Likelihood for interim secret?

I am starting the process for a secret clearance. I currently hold a Public trust which was granted in 2019. Prior to this I had actually received an unsuitable determination on a public trust in 2017 due to marijuana use within the past year at the time which I reported on the SF-86.

Since this was clearly mitigated enough for the public trust I got in 2019, I am assuming it won’t be an issue now, however I am curious about if it might put be in different stack of papers, so to speak. Can anyone speak to how likely I am to get an interim due to already holding a public trust, even though my background isn’t totally blemish-free? Or if there’s a possibility the investigation will take longer than normal due to background?

So it sounds like the marijuana use was in 2016. That’s about five years ago. Since you reported it on the previous SF-86, there’s no issue with regard to failure to disclose it. Still, it is hard to say whether or not this would prevent you from being granted an interim secret clearance. I would say in most cases it should not, but I’m saying that mainly because they seem to be getting more and more tolerant of such cases… as long as it was limited use and nothing more recent than the past year or two (wouldnt be surprised if some cases are even less than one year previous).

Thanks. Any idea for how long the interim usually takes? Am I notified if I DONT get the interim or do I just not hear anything?

It seems to vary widely. One thing to keep in mind, not getting an interim has little impact on whether or not you will get the final clearance. It can mess things up if your employer expects you to get an interim within a certain amount of time.

Right, and that’s my worry. This is an internal move for a new role with a contractor I already work for, so I’m just concerned about that timeline. Hoping to get it in 2 months which I realize could be unrealistic…

The threshold for getting an interim seems pretty high (squeaky clean background, no foreign anything, no unexplained issue really…).
You probably didn’t even talk to an investigator for your public trust.
Since the sf86 requires 7 years, you will have to list it again, and that will most likely require a subject interview to fully explain the situation.

So my guess is that you will be denied the interim.
The good news is that you are already employed by the company sponsoring your clearance, so they will most likely let it proceed until the final determination :wink:

I did not mean to suggest that it should not be listed… as @rocket says, yes it must be listed. But it seems that drug use, especially limited use, over twelve months in the past no longer seems to be such a serious concern.

It just hit me.
You said you filled in an SF86 for your public trust? And not an SF85p?
Maybe you were working a high risk position?
If that is the case, you might be in luck for your interim, since I believe (don’t quote me on that), that your public trust adjudication would be held at roughly the same standards as if you had access to classified information.

Yeah i think I misspoke and it was actually the sf85p. It was not a high risk position and the sf86 I filled out for this clearance was definitely different. But regarding the drug use and past investigations sections, those were largely the same and I reported the same information, making sure to stay consistent.

Like @sbusquirrel said, it probably will be a well mitigated issue for your final clearance determination.
It is anyone’s guess as to whether you’ll get the interim.
You have a leg up vs people directly applying for an sf-86 for sure, since that information has already been looked at.
However they may want further details/explanation with an investigator for your secret clearance.
Let us know how it turns out :wink:

Update: interim came in just under a month after submitting! Haven’t even had my interview yet.

Congrats ! :slight_smile:

I’m a little surprised that they granted the interim.
I always thought that the interim process was automated.
I might have been wrong all along :laughing:

FYI: if a issue has been previously discussed with an investigator and fully resolved in a previous investigation then although it DOES still have to be listed if still within the coverage period it does not have to be resolved again with the investigator. When you do have your interview you can let your investigator know that the issue was previously discussed in your last investigation and you have nothing further to add. Now if your previous investigation did not have an interview with an investigator or the issue happened since the last investigation, then it will need to be discussed and all issue resolution questions answered.