Does this mean I was investigated?


I applied for a DoD internship a few years ago and did not get the internship.
I filled out SF-85 along with the application which were attached via e-mail and sent to the agency.

I’m filling out SF-85 now and I’ve heard that I have to list that I have underwent an investigation before.

How do I know if I was investigated?

I did e-mail the agency asking about it and this was their reply:

“the agency initiated an in-house background check, not a full security clearance, the check should not be considered a parallel investigation with regards to your completion of an SF-85 now.”

I still don’t know what it means? Should I list that I was investigated in the past? Or can I start a clean slate on the SF-85 since the forms wouldn’t be compared?

Was it also weird to fill out the standard form and e-mailing it to them?

It means that you were never investigated for a clearance before. The in-house background check has no ramifications on your current SF-85.

It was a little bit weird that they wanted you to fill out an SF-85 before making a conditional employment offer (since it says that right on the SF-85: “Complete this form only after a conditional offer of employment has been made”), but it seems like they just wanted to weed out any non-starter candidates (e.g. non-US citizens, people with clear problems preventing clearance, etc.) before moving forward. It would also speed up their hiring timeline later since the SF-85 would be ready to go for any accepted candidates.

1 Like

Thank you danorou. So for the SF-85 I am doing now, I can deviate away from the one I wrote a few years ago for DOD right? The two SF forms won’t be compared against one another for discrepancies, yes?

Id be careful there. Speak truthfully and yes at times they can see the old info.


Even if I am applying for a non-DOD department they can see the old info?
If only an in-house background check was done, does that mean the SF-85 was not sent to NBIB then?

I already filled out OF-306 on new information so I would have to base this SF-85 info off of that.

Well, it can’t be discounted. I don’t think that DoD would have started the clearance process (and handed over your SF-85) if you were never given an offer of employment.

But I don’t know why you would be worried about discrepancies. You shouldn’t have lied on either form, and the only difference between them should just be things that have changed over time (new residences, contacts, travel, employment, etc.). They will surely understand that your SF-85 won’t be identical even if filled out 6 months apart.

Actually… while not identical, you need to list the correct/current information. Listing information that should have been listed earlier (or vice versa) might have you explaining the changes to an investigator. Certainly, you want to be honest - just be prepared.

1 Like

I’m saying this because looking back at my earlier SF85, I see a lot of inconsistencies (time included). Even though I thought back then that I had everything in order, and doubled check, it doesn’t look that way now.
Not to get into details, but in the schools where I attended beyond junior high school, I listed schools but those schools were’t classified as school even though they had the criteria of one (none were accredited). In the continuation space I noted there were no codes as it did not fall under any category.

For a few employment sections, periods of unemployment, I listed unemployment, the range, and verifier name but not verifier address. Looking at it now, I see it is a SF86A Continuation Sheet and I listed the verifier under the Supervisor heading. I did write in the the continuation space that a name was written for verification and that it was not an employer or supervisor.

Additional myriad of mistakes besides those listed above also exist throughout the application.
I signed and dated all forms, sent it over and called to enter my SSN.

I think a solid BI person and adjudicator understands slight inconsistencies. Now if you were talking about a “No” on drug use, and then you speak to volumes of drug use…that is a different situation. For me I did not list marital counselings as that is specifically excluded, but I own and have been public that I improperly used prescription anxiety meds in the the throes of a divorce, and eventually had my counselor prescribe it. Poly said I should have spoken to the counseling…as it provided context to the anxiety med used (per directions, not to get high, still wrong). I share to help others and let them know life happens to all of us. If it is an explainable misunderstanding I don’ think it will be a big thing…mine was a big thing but still explainable and was mitigated under “not likely to repeat, under period of extreme duress.” Honesty is the best policy. If you were simply screened out by a company that is different than a denial. But trying to stay truthful dancing around definitions on that difference can compromise you.