Thank you! I brought mine and I’m glad I did - there were a few things that benefitted from me being able to reference it, especially the chronology of places I’ve lived (I’m a military spouse).
I had a handful of notes, asked her questions about those things and provided updated information as applicable, and it was very helpful.
Thanks again for all the input.
Thanks for sharing. It’s exactly the same situation during my initial interview. I brought all official/original documents. It helped.
Pro tip: if you fill out the SF86 completely and correctly the first time, there will not be a need to bring in additional documentation unless specifically asked for.
In my case, I pushed back on my employer to delay the due date for the initial SF86 submission.
I needed more time to gather some info, and to make sure everything was thoroughly filled in.
I also added a ton of comments in the optional fields, which helped greatly.
Despite all of that and an SF86 containing no error, it really helped having all the documentation during the initial interview.
While he only requested one document from me prior to the interview, having these other papers saved us a lot of time.
Otherwise the interview would easily have gone for 3+ hours, and I would have had to send these documents/additional info to him at a later time anyway (or when QA or the adjudicator kicked my case back to the investigator…).
Anyway, it might be because my case was slightly more complicated than others.
It’s perfectly fine to bring your own copy, after all it’s YOUR questionnaire. Often it helps with areas where the Subject was confused on how to answer a question and with conflicting or overlapping dates. I don’t mind it one bit. Actually I wish I had thought to do the same for my own interview.
Adding a “ton of comments” in the additional comments section is usually not helpful for the investigator. Once in a while it is value added, but 9 times out of 10 it is superfluous information that is not needed. Just answer the question. You don’t need to include “I answered No to this question because I haven’t done it within the last seven years, but 10 years ago I did this and 12 years ago I did that”. Just not helpful. The other thing I commonly see is someone answers “no” to the question and then in the Optional comments section, they explain a situation that actually makes the answer “yes”. Again, answer the question. If you are confused by the confusing directions, bring it up during the interview, but don’t write a paragraph in every single optional comment section describing why you answered the question the way you did or describing situations that have occurred but don’t meet the criteria of the question.
Thanks, Intj. There were a handful of sections I was a little confused over and added a few (not superfluous) comments. We didn’t end up going through line by line except for the sections that necessitated the interview. I’m glad I brought a copy!
Definitely agree. I only provided comments if it was a yes/no question and benefitted from brief clarification.
Confusing and contradictory comments create headaches for the Subject because they open other issues or let the Subject think they don’t have to report all of the information.
Needless comments:
“This supervisor is no longer at this business” (list where the Supervisor is currently located).
“I don’t talk to this sibling and don’t know the requested information.” (ensure you make attempts to get the information even if it from another family member. I will ask if you did so for the report).
“My wife was my cohabitant until we married” (enough said)
“This person is my best friend since high school” (for anything other than a listed character reference). Don’t create background “noise” in your comments.
Comments that raise flags.
“I have not been arrested since 2011” (honestly, seen this one several times)
under the bankruptcy item “My bankruptcy involved 20 debts” (you are required to list the individual delinquent bankruptcy debts in the Financial Section)
“This was my permanent residence/where my family lived while I was studying (deployed) overseas for a year”(List the overseas address).
HELPFUL COMMENTS
Mitigating factors/information in an accurate, brief, concise, manner. Imagine you have 1 minute to explain to a judge any mitigating information when writing comments. Look at your comments. Do they provide accurate, brief, clear information or raise more questions? (see Comments that raise flags)
Recently had someone list their weight as “175 lbs as listed on my state issued driver’s license #12345 that was issued 6/15/2016, but I have since gained weight and am now 184 lbs” and whoo buddy I knew we were in for a long day. Just not helpful at all.
This is really helpful. Unfortunately, I think I made a couple mistakes going by this rubric. 
mostly the one regarding the supervisor because the company didn’t exist anymore. I did, however, provide their current contact info in the comments section. I hope that was helpful to them.
Also weird, the first question the investigator asked was what my commute was like from Virginia to my place of work at the time for the first entry on my SF-86. Is that normal/designed to establish a baseline or something? I was caught off guard by the question but able to respond quickly.
…
HELPFUL COMMENTS
Mitigating factors/information in an accurate, brief, concise, manner. Imagine you have 1 minute to explain to a judge any mitigating information when writing comments. Look at your comments. Do they provide accurate, brief, clear information or raise more questions? (see Comments that raise flags)
Absolutely, thank you for the non useful comment examples as well!
When writing these comments or extra information, I found it useful to have the adjudicative guidelines opened, as well as looking at some DOHA cases that were pertinent to my issues.
I’m also pretty sure that these optional comment fields are character limited anyway, to keep it short and simple.
My added comments were not for the investigator’s convenience (or inconvenience), but more so that I could be judged by an adjudicator based on my own comments that I signed and certified !
Investigators are humans and can misunderstand someone during the interview, forget some mitigating information that was said, or file errors in their report.
While the investigator’s notes might hold more values than my comments to the adjudicator’s eyes, I felt it eliminated the risk of incompleteness/errors/misunderstanding which could have been the difference between being granted or denied my clearance…
[quote=“Snowbird, post:31, topic:9590, full:true”]
Also weird, the first question the investigator asked was what my commute was like from Virginia to my place of work at the time for the first entry on my SF-86. Is that normal/designed to establish a baseline or something? I was caught off guard by the question but able to respond quickly.
[/quote]
If your residence is listed in a different state than your listed employment location, then the investigator has to clarify how you’re able to live in one state and work in another, even if it’s a simple commute across state lines.
Ah, ok. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!