One of our favorite topics on this forum. 7 or 10 years? Filling out a new SF86 and the security person at the hiring company said go back “10 years on everything.” As you know, the form specifies how many years to go back on each question. I decided to ignore the security expert and follow the instructions on the form. I feel the BI and adjudicator don’t need all that extra work and I’d just be opening cans of worms since I can’t really remember everything that far back anyway so they might end up following false leads.
Additional observation: using the eApp this time. It is WAY easier and all my previous SF86 answers are on there. My first one 5 years ago took over a week to complete. This one took 30 minutes. I haven’t submitted yet as I’m still debating listening to the security person, lol.
DO NOT GO BACK FURTHER THAN THE FORM REQUIRES!!! I cannot stress this enough!!! It causes problems, makes the investigation take longer, and seriously annoys the investigator and possibly the adjudicator. It definitely shows that you suck at following directions. If you start listing more crap than needed it causes more work because now that information needs to be investigated as well. If it says 7, then STOP at 7. If it says 10, then STOP at 10. Be careful to read carefully because different questions have different timeframes and some questions are EVER questions. When in doubt it is better to over list than under list but if the question says 7 and you list something from 15 yrs ago, OBVIOUSLY it is outside of the coverage period. FOLLOW DIRECTIONS!
I cannot agree with this more!! When I brief a case and see someone has listed their employments all the way back to 2010 or even earlier it frustrates the hell out of me. When I point it out to them, their response usually is, “Oh, I wanted to make sure I listed everything.” My reply to that is well we are going to be in this interview much longer than we needed to be as I need to talk about these employments since you listed them on your form and did not follow the instructions.
One time, using the old eQip, I left some info in there because I was afraid deleting it would mess up the form. The investigator told me, we have to look into everything you put down, I can’t ignore it just because it has aged off.
It is very important to delete/update the entries from your previous eQip/eAip submissions. I have been getting several cases a year where the Subject’s paperwork shows they are still at home in the US (pre military entry) yet stationed overseas and unemployed at home.
Everytime, when i finally chase these people down, they always ask"why is my case taking so long?" I’m in a rural US area, just this last year these Subjects have been in Japan, South Korea, Cypress, Germany, and England. Not even close to my AO.
The computer sends the case to the area where you list your most current employment/unemployment, i.e. EMPL #1.
Had a guy list his foreign travels back 20 years. Because he wanted to be “accurate” No, accurate is following the instructions and listing back 7 years.
What should have taken an hour took much longer because he could not follow instructions. And folks wonder why there is a backlog.
neither do alot of people. Also, to clarify, the case is sent to the JOB LOCATION listed for employment #1. This is an issue when Subject lists the employer’s HQ (correct) then clicks “job location is the same as employer” but the Subject is across the country or in another state.
So here’s a question. No disrespect to FSO, and security people. I was in the field for decades, thank goodness we no longer use the handwritten versions of the SF86. Does anyone review the Subject’s SF86 prior to it being submitted? I realize the volume of work involved, just wondering if some of the glaring mistakes (employer’s HQ listed as job location, gaps in employment, etc) could be caught prior to investigators trying to track down a Subject.
I’d love to lead a class on “how to complete your SF85/86” and I do work with folks I now hire, reminding them to read the instructions!
Yes! The security officer of the contract company I applied to reviewed it before sending the package off to the feds. She is the one who said go back 10 years on everything. Strangely, she didn’t say a thing about the fact that I did not listen to her. She just reviewed it and sent it. Small favors…
Even major companies that have dedicated phone lines give bad information to applicants. Then when they review the form, they make a big deal about irrelevant things. Finally, even lawyers do not understand terms that they should, but that candidates and lay people do not.
