Is there a good way to attack and/or mitigate FC/PC concerns? I’m just being proactive but I think the DoD is going to try to nail me for not listing foreign contacts. I did not think that anyone fit the “bound by affection” caveat on the SF-86. I haven’t spoken to them in about 2 years and I’ve passed two CI polygraphs as well as filled out an application where I did list the contacts because there were NO caveats on that form.
Thoughts?
I think that you need to describe the relationships that you are concerned about.
2 Korean military (one is now out) I used to work with when I was in Korea and 3 Korean civilians (one is married to an American). 1 person from the Philippines. I haven’t seen any of them in 9 years.
What kind of contact HAVE you had in the last nine year?
Via Facebook only, and that sporadic contact has also stopped.
Then you shouldn’t have a problem.
I don’t think you have a worry. We have had a few BI folks absolutely want every single social media contact reported. Another said…be reasonable…if it is continuing contact…to me that means at least monthly. Once or twice in 9 years can be called “ended” and restarted. Don’t hide from it but explain the infrequency of contact seemed to not meet the definition of continuing. There is disagreement if hitting the like button on FB constitutes continuing contact. I report mine. Only sporadic contact with people in Japan and the PI.
Would passing a CI poly alleviate any concerns WRT the SF-86?
The foreign military contact is going to be one of your bigger headaches.
Used to work with her. Never came close to asking me anything she shouldn’t. I’ve spoke to her 4 or 5 times since 2010.
If your foreign military contact was work related while you were on active duty, it shouldn’t be an issue.
I worked at a Major military command HQ and we had Canadian attache officers assigned to our staff. I have sporadic contact with a few of them. Literally years in between a Linked in hit. The world is smaller here but those contacts can all be pathways for recruitment. So report all, correct any recollections you may have mis-remembered.
The focal point will be the continuing contact after you stopped working together. This is viewed as a personal contact.
We’ve spoken only via Facebook…and the contact has hardly been continuing. I don’t have her email address or phone number.
Am I reading the question incorrectly? The question says “close or continuing contact with someone with which I had a bond of affection…” --if you’re talking friendship, THEN SAY FRIENDSHIP. Don’t make me guess what you mean!
actually - it never says friendship — it say any close and/or continuing… in this case you have continuing.
internally - we normally don’t pursue foreign contacts from US government employment when the contact is only because of your duties. Have that same contact outside of your government duties - then the contact is required to be reported.
"Do you have, or have you had, close and/or continuing contact with a foreign national within the last seven (7)
years with whom you, or your spouse, or cohabitant are bound by affection, influence, common interests, and/or
obligation? Include associates as well as relatives, not previously listed in Section 18."
My answer was then, and still is, no. If I have to figure out what you mean, then you need to re-write your question.
You had continuing contact via Social Media. You were supposed to simply state that and the frequency. Question probably should ask frequency and we don’t train our people well on how best to fill out the SF-86. It’s more of an issue of unintended omission.
Ask for forgiveness then move on. I would have explained the reason why there was a difference between what you filled out and when you had the ESI with a BI. Basically no big deal.
Then fix the question. If in the next version of the SF-86 [next one was Nov 2016] the USG changed the question about mental health consultations and commander directed evaluations, then the ability to change unclear questions is there.
I’m probably worried about nothing but I’m waiting on them to hit me with it.
I hear you. Just wait and see
I am not hear to defend the wording of the questionnaire or the poor help that organizations give their folks when they submit their SCA.
I try to give the requirements from the people who do own the forms and/or use the information from those forms to make their adjudications to those those asking for clarification/background/help.