My ex filed a false domestic violence report on me. Nothing came of it but cause I was found to be false. It’s been almost a year since the incident. Will this affect my renewal of my security clearance.
If you weren’t charged you don’t even need to report it.
I’m not sure if that is correct. Almost any involvement with law enforcement is liable to show up when the investigators do their checks, and they will be somewhat curious when they find things you have not disclosed. Be sure to read the questions carefully.
Other than that, I don’t think it will be a problem.
1 Like
You need to report it. Your own statement said that nothing came of it because it was found to be false. That implies a police investigation, some sort of investigation, or an arrest.
Any instance of domestic violence ticks up the issue concern. You are better off reporting it and discussing the issue that having the investigation uncover the incident.
1 Like
Read section 22 very carefully. If none of the verbiage is applicable then it is what it is. You won’t get dinged for following instructions. However, you may wish to write something in the comments section.
It’s likely to come up in a records check anyhow.
Report it or not, but I can’t tell you how many times I confront Subject’s who claimed they were never arrested/cited/summoned, etc, then tell me that the detective/police officer they spoke to reassured them there would be no issue… guess how NBIB found out about the unreported incident.
DNR is correct - read the questions and follow them verbatim. Unfortunately, too many people still interpret the instructions wrong.
1 Like
They forgot to tell us in NITP/FBITP the additional qualifications we must possess: attorney, forensic accountant, PERSEC subject matter expert, etc
@datesnotrecalled & @backgdinvestigator are both incorrect. If all the police did was take a police report accounting your ex’s complaint then you are not required to disclose this event on the SF-86. Reference the requirements of section 22 of the SF-86 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?
- 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?
@Randy1982 - Unfortunately, two “experienced” investigators have given you poor advice. Do as you wish with respect to reporting this event on the SF-86, however, know that you are not required to disclose the event you have described as long as you were not arrested, charged or convicted of a crime that stemmed from this report you describe. Best of luck!
On a side note, it’s no wonder OPM/NBIB are failing the American people, their investigators can’t even properly translate the material requirements of their own forms!
Roger, @dave019 - telling the OP to follow instructions and to report what’s being asked is wrong, along with the potential for an optional comment if he/she deems it necessary. I’m trackin’.
1 Like
@datesnotrecalled - You know the form. Having said that, you also know that what the OP described does not need to be disclosed. Why suggest that he should comment on the incident in the comments section of the SF-86? All that is going to do is cost U.S. taxpayers more on a SPIN and contribute further to the already considerable (700,000) backlog of investigations.
The incident he described has the potential to be brought up regardless of whether or not he lists it in his forms. It can be uncovered during a routine records check and the agency will want it addressed.
Assuming it’s a T5R he’d have the opportunity to address it during the initial interview or eQIP if he wants.
No subsequent SPIN required unless something developed later needs to be addressed.
If using the tax payer argument regarding additional work then it would be counterintuitive to not address it during the eQIP phase and initial interview—this assuming the incident will be explored.
If using the backlog argument regarding additional work, to that I say it’s in the interests of national security to fully explore derogatory information and the resulting work is warranted—again this is assuming the incident will be explored.
If it’s not addressed and it’s discovered later they’ll likely want the SPIN/TESI.
Assuming it’s a T3R there’s a few possibilities:
- He comments, it is uncovered, both likely contribute to TESI/SPIN.
- He comments, it is not uncovered, TESI/SPIN likely results from self-reporting.
- He doesn’t comment, it is uncovered, TESI/SPIN likely results.
- He doesn’t comment, it isn’t uncovered, no TESI/SPIN.
I don’t think option 4 is likely. If we’re applying the tax payer/backlog argument to this investigation type (and I suppose the other) he’d need to be 100% confident the incident will go unaddressed.
What I’m really trying to say is: overall the odds are against him in terms of discoverability and overall avoidance of the issue at large, which is a serious allegation. It would be irrational to not consider the possibility of it being addressed in some capacity. Because of that, if he wants to make a comment about it for whatever reason he can make that decision.
There was no arrest made. I’m assuming they found it to be false because I haven’t heard anything about it since it happen over a year and a half ago.
I read he questions carefully, and until this day I have never seen a back of a police car,never been I hand cuffs, or been inside a police station. I don’t even have a traffic tickets. I’m assuming hey found it dales is because the officer took down the report told me they he didn’t even believe it,
I read section 22 carefully and none of the question applied. I want to be as open and honest as possible, will it be a good idea to bring it up during my interview?
@Randy1982, I will side with @dave019 here. I do not believe that this needed to be reported based on the plain meaning of Section 22. There is a notion that it is better to over-report than to under-report hence the advice. I agree to the advice in some instances, but not in this one. While you should be brutally honest and candid, do not volunteer information what is outside the scope of the investigation/form.
If I were you and a background investigator asked me about it, I would say something to the effect that 1) it is outside the scope of the SF-86; 2) there was no arrest, court report, etc.; 3) it was a fault/unproven accusation; and 4) this information cannot be used to blackmail me. These are the facts. With that said, I wouldn’t go into details about what happened. That is just me.
Nonetheless, I recommend you to get a copy of the police report, name of the officer or statement from the officer, and check/print the court record (you can check this online or not go to to the clerk office). Bring them to the interview just in case. I would be ready to provide the investigator with this information as a supplement only after being questioned about it and let the investigator decided if it should be included or not. Admittedly, I like to be overly prepared hence the advice.
1 Like
Healthy debate. Informative. Simple test I use when it concerns me, my clearance or my paycheck: Do I want a person to feel I am quibbling or deliberately shading an answer so as to not report something? I do not.
I would follow a balance of these responses. I see nothing wrong with answering “Outside the scope of this question, there was police contact.” And I would explain. Why? Because we don’t really know how every local police force captures events and put it in to their systems. A simple unclear use of verbiage on their part may appear to indicate a more serious event. Yes you would know if you were charged (mostly), transported, cuffed etc. I have seen people released by the police, told them there was no charge, and the person did not accurately enough (in the eyes of polygraphers) capture the event. They felt it was a lack of candor, and attempts to shade the answer. The person had a clearance revocation.
Could you challenge, appeal, fight and 2 years later have it overturned in your favor? Maybe. Or you could cut to the chase, explain the circumstance right up front, save a lot of time, pain, taxpayer money and higher level review. I know what I would do. Having the police report would give me a higher degree of confidence I am accurately capturing the event.
3 Likes
Update. Had my subject interview and it wasn’t brought up, actually he said nothing was flagged. He did ask if there was any police activity at my current address, I sad no because there hasn’t been.
1 Like
Seems you are leaning hard on “not at current address.” Any chance he asked to see if you would speak to possible other arrests? I sure see that. But your mileage may vary. Hence why my advice remains as “speak to the items.” Let the BI person determine if it goes forward or not.
I am glad it was not brought up. However; if the investigator was actually asking the proper questions, it would have not come up under section 22. It would have actually come up in the RESI section when asked if there was any police activity or disturbances at ANY of the residence. Just because something wasn’t asked on the form or required to be listed, doesn’t mean that my additional questions won’t cover it. For something as serious as this, I would have absolutely disclosed. Domestic violence is a disqualifier. Depending on the case type, you do realize your former spouse will be interviewed? Now here you are listening to bloggers and she tells about that domestic violence (she will say charge) and you were given the opportunity and didn’t disclose. Just because the interview is done doesn’t mean the law checks are done. I personally would have disclosed it, especially with you not knowing the status because you haven’t heard anything
2 Likes