I have a recently closed BI for a TS that DoDCAF is adjudicating. Would it be a delay in adjudication if I completed a prior SF-86 and had a previous BI with an Intel agency? I listed it on the SF-86 and I was never denied a clearance, I just didn’t get the job due to unsuccessful polys, which I disclosed, but the investigator didn’t seem very interested in surprisingly. I didn’t know if an adjudicator could easily access that info or if they have to request the info from the Intel agency and cause even more delay in adjudication.
This is an interesting question. From my (incomplete) understanding not all agencies share information about unsuccessful polygraph exams the same way. I don’t think all agencies even update JPAS with details of a successful poly. I am curious to see if anyone has any comment on this (other than gratuitous and unproductive polygraph-bashing) (not that I’m any huge fan, mind you)
1 Like
Well said Squirrel. Clearly not every agency trusts Poly. Those that do rely heavily on it. But if you tried for an IC job, did you get a formal SOR or did they pull you back prior to being denied? Somewhat confused in how you presented that saying you failed but were never denied. Did you maybe decide to quit pursuing the job after a rough Poly experience(generally speaking they are all rough)? If you apply for a Secret position that is investigated by a separate process they may very well not share info.
I took multiple polys for an IC agency and was under the impression I passed my last one but apparently I didn’t. Never got an SOR, just an email saying I didn’t get the position, but it didn’t say why. I’m assuming the poly is a suitability requirement and not a clearance requirement. I am up for a TS btw. I have read IC agencies normally don’t share their BI’s/poly results with OPM or other agencies, but I don’t know how true that is. I don’t care if they share it or not, I just didn’t want it to delay my adjudication because my case closed last week.
Depending on which agency, it might not have had anything to do with the poly. Some routinely process more people than they can hire and the first one who clears gets the job; other times, it takes so long for people to get cleared that the job might be filled internally or otherwise simply “go away.” It sounds like there may not have been any security concern at all!
2 Likes
Squirrel is absolutely on point. My company does that frequently as it takes so long to clear at times. First cleared, gets offered the positions most pressing. When the others eventually clear we offer what we have.
But will the adjudicator request a copy of my prior BI which will possibly cause a delay or is it something they can easily access since it was with an Intel agency? That’s the main thing I’m trying to find out.
I think they will already have it. At this point (once it reaches the adjudicator’s desk) it isn’t so much the prior SF-86 they need but the investigator’s notes and report and what not. But I suspect they already have all that stuff.
I would go with the assumption they can access most of the older SF86’s. Is there info on the older ones that concerns you or is possibly not congruent with the one you submitted?
It also seems like if they saw issues with my prior BI, then they would have confronted me about it during this current investigation.
I did put no on the old SF-86 regarding illegal drug use, and I put yes on the new one, but I was told by my BI that what I disclosed wasn’t considered illegal because it involved a prescription that was prescribed by my Dr. I have been really paranoid during this whole process cause I felt like all this stuff will keep me from getting cleared(failed poly, conflicting answers on SF-86, previous termination/write-ups from previous job), but maybe I’m overthinking or overanalyzing.
If a situation is explainable…it is understandable. If a logical verifiable story backs up the situation…you are fine. If you abused drugs to get high or took another person’s meds for pain relief…that can be a problem. Misunderstanding what info is supposed to go on an SF86 is not unusual neither is changing an answer as you age and better understand how to answer or if the Poly folks tell you moving forward you need list it differently. My most current SF86 states “now listed after discussion with Polygrapher.”