Old SF-86 info already investigated it’s brought up again

I’m going through my new TS/ SCI clearance 5 year cycle Due to the backlog my investigation just started. My last TS/Clearance was adjudicated in Jan 2013. It covered 10 years of my life. In 2002 I had a DV incident that was disclosed on the 2013 SF-86. My husband and I were charged with misdemeanors. The charges were dismissed with community service and marital counseling.
It did not affect my TS/SCI adjudication.

The 10 year span for the current SF-86 TS/SCI Cycle is 2018-2008. Why is the investigator asking for this 2002 incident that was previously investigated in the last adjudication? I did not list this offense on the latest SF-86 since it happened beyond the 10 years span of the current investigation and I was not convicted.

He keep saying they want to know. I asked who are they? He said the people evaluating my findings. I have not even had a speeding ticket the last 15 year. I fiound this strange since the incident was previously investigated and discussed and nothing has changed otherwise I would have disclosed it on latest SF-86. >>The edits are for clarification. I wrote the previous post on my commute on my iPhone. I could not see the screen .<<

Did you list the offense on your new SF86? There is no 10 year time limit for DV offenses as it is an “ever” question that will have to be listed and discussed during every investigation for the rest of your life. Even if it is just a quick “Has this incident already been discussed in a prior investigation? Any new developments?” and then moving on.


Our lives are an open book when living in the TS SCI world. More so with CE. If you wish to continue as cleared, provide the info. If you feel this is an intrusion, it may be time to walk away. If it is true as you stated not even a traffic ticket…great. Provide the requested info and move on. Fighting against it would possibly give the impression there are more incidents possibly requiring a revisit.

1 Like

I do understand the pause as its outside of scope, but isn’t everything on your record technically in scope?

During my BI they asked me about a bankruptcy in 2007. it doesn’t even show up on my credit report. I said I didn’t mention it due to it being outside of the window, and then answered his question.

Just out of curiosity, if its a fact, and not an accusation, why not just answer it openly? you seemed upset in your initial post.

1 Like

needhelp, it is not out of scope. As already mentioned, the domestic violence question is an ‘ever’ question on the SF-86.


I missed your post sorry Fed.

No biggie, just trying to clear up the confusion!

I believe the question refers to DV “convictions”. It’s an ever question on convictions. However, you could just say that it was discussed in a prior investigation, and there have been no new developments and move on.

1 Like

No I did not list the 2002 DV offense on the last SF-86 because it was beyond the 2018-2008 (10 year mark) and I was not convicted. It was a misdemeanor that was dismissed. I think the CE asked like you stated to find out if there were any new developments. I told him no. It threw me off guard that he asked since I watched a video on ClearanceJobs.com in where a former investigator stated the CE will ask what I answered on the SF-86. I thought the interview would be about the current SF-86 not about the previous ones. I have nothing to hide. I did not expect to be asked for something previously discussed and investigated.

I was going to say (before I decided I was sharing too much) that I have some “issues” going back to the mid-1980s that still come up on every investigation. And I fully expect that each and every discussion with an investigator on these issues in the thirty years since then has been fully documented. Nonetheless, each subsequent investigator has to go into it, since it is a “have you ever” question and I put it down on the form.

And if I am still doing this long enough to go through another PR, I fully expect to be asked about it again.


I watched a video where a CInvestigator (CI) stated that during an interview I would be asked about what was on the SF 86. I did not expect to be asked for something that happened 16 years that was already investigated and discussed. I was not convicted it was dismissed. I did not know that CI will go back to all our SF 86s. I don’t have anything to hide on the contrary I’m an open book.

1 Like

It’s an ”ever” question if I were convicted.

Yes it’s old, but as many people have said over and over it is a have you ever question. You will have to list it every time and you will have to discuss it every time. You can absolutely say it’s already been discussed. But if you didn’t list it, the question becomes why not?

Me too Squirrel. Me too. I call this the “over report instead of under report” part. I am more than happy to speak to former situations I know have been cleared via Poly. I suppose some think if I were telling a lie I would trip myself up and reveal it. Honestly I cannot tell you what I ate for breakfast a month ago so going back to the 10 year mark on a divorce…whatever I wrote, is what I wrote and claim.

I had Poly clarify why I should list something the form clearly says I need not report (marital counseling. Some of my forms do not list it, some do. Now I list it and say “per suggestion of polygrapher”

I was still confused I asked a G2 and a former adjudicator and they told me that yes that Clearance Investigators review old SF86s to have a history of the individual he or she is interviewing. The video I watched misled me. Also they told me I answered correctly SF 86 Question 22 Police Record and its derivatives (22.1, 22.2 and 22.3) . My DV was not a felony, I was not convicted, I was not charged in the last 7 years (it happened in 2002) and I did not have a current protection order against me. Most important the following EVER questions did not apply to my DV case:
Q 22.2

  • Have you EVER been convicted in any court of the United States of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year for that crime, and incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not less than 1 year? (Include all qualifying convictions in Federal, state, local, or military court, even if previously listed on this form)
  • Have you EVER been charged with any felony offense? (Include those under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and non-military/ civilian felony offenses)
  • Have you EVER been convicted of an offense involving domestic violence or a crime of violence (such as battery or assault) against your child, dependent, cohabitant, spouse, former spouse, or someone with whom you share a child in common?
  • Have you EVER been charged with an offense involving firearms or explosives?
  • Have you EVER been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs?

Q 22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If ‘Yes’ you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)

  • In the past seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
  • In the past seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
  • In the past seven (7) years have you been charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form)
    . - In the past seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
  • Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?

I’m posting the above for clarification since a lot of people read these posts. If you still need more info download a SF86. and check question 22 Police Record.

Can’t wait for your next reup in five years and your DV incident gets brought up again. You might be apoplectic.

Au contraire mon frere! I was the least angry or upset when the CI asked the question. I did not tell him It was already covered or snapped at him. Since I was caught off guard after the interview I asked the question on this forum. Prior to the interview no one explained me the scope of the Clearance investigation… Now that I know a little more of the Investigation process it’s not an issue.

The way the CI asked the question was a yes or no answer. He asked very politely “They asked me to asked you if there have been any more DV incidents similar to the one in 2002? I replied no. And I asked who are they?

As long as you do not give off the air of “quibbling,” if you technically answered the question truthfully I would not worry. Though some get denied, and win on appeal it needlessly complicates their life. Speak fully to grey area situations and you will get an ally in the BI person. Shade answers, split frog hairs, raise their suspicions…and they will dig hard and deep to see if there is something there. This is why the interviews are conducted in private. One should fully share these details so the system in general can make a determination. Since it occurred in 02 with no repeat I do not see it as a major issue. But it is worthy for them to ask you on each subsequent review.

1 Like