Just FYSA, take a look at:
http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/13-00911.h1.pdf
But realize that all of these situations are different (of course). Time is usually VERY helpful.
2 Likes
I am not sure if I am in agreement with the idea that having a clearance eligibility preludes someone from legally engaging with a prostitute as a non-military clearance holder.
1 Like
Ed, I think âclose and/or continuingâ needs to be better defined or a clarification is needed.Regarding to Section 19, I think your assumption rests on the premise that the prostitute is a foreign national hence Section 19 would apply. The question becomes how does the person know that the prostitute is, in fact, a foreign national.
When I went through the process, I was at least twice asked by different background investigators if I had sex with foreign nationals. My reply was something to the effect that I didnât ask for proof of citizenship prior to and after the fornication.
1 Like
The fact that many questions on the SF86 (and every other security form and every tax form) need to be better defined doesnât help those who are filling them out today or tomorrow and shouldnât effect the responses that we give while trying to help.
The linked case shows that legal prostitution even in the U.S. should be disclosed and then mitigated. Itâs not much of a stretch to say that the assumption should NOT be that prostitutes, engaged in foreign countries, are U.S. citizens. In fact, even if the prostitute IS a U.S. citizen, the activity should be disclosed.
We have seen many other cases where men and women simply participated in consensual relations while out of the country and the activity presented issues because you really have no idea who the person is or what their background and connections could be.
1 Like
I think there is a difference between should and must. Should it be disclosed? it is up to the applicant or holder. Must it be disclosed? no, because SF-86 does not ask for it.
The case provided as with other related cases, I interpreted that adjudicators/judges were more interested in the potential of the applicant or holder being blackmailed because of the said activity rather than the activity per se.
So, if a background investigator developed a source that said the person frequents at a brothel and the person said something to the effect that this information cannot be used to blackmail me and/or âpossiblyâ produce other sources saying something to the effect that, âyes, I already know thisâ.
I honestly dont see how you can get in trouble for not disclosing something that wasnât specifically asked on the form.
1 Like
Despite the fact that it doesnât specifically ask the question, the issue is what the investigator and adjudicator will interpret the question to mean and their determination as to disclosure.
Remember, in the other case, the issue was raised under âPersonal Conductâ and the mitigation provided was, basically, built around the fact that the applicant did not intend to continue the activity. This leads me to believe that the activity was a concern. Why, otherwise, would they be concerned about future occurrences? The applicant didnât say, âAll my friends and my wife all know that I visit prostitutes while Iâm in Nevada, so I canât be blackmailed.â DoDCAF was interested in the activity itself and that was while it took place here in the U.S.
Itâs great to argue the âletter of the questionâ but remember, it is up to the applicant to prove mitigation, not the state to disprove it. If the applicant HAS mitigation on his side (as the poster here seems to have) it is in their interest to present it as early in the process as possible.
1 Like
I completely agree but apparently thatâs the DoD CAFâs thinking. Even if it is legal and the clearance holder isnât married, you canât do it.
Hereâs another oneâŚthey were not legal but it was over 5 years since the last âincidentâ:
http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2018/16-03129.h1.pdf
He kept his clearanceâŚ
1 Like
As an Investigator, I donât tell people how to fill out their forms. It is up the Subject to define for themselves who to list.
Using your logic, one would have to list everyone they ever slept with because they might be a foreign national. You also better list any law youâve ever broken even though the SF-86 doesnât ask for it.
Makes no sense.
3 Likes
Thank you everyone for your responses and sharing the different cases and references.
When/if I disclose this to a background investigator there may be a hangup based on the discussion so far. None of my references know about this. If they did would it change their opinion of me? No. Could it be used to blackmail me? No, it would only be embarrassing in the short term. Still, Iâd prefer not to share my slip up with them.
Whether I put it on my SF-86 or not, how important is it that I tell my references about this?
By your logic, reduction ad absurdum doesnât work here . . . The likelihood of having sex with a foreign national increase greatly when you leave the country. The likely increase again when the partner is a prostitute, even a legal one, since you know that you are not sleeping with another tourist.
My interest in giving advice here is to help people successfully get through this process to a positive adjudication (although there have been some posters who I have openly said donât deserve it).
2 Likes
If your references donât know, donât tell them. They will be more likely to bring it up in their interview and they wonât have any information except what you give them. It could look like you are tampering with them. The issue is that you would be embarrassed but could not be blackmailed because you are WILLING to tell others.
The investigator isnât going to say, "So . . . Tell me about the foreign prostitutes that Bill slept with . . . " to any of them.
Generally speaking, you have to mitigate sexual behavior and/or personal conduct concerns. All the successful adjudications of sexual activity involving prostitutes Iâve seen include the following: a) saying you wonât do it again b) a decent amount of time since the incident(s)âthe more time the better but I think the smallest amount of time Iâve seen is ~3 years c) having ALREADY notified spouse, friends, family, supervisor(s), co-workers, etc, about the behavior.
Read this one CAREFULLY: http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/14-02378.h1.pdf
So if you are overseas and sleep with anyone, including one night stands, they need to be listed on the SF-86? Even if you donât even know their name?
That just doesnât make sense to me. Creating issues where none exist does not seem to be a smart way to go.
Could your character and conduct ever be used against you towards any vulnerabilities, place you under duress, be used to blackmail you, coerce to do things you would not normally do and/or exploit you? Think of obtaining a Security Clearance as if you were running for a seat in the House, the Senate, or in Congress.
Well you MUST tell any future employer or questionnaire for a few reasons:
- You did it. Donât lie on the forms, itâs hard to keep track of lies.
- You feel guilty enough about it to ask us, so it is a point that may be used as leverage against you.
- You posted it here publicly. Donât think the background guys canât use the interwebs.
Now I recall being told to list everyone I slept with regardless if they are the spouse or not. Even if you put down âsome crack whore on Nebraska Ave in Tampa, probably used a fake name anyway, so did I.â The point is do you feel guilty about it, or will this become a point of leverage to be used against you by the bad guys. That way if the bad guys say âWe have photos of you with a hooker, give is your office phone book or we will post them on the webâ you should be able to confidently reply, âOh cool can IO see them? Post them they look great!â Then they are no longer a tool.
Source: Me. I answered yes to many of the âHave you everâ questions and still got a job with a three letter agency.
The âHoney Potâ is still a thing . . . If you have a propensity to sleep with people indiscriminately while overseas, I think that creates an issue for most agencies.
1 Like
There is no reason to list it. Civilian or military rules are all the same.
Honeypot in regard to a non cleared individual, one night stand encounter where you donât even know the name of the person vs. honeypot for cleared individual with on-going contact, in an attempt to cultivate a frienship?
Do you not think there is a difference?
I think that the fact that this happened in the past makes it more likely that it could happen in the future.
If you were considering trying to get in with a cleared individual and discovered that they had been to prostitutes while traveling, would you see sex as a way to get in?
Most definitely there is a Counter Intell, potential blackmail concern for consorting with prostitutes. By disclosing itâŚit can mitigate it. In my client community, ANY sexual liaison with a foreign national is a MUST report. Period. So if anyone plans on a full scope poly clearanceâŚit is reportable.