# Being told the position I'm offered requires only a T3 investigation, not a security clearance **URL:** \ **Category:** SECURITY CLEARANCE Q&A\ **Created:** [January 13, 2020, 4:35pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711 "2020-01-13T16:35:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bgrass34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@bgrass34](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/bgrass34)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 4:35pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/1 "2020-01-13T16:35:32Z")
This is confusing to me. Why would I not require a clearance, only an investigation? I am filling out the same questionnaire (86) as I would for a secret clearance. Any help or info is much appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Defender66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f0a364/32.png) [@Defender66](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/Defender66)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 4:46pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/2 "2020-01-13T16:46:54Z")
A T3 is a Secret clearance. I think you’re just confusing wording. You require an investigation to determine rather you’re eligible for a security clearance and the scope of the investigation is a T3. The government only decides your ELIGIBILITY. The company that sponsored you determines whether you have a clearance or access. You’re doing your eQIP for SF 86 for T3 so you’ll be investigated to those standards and requirements. ---
**Author:** ![EdFarmerIII](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/edfarmeriii/32/122_2.png) [@EdFarmerIII](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/EdFarmerIII)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 4:58pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/3 "2020-01-13T16:58:44Z")
What is the position that you have been offered? ---
**Author:** ![bgrass34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@bgrass34](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/bgrass34)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 7:21pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/4 "2020-01-13T19:21:59Z")
It is for a security guard (0085) position with IMCOM (installation management command). The HR lady is saying that IMCOM only requires a favorable investigation whatever that means. But that a secret clearance isn’t required. They are telling me I can start as soon as the investigation opens. I’m about to go submit my prints. My worry is that I had a felony charge last July that has been dismissed. I know it will pop as soon as the prints are sent. So that will backlog things. Also, if there isn’t a “clearance” required then I wouldn’t get an interim clearance obviously right? I’m not sure I understand how the process works. ---
**Author:** ![bgrass34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@bgrass34](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/bgrass34)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 7:22pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/5 "2020-01-13T19:22:01Z")
I do not want to accept the position to find out 4 months later that I have been found unsuitable or did not pass the investigation requirements. My biggest worry. Plus I would be giving up another job for this one and taking a gamble on it. ---
**Author:** ![EdFarmerIII](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/edfarmeriii/32/122_2.png) [@EdFarmerIII](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/EdFarmerIII)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 8:27pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/6 "2020-01-13T20:27:26Z")
Did you inform you employer about the felony charge? What was the reason for the dismissal? If it was something like insufficient evidence, you’re going to have a problem. If the prosecutor decided that somebody else did it, you should be OK. You might be OK anyway since it doesn’t sound like they are going to adjudicate your investigation . . . Maybe? It also, of course, matters what you were charged with and the circumstances around the charges. If you were charged with grand theft for example a security guard position might be a hard sell. ---
**Author:** ![stillwaiting2034](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b2d939/32.png) [@stillwaiting2034](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/stillwaiting2034)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 8:45pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/7 "2020-01-13T20:45:15Z")
The high risk public trust BI uses the SF-86 but doesnt grant a security clearance, the position could only require a public trust. ---
**Author:** ![bgrass34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@bgrass34](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/bgrass34)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 9:09pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/8 "2020-01-13T21:09:56Z")
Ok. I had a misdemeanor trespassing charge in 2014 surrounding my newly ex wife. I came by our old house to pick up furniture that was awarded to me by the court. She said it was fine, while there we argued and she called and said I was on her property without permission. The police took her side. It was dismissed. 2nd. I had misdemeanor domestic charge in 2015. My now ex (2nd wife) and I got into an argument. She threw a vase at me that hit me, I threw my cell phone at her. She bruised from the incident and freaked and called the police. I was arrested. We both reconciled and went before the judge and asked that it be dismissed. It was dismissed. 3rd. I had a felony wanton endangerment charge last July. My 2nd wife and I had just divorced. She was still driving a car in my name with the tags about to expire. I had tried for a week to get ahold of her and no answer. I happened to see her in town and got behind her and followed her. I was gonna tell her about the tags. Next thing a cop pulls me over and she has called them saying I was following her and driving crazy and she was scared. They took her side and arrested me. When we went to court, she again stated that she overreacted and I didn’t go to the degree she said I did and asked for charges to be dropped. They were dismissed on condition that I have no further contact with her. I have mitigated this by transferring the car out of my name, moving out of the same town as her, and having no contact. Sorry for the synopsis but I wanted to give a rundown and see what the opinion was on the factors surrounding the charges. Mind you I maintained a secret clearance thru all of this. My 10 yr just expired in November. So now I have to apply for a new one. The latest charge (from last summer) will be a new one added to my questionnaire. I realize this is a lot. But all my legal trouble has been relationship related. And I know the whole picture is looked at. I haven’t had any trouble in any other category. ---
