What are the chances the results of the investigation being favorable but then failing to be adjudicated? My investigator basically said I have nothing to worry about but then the adjudicator sent a letter asking for more information so this has me nervous. Is this standard to any “yes” answer on the sf86?
I don’t know if it is standard but it is not at all unusual. Before the investigation gets sent to the adjudicator it goes through one or more rounds of quality control checks for completeness, but they can never anticipate every question the adjudicator might have.
It is a very positive sign in that you know your case is being worked!
There are two questions an investigator should never answer - and I tell my Subjects up front to please not ask…
- Will i get my clearance?
- How long will it take?
-
the investigator, even the ESI investigator, does not have all of the information the adjudicator sees. We get the information to confront you, the information we develop for the investigation, and what you told us. The information is restricted for your protection. So, only your adjudicator - the person that makes the initial decision, is the only person that can tell you if you will get your clearance or if it has to be reviewed by the next decision making level (usually called an Office of Hearings and Appeals).
-
The lead investigator does not know what someone else in the field may develop that requires field expansion. Forgot to list that minor in possession of alcohol (an ever question)? That generates an interview, court/law record review, possibly alcohol education record/counselor interview, just for starters.
In your specific instance – it is a very good sign that the process is closing when the adjudicator is asking you for clarification. On the other hand, it is not always a good sign that the adjudicator is asking you for clarification or documentation.