demonstrate that the lapse in judgment was because the individual is normally a light drinker, couldn’t handle their alcohol, and clearly learned their lesson about over-indulging.
Explaining Financial Scenarios
Another example that comes up often is unpaid debts and personal savings. On one hand, volunteering that you have a budget with personal savings can show that you’re unlikely to incur new delinquent debts or be subject to bribery. On the other hand, it may raise questions about good faith and fair dealing with existing creditors; if you have the money to pay your debts, why haven’t you done so?
Like the drug use hypothetical, the financial scenario requires a fact-specific analysis. This is one place where an experienced attorney can help. But even if you can’t or don’t want to hire counsel, all is not necessarily lost.
Read the adjudicative Guidelines
At minimum, every security clearance applicant should read the National Adjudicative Guidelines for Security Clearances, found at Security Executive Agent Directive 4. The Guidelines contain a broad overview of potentially mitigating facts and circumstances for each type of potentially disqualifying information. Some of it can be nuanced, but some – e.g., a signed statement of intent not to use drugs in the future – is very straightforward and can improve an applicant’s odds of success.
I’d liken reviewing the Guidelines to conducting reconnaissance before battle. Hopefully, your security clearance adjudication will be a decisive victory; but if you encounter resistance along the way, wouldn’t you like a roadmap for defeating it? The government publishes that road map. Don’t pass up the opportunity to read it.
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.
