One of the most common questions I receive from security clearance applicants is deceptively simple: What should I do if I don’t know the information the SF-86 is asking for?
The question often arises when applicants have estranged family members, relatives who live overseas, incarcerated family members, employers that no longer exist or family relationships that have been broken for years. Many individuals worry that listing incomplete information will create problems. Others are tempted to leave the person off the form entirely.
In most cases, that is a mistake.
After more than 27 years representing security clearance applicants and holders, I have found that one of the most important potential pitfalls in the clearance process is the difference between information that is genuinely unknown and information that is intentionally omitted.
The SF-86 Is About Candor
The purpose of the SF-86 is not to create a perfect biography. Rather, it is designed to allow the government to evaluate an applicant’s suitability for access to classified information.
Investigators understand that applicants may not know every address, date, or detail requested on the form. What creates problems is when an applicant knowingly leaves information off the form or attempts to conceal a potentially sensitive relationship.
In many cases, the omission itself becomes more significant than the underlying information.
Estranged Family Members
A common situation involves an applicant who has not spoken to a parent, sibling, or child in many years.
Perhaps the relationship ended after a divorce, family dispute, or other personal conflict. The applicant may not know where the individual currently lives, whether they are employed, or even whether they remain in the United States.
In such cases, it is generally better to disclose the existence of the family member and explain what information is unknown than to leave the person off the form altogether.
The government is accustomed to dealing with estranged family relationships. What raises concern is discovering later that a close relative existed but was never disclosed.
Incarcerated Relatives
Applicants sometimes ask whether they should omit family members who are incarcerated because they fear the information will reflect poorly on them.
The answer is no; the question asks for relatives, not their status. Having a relative who has been arrested or incarcerated does not automatically create a security clearance issue. Attempting to hide the relationship, however, can create questions about honesty and candor.
The government is primarily interested in whether the applicant is truthful and forthcoming.
Foreign Family Members
Foreign family relationships often generate the greatest anxiety among applicants.
A parent, sibling, spouse, or child who lives overseas, or who is a foreign national, may trigger additional questions during the investigation. However, the existence of foreign relatives is not unusual and does not automatically disqualify an applicant from holding a clearance.
What investigators want is accurate disclosure. If an applicant knows that a sibling lives in another country, that information should generally be reported even if the relationship is distant or infrequent.
Again, a disclosed foreign relationship can often be evaluated and mitigated. An undisclosed foreign relationship can raise concerns under the personal conduct guidelines.
Unknown Information Is Different Than Omitted Information
The clearance process recognizes that applicants may not know every answer.
For example, an applicant may not know:
- A relative’s current address
- A family member’s exact date of birth
- The location of an estranged parent’s employment
- The whereabouts of a sibling not seen for years
In those situations, it is generally appropriate to provide the information that is known and explain what is not known.
There is a significant difference between saying, “I do not know where my father currently resides because we have not communicated in fifteen years,” and pretending that the father does not exist.
One demonstrates candor. The other may be viewed as concealment. Concealment can lead to a Statement of Reasons and security concerns that require a response.
One Example
Consider an applicant whose brother moved overseas ten years ago and with whom the applicant has had little contact since.
Believing the relationship is insignificant, the applicant leaves the brother off the SF-86 entirely. During the investigation, a reference mentions the brother’s existence.
The resulting issue may no longer be the foreign relative. Instead, investigators may focus on why the applicant failed to disclose a close family member on a federal security form.
Had the applicant simply disclosed the brother and explained the limited relationship, the matter likely would have been far easier to address.
When in Doubt, Explain
One of the most effective approaches in security clearance matters is to provide a reasonable explanation when information is incomplete.
Investigators and adjudicators routinely encounter applicants with complicated family situations. They are generally far more concerned with whether an applicant is being truthful than whether every detail is available.
A clear explanation of why information is unavailable often resolves concerns before they become larger issues.
Final Thoughts
When completing the SF-86, applicants should remember that the government expects honesty, not perfection. Family relationships can be complicated, and there will be times when information is unavailable or unknown.
The key is to distinguish between information that you genuinely do not know and information that you choose not to disclose. Unknown information can often be explained. Omitted information can create concerns about judgment, reliability, and candor that may be much harder to overcome and can lead to the loss or failure to obtain a security clearance.
Honesty and accuracy in the SF-86 completion process is the key to providing yourself the best chance in the clearance process.
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Security clearance rules, SF-86 requirements, and agency policies may change, and readers should consult counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
