Legal prostitution and clearance

I’v openly mentioned my shenanigans with ladies in the PI from 8 years ago on every polygraph I’ve taken and they were just CI. I’m pretty sure it is a CI risk across the board. I had an interview with a 3-letter cut short because I admitted trysts with foreign working girls 4 years prior. They told me later it would take too long to get me through security–not that my clearance was revoked.

Lots of assumptions there.

I might have hung out with ladies of the night when I thought it was legal (with a clearance) in past but it doesn’t mean I would now. I think an adversary would use any means necessary…

1 Like

This entire process is based on using past behavior to predict POTENTIAL future acts.

That’s not an assumption.

I’ve reviewed more of these cases than probably anyone on this board short of an adjudicator. Time is a huge factor as is notifying a spouse, family, co-workers, and bosses. Also being contrite about the behavior is key. I can list the numbers of several security clearance cases where prostitution was an issue/concern.

Past behavior from someone not cleared, that hasn’t broken any laws or regs. Assuming that needs to be listed even though the form does not ask for it. Assuming you can list a contact and you don’t know their name? And now the assumption that a bad actor country knows this information? And assuming that the Subject can be blackmailed for something that they do not believe is wrong doing?

Yes, lots of assumptions.

Past behavior isn’t only judged for applicants who are already cleared. Activity doesn’t need to be criminal in order to be considered. People report contacts without knowing their name all of the time. Why is it important that we KNOW that a bad actor knows the information?

Remember . . . It must clearly be in the national interest to approve an applicant. The ASSUMPTION is against the applicant all of the time.

Been doing this for years and I have never seen a foreign contact reported on the SF 86 with name unknown. If you don’t their name, do you think the contact is close and continuing?

I’m over arguing the same minutiae. If you think having a Subject list information that is not required is the best way to get them cleared, then so be it.

I give up.

I can tell you my client just held up a TS clearance because of a work relationship with two foreign nationals. Our employee did not know their full names. Never shared lunch or BBQ’s and beer. It was simply a work relationship. There is no requirement to report for my client until you get the Poly SCI TS. But I had to have him fill out a foreign contact form that was overall useless. So I can tell you with certainty…certain clients will want anything and all you can produce on a foreign connection. Even if you only know a first name.