SF-86 Section 23.2: Does “Nature and Frequency” Inherit the 7-Year Scope?

SECURITY CLEARANCE Q&A
1

Section 23.2 asks:

“In the last seven (7) years, have you been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, cultivation, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving, handling or sale of any drug or controlled substance?”

If the answer is “yes” because of conduct that occurred within the last seven years, the form then asks for follow-up details, including:

“Provide the nature and frequency of activity.”

I’m trying to understand how broadly that follow-up field is interpreted in practice.

Suppose an applicant had one type of drug-related activity within the last seven years (for instance, purchase/receipt/handling for personal use) but had more serious activity involving the same substance outside the seven-year window, such as cultivation or distribution many, many years earlier.

Would the “nature and frequency of activity” field generally be understood to require disclosure only of the activity within the seven-year reporting window? Or, once the applicant answers “yes” to Section 23.2 for that substance, is the applicant expected to describe the broader history of drug-related activity involving that substance, including conduct outside the seven-year window?

The structural argument for the narrower reading is that Section 23.2 is explicitly bounded by “in the last seven years,” so the follow-up fields should inherit that scope. On that reading, the applicant would disclose the in-window activity and could clarify that no cultivation/distribution/manufacture occurred during the reporting period.

The concern with the broader reading is that the follow-up phrase “nature and frequency of activity” does not itself repeat “within the last seven years,” and if the applicant had older, more serious conduct involving the same substance, omitting it could later be viewed as incomplete if discussed in an interview or polygraph.

Is there a standard practice here? Do investigators/adjudicators expect Section 23.2 follow-ups to be limited to the seven-year window, or to include older same-substance conduct once the seven-year question is triggered? Any OPM/DCSA guidance or practical experience would be appreciated.

1 Like
2

At face value on the SF86 the “nature and frequency of activity” for this question does mean with in the last even years. Yes, technically one would not have to list any illegal purchase, manufacture, cultivation, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving, handling or sale of any drug or controlled substance outside the seven year window, unless they were charged with the illegal purchase, manufacture, cultivation, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving, handling or sale of any drug or controlled substance. Then that would fall under 22.2 “Have you EVER been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs?” Additionally if the individual held a security clearance at the time they were involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, cultivation, trafficking, production, transfer, shipping, receiving, handling or sale of any drug or controlled substance then they would have to answer “Yes” to 23.3 “Have you EVER illegally used or otherwise been illegally involved with a drug or controlled substance while possessing a security clearance?”

Also keep in mind the SF 86/ESI is only one aspect of an individual’s BI depending on the type of investigation one is having. If the individual is having a T-5 investigation then sources will be interviewed. One of those source’s will be a social source. Source’s aren’t asked about time frames in their interview. Investigator would ask “Are you aware SUBJECT being involved with drugs?” If source answers yes, SUBJECT purchased some drugs a couple of months ago but also distributed drugs while in college 8 or 9 years ago. The Investigator would ask follow up questions and get as much information about the purchase and distribution from the source. Investigator writes up their report and it is sent to an adjudicator at the agency. During the adjudication the agency may come back and be like, yeah SUBJECT’s drug distribution is outside the 7 year time frame but we want more information about it and now there there is a TESI about this drug distribution.

As we tell all individual’s under investigation during the ESI and I know has been mentioned here multiple times, it is always best to be upfront and honest about things during an ESI.

Just my two cents!

2 Likes
3

I managed Personnel Security for 370 FTEs in a full scope Poly environment. I recommend to strive for honesty…frame the 7 year questions in the 7 year realm. But don’t sound like you are quibbling when trying to “dance” around semantics. It never comes across right. Id answer “in the past 7 years it happened once.” This begs the question “what is the scope of use outside 7 years.” All that said, people owned up to security violations, drug use, etc in the poly room and still cleared because there was “no deception indicated” in other words don’t fear minor MJ use from 10 plus years earlier

1 Like
4

Thank you for your candid response. I don’t want to play semantical games, but I also don’t want to disclose what I dont have to. For full transparency, what concerns me is cultivation and distribution (in the state of CA, where it is still illegal federally but legal at the state level) from 15 years ago when I was a teenager. I would be fully candid and honest about this, and would be willing to cite this activity in the SF86 if I have to.

5

Keep in mind, time is a mitigation factor as well as maturity level at the time of the issue. If you cultivated and distributed marijuana while in college when 18 or 19 fifteen years ago but haven’t cultivated and distributed marijuana since, adjudicators take that into consideration.

1 Like
6

“Stupid kid stuff” is just that. It is k8nd of expected kids tried it, used it, maybe even heavy…those going into college use more, add in Ritalin and Adderall…but once you graduate, time to do “stupid grown up stuff.” I needed clear dependents of staffers for summer lifeguard jobs. I worked hard to establish trust, and needed know about those things. If they were clear 12 months, and the use was as a teenager, they could clear. I held many for a few months so they could honestly put down “no use 12 plus months.” Why? Because many followed mom and dad into the 3 letter agency, and I wanted their SF86 consistent so they did not trip up in polygraph

7

No offense to anyone but these long-winded analytical answers smack of looking for ways to not disclose violations. But they will see right through that and accuse you of lying and misleading. And that is usually waay worse than the violation itself.

2 Likes