**Author:** ![bgrass34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@bgrass34](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/bgrass34)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 9:10pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/9 "2020-01-13T21:10:00Z")
Thank you for your insight. ---
**Author:** ![bgrass34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@bgrass34](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/bgrass34)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 9:10pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/10 "2020-01-13T21:10:06Z")
I was unaware of this. I thought all public trust positions were SF85. ---
**Author:** ![EdFarmerIII](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/edfarmeriii/32/122_2.png) [@EdFarmerIII](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/EdFarmerIII)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 9:26pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/11 "2020-01-13T21:26:26Z")
Ummmm . . . Did you self report all of these events? I have a feeling that you are going to have a problem. These are recent, repeated, similar events which starts a trend which makes it look like you have a problem. Have you attended any counseling? Was alcohol involved in any of these events? Adjudicators are going to look at the facts of each case, not so much the disposition. In every case you, in fact, did exactly what you were charged with and got the victim to drop the charges. I’m not trying to be an ass here but I think that you are in trouble going for a T3. ---
**Author:** ![bgrass34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@bgrass34](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/bgrass34)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 9:39pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/12 "2020-01-13T21:39:10Z")
Yes I self reported all of them. I realize there is a pattern. In response to doing everything I was charged with, she did admit that I wasn’t driving erracticly, just that I was following her freaked her out. I did attend anger management after the 2014 incident. And I haven’t shown signs of anger since then. She initiated having the charges dismissed, not me. She knew she overreacted in the last incident. I realize also the steps I’ve taken to mitigate the situation. I changed the car title and moved out of the same city as her. But I’m wandering if its even worth my time to submit the EQIP. I’d rather not submit than be turned down as unsuitable. ---
**Author:** ![HARPOON](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/4da419/32.png) [@HARPOON](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/HARPOON)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 9:49pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/13 "2020-01-13T21:49:20Z")
No. A high-risk public trust is a Tier 4/6N, utilizing the SF85P. The P indicates public trust. ---
**Author:** ![bgrass34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@bgrass34](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/bgrass34)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 10:36pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/14 "2020-01-13T22:36:19Z")
No alcohol was involved. I do not drink. Just had a bad relationship. You say adjudicators are gonna look at the details. And that goes back to my question. If I’m only having an investigation to determine suitability, and I won’t be adjudicated for clearance approval, does that change any thing? ---
**Author:** ![HARPOON](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/4da419/32.png) [@HARPOON](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/HARPOON)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 10:59pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/15 "2020-01-13T22:59:38Z")
You’ll be adjudicated based on suitability. This is the minimum to determine if you can start work before a final determination is made. ---
**Author:** ![abc123](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b5e925/32.png) [@abc123](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/abc123)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 11:38pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/16 "2020-01-13T23:38:39Z")
I thought SF-85P was the high risk public trust ---
**Author:** ![backgdinvestigator](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/backgdinvestigator/32/209_2.png) [@backgdinvestigator](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/backgdinvestigator)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 12:08am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/17 "2020-01-14T00:08:23Z")
The Tier 3 is a type of background investigation - required for medium risk national security positions. You don’t automatically get a Secret clearance just because you had a Tier 3. (the same for the Tier 5). ---
**Author:** ![JamFed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e99b99/32.png) [@JamFed](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/JamFed)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 4:20am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/18 "2020-01-14T04:20:05Z")
So, is SF-86 -Tier 5 top secret clearance? ---
**Author:** ![Defender66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f0a364/32.png) [@Defender66](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/Defender66)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 4:25am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/19 "2020-01-14T04:25:42Z")
I have never investigated a public trust position that has a SF 86 submitted. There isn’t a place in the TIG to support that… ---
**Author:** ![Defender66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f0a364/32.png) [@Defender66](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/Defender66)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 4:27am UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711/20 "2020-01-14T04:27:09Z")
SF 86 is national security clearance for T3 and T5. SF 85P is public trust for T2 and T4. [Next page](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/being-told-the-position-im-offered-requires-only-a-t3-investigation-not-a-security-clearance/9711.md?page=2)