Probably not a bad idea
Which is why I want to know if the two polys would help my case. I’ve apparently always misread that question
1 Like
Making a fair effort to completely answer the question is a fair defense. If the BI person feels there is more there and digs, finding personal connections not listed, it can become a problem. But defining continuing contact has been slippery for many. Is clicking “Like” on FB continuing? Well yeah…but…if that is my only contact…hardly.
Best Practice. If you don’t want to report your foreign contacts, delete them from your social media. Otherwise they are a ticking time bomb for your clearance.
You may not even know you have a foreign intelligence contact on your social media. Intelligence recruiters also tend to be pretty patient and groom young students.
Stories and case studies like these point out over and over, casual foreign contacts may not be so casual.
1 Like
So is this accurate or not?
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2018/04/28/reporting-foreign-contacts-counts-close-continuing/
Based on what you, amberbunny, and others are saying, this isn’t accurate.
I am not sure what you meant by the question… I don’t see anything in the article indicates that the information provided is inaccurate. Then again, I generally find Bigley’s articles pretty spot on.
Note that the article says “… need not be reported unless the applicant is given specific advice to the contrary from federal agency security officials.”
For example… Agency A instructs that all foreign contacts on social media account(s) need not to be reported if you do not maintain regular communication… Agency B instructs that you are to listed all foreign contacts on social media account(s) regardless of of the frequency of the contact. Agency C… list all foreign contacts on Facebook but not Twitter. Agency C later changes “but not Instagram” to “including Instagram” because apparently Instagram has a chat feature (is it Twitter?)…
As for your question, you might want to read the Adjudicative Desktop Reference… it will give you a “ballpark” answer to your question.
AWoodhull, looking at this decision kinda hits what I’m thinking about:
http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2019/15-01624.h1.pdf
- Section 19 of the security clearance application that Applicant completed in 2012 contains the following question:
"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? . . .”
Applicant answered “no,” elaborating as follows:
“I have several women that I have met in my foreign travels, but none that I would consider to be seriously bound by affection or obligatien [sic] with.”
SOR subparagraph 2.h alleges Applicant’s “no” answer constitutes a falsification. Counsel for Applicant filed a motion to dismiss this claim, arguing that the allegation, on its face, does not state a justifiable claim. Whether the nature of Applicant’s relationships with these foreign women is as casual as he believes them to be is certainly an issue to be addressed under the Guideline B security concerns, as alleged in Paragraph 1. Similarly, the nature and appropriateness of these relationships raise a Guideline E issue, as alleged in subparagraph 2.g. However, Applicant’s negative response to Section 19, in conjunction with his disclosure that he has met several women over the years during his foreign
travels whom he is not bound by affection or obligation is sufficiently candid and forthcoming, so as not to raise any issue of falsification, on its face. Applicant’s counsel’s motion to dismiss subparagraph 2.h is granted. (DoD Directive 5220.6, E3.1.10)
My point was that the article is saying that 4 criteria have to be met for the individual to be reported. I’ve seen some say that “close and continuing” constitutes one part of the question alone and that the other information “bound by affection, etc” is something else.
Nailed it. I tell applicants now is the time to clean out the expanding contact list.
I understand your concern. This is one of my biggest “issues” with Government forms, in general. Government tends to shift the burden of interpretation to whoever fill out the forms when our legal system makes it abundantly clears that this burden goes to the writer of the forms, in this case, the Government. I learned that hard lesson.
The lesson? when there is an iota of doubt… consult your security officer and/or a security clearance attorney and get that in writing.
I am afraid that this doesn’t really answer your question/concern, it is what it is.
I feel you on that one Wood. Different BI folks have chimed in stating varying degrees of interpretation. I encountered several foreign national military (Canadian) while working on a Major Command staff HQ for the Air Force. Over time a few became FB friends. I report those as one investigator claimed social media is an ongoing relationship…even though I have not read a single post or clicked “like” once in 18 months. I am guessing there may be various folks on FB that are foreign and I am unaware of that fact. I only engage them on certain dog sites. Defining the “continuing” contact part is subjective.
In 2023, Sean M. Bigley, a former attorney who facilitated clients’ security clearance process, retired. Any assertions made online regarding representation or association with Sean M. Bigley should be regarded as fraudulent.