10 Year Reinvestigation


#1

I am in the process of my 10 year re-investigation. I completed the SF-86 and had an interview. Some years ago, I made some really bad decisions, but since the acts were beyond the 7-10 years, I did not list them; however, I did list them on my initial SF-86 completed in 2003, so although charges were refused and expunged, because I listed them previously, I was told I must always list them, even if expunged. That was my mistake because when asked about ever being arrested, because the arrest was in 1996 and I completed the SF86 in 2016, I answered no, since it was expunged and it was about 20 years ago. During the interview, the investigator asked me about the arrest so of course I did not deny it, but explained my reasons for not listing that arrest or a subsequent arrest that happened in 2005 as the result of the original case not being completed handled from the initial charges. In 2005, during a traffic stop, I discovered that there was a warrant for my arrest. The actions for the warrant stemmed from the 1996 incident; however, when the case was expunged, they only expunged one charge instead of all associated charges; if that makes sense. Anyway, those charges were refused and later I ended up contacting an attorney to assist with expunging any and all charges related to the case. So that was the bad and the part that worries me and still haunts me. In 2005, I was deployed to overseas. In 2006, I returned to overseas to work as a Contractor. I worked in overseas from 2005 - 2013. While living in overseas, in 2009, I had a child. In 2013, my spouse got a Stateside job so in August 2013, I resigned to return to the States to be with my family. While looking for employment, I volunteered a lot at the school and in March 2015, I returned to work as a government Contractor. Since returning to the States, I have been activity involved in the community, school and church; not for the sake of saving my security clearance, but just because that is me. So I recently received a call from the Investigator to say that she needed me to provide references or if I want, I can use the references listed on the SF-86. I am not sure what my disposition should be, should I be worried or concerned or is it normal to have to verify or provide additional references.


#2

Depending on the level of security clearance, it is perfectly normal to ask a subject to provide leads/ references. As long as you can explain all the actions, which you did in the above paragraph the OPM adjudicator's are suppose to look at the entire person so one blemish years ago may not affect you. Trying to cover the information up will be more of an issue than the actual event. I hope this helps.


#3

@rxrob - Your situation is not unique considering everything that has happened over the past 15 years and your failure to list old criminal conduct is somewhat normal. As an FSO and Security Manager I have to constantly tell people to read the question as it is written and if they are confused about how to respond they should talk with me. Since you had extensive residence and employment overseas, I believe the investigators are trying to get reference coverage for that period of time. You might recall that the form asks for 3 references who are currently residing within the U.S. That's why you were asked if you wanted to change them. Otherwise, they must refer this coverage to the State Department and that adds untold time to the completion of the investigation. I just want to clarify something newbee stated. OPM is the investigating agency. The adjudicators belong to the DoD Central Adjudication Facility at Fort Meade, MD. I was an Army adjudicator (before the DoD consolidation), and in my opinion, if you have had no criminal conduct since 1996 and the warrant that surfaced in 2005 has been resolved, that should not be an issue in deciding your clearance eligibility. Good luck.


#4

Thanks so much for your reply and input. All three references have been interviewed; so now I am anxiously awaiting the results. My investigator asked for one reference that was familiar with the criminal activity from 1996. The investigator that interviewed her didn't even ask anything about the incident. So I am not sure if that is normal, good,???? Thanks for your assistance.


#5

Thanks for taking the time to reply; I appreciate your time and input.