I use to work with a fake I’d/ssn from the time I was 15 to 18 roughly 10 years ago, I couldn’t find a job and needed money so I got a fake I’d and got a job that way. I never used it again after. Will this keep me from getting a secret clearance?
I was never caught and I did pass an eqip 85 for a previous job.
Unless you used a different name, I do not believe this needs to be listed due to the amount of time that has passed. The section that would pertain to this issue would be the “police” section because you did an illegal act. Most illegal behaviors that need to be listed are within the last 7 years, which this is outside that timeframe. This incident does not meet the “ever” questions either (involving firearms, explosives, alcohol, drugs, domestic violence, charged with a felony, etc) For “listing” purposes, it would not be required. If you would like to list it, I would put it at the very end in the comment box when asked if there is anything additional you would like to add. For a secret clearance a subject interview with an investigator is not required on every investigation and only happens when triggered by an issue that need additional coverage. If you do have an interview with an investigator it is possible that they may ask you questions about this incident, in that case make sure you are ready to answer all The Who, what, where, when, and why’s.
Using a fake social security number is a federal felony even though the statute of limitations is only five years. Regardless, you are better off reporting the second SSAN so the records can be searched during the initial SCA submission. You don’t want to get popped for lying on the form for childhood misbehavior when a record pops up with the other SSAN.
All forms of police contact are likely to be investigated, irrespective of whether there was an arrest or conviction. Remember, that police and related authorities (even if not sworn officers) will be contacted at all locations where you have lived or attended school.
In my case even a plainclothes “night watchman” at a library (whose functions were primarily custodial/maintenance, not security), and a university building guard (non-sworn officer) were allowed to provide input into my BI, and were even listed in the BI report as being “police” sources!
As an investigator I feel like you are spreading misinformation but I’m not going to debate the issue. I will say that both impersonating a police officer and falsifying a government document are both crimes. I have also heard many subjects speak about their investigation from a very misinformed and ignorant perspective. Which one applies here? The world may never know.
I’m reporting the facts as they applied in my case. I have long been appalled at the extent to which participants in this forum become so defensive and hostile whenever an applicant has the temerity to point out that the whole BI process is not entirely without its flaws and unfairness. Reporting about actual facts, even when those involve errors made during the BI process, does not constitute ignorance.