SF85 and 86 help

Looking for some insight. I withdrew from an offer from the Bureau of Prisons back in October because I decided I did not want to be in area I was offered in. I had submitted my SF85 in EQIP. It is stored there now. I am about to submit a new 85 for another offer I received at a different prison location. After receiving some new information, I have decided I am not happy with the way I answered some of the questions on my previous 85 submission. For instance I listed I left a job under unfavorable circumstances and over indulged in details, but an attorney viewed my SF50 and told me it was a full, in clear basic resignation. And that all i should have listed was the resignation. The 85 doesnt ask for details, but i handed out many i probably didnt need to.
My question is, if I change some of the answers, will both 85’s, the old and current, be compared by I investigators? If so I’m sure it will raise a red flag. I’m also wondering, if where I withdrew from the earlier offer, if my 85 for that offer was even processed or initiated. I’m not sure if even if its stored in EQIP, do investigators have access to that? Trying to not shoot myself in the foot. Thanks for any comments or info.

Yes . . . If you submitted through EQIP previously, investigators will have access to that and will compare answers. If there are differences or omissions you will be asked about them. If your explanation is reasonable, if will not be an issue.

These aren’t trick questions designed to mix you up. Don’t over think and just answer the questions asked and provide the information requested.

1 Like

Do you recommend that I remain consistent in my info from previous 85 (3 months ago) to current 85, that I left a job under unfavorable circumstances and listed the reason why. Or should I answer the new one different as to I just did a clear resignation, which it what I did. I wish I hadn’t listed in the first one that I left a job under unfavorable circumstances. When I talked to my supervisor and an attorney, they told me that all I did was resign and I just added too much into it. I feel like its gonna trip me up. My SF50 says clear resignation according to the code. I guess no way to change info on old 85 once its been certified? This was this past October.

TELL THE TRUTH! Always the best answer. They are going to ask you about and you will need to have a reasonable explanation.

The worst thing that you can do provide incorrect information again. If your supervisor says that you separated amicably, that’s what he will tell the investigator.

It’s more important to be honest than consistent. If you answered incorrectly on the previous security questionnaire because you misinterpreted the question (or if you weren’t sure if your situation applied to that question), just explain it.

1 Like

Why is someone else telling you how to input information into and answer questions on YOUR application? That’s a no-no in my book. You answer to the best of your ability. If your response is wrong, you’ll find out in a LOI.

How many times are you going to ask the question? We get it.

@HARPOON . . . According to his first post, the advice was from an attorney. Not some recruiter or buddy . . .

I was trying to be as honest as I possibly could in the first 85 I did. Then was advised that I didn’t need to be that “honest”. I’m also submitting an 86 for a T3 investigation for another offer. That’s much more intrusive. I’m trying to make sure all my info aligns if that’s best.

You indicate in the answer that you chose “yes” but you were unsure how to answer. IMO, that makes it even more plausible for why you answered differently on your next security questionnaire. However, the cat is out of the bag that there was an allegation of you engaging in misconduct on the job. The investigator is going to want to get the full story of the allegation. The fact that you answered differently won’t be a big issue IMO.

The various security questionnaires used by the federal government all have one thing in common. At the end you certify that all of the information is correct. You are responsible for the information provided.

Don’t worry about past investigations and questionnaire submissions (SCA). Apply any knowledge learned from any errors from the previous investigation to your current submission. The process, and every investigator, greatly appreciates a correctly filled out questionnaire over a “consistent” from previous investigations. I can not stress how important to the timeliness of your specific case a correctly filled out SCA with correct contact information and locations contributes.

Report “ever” questions each time. Report issues that occurred within the requested time periods (5,7,10 years) on the SCA -EVEN IF THE “ISSUE” WAS RESOLVED (most common on financial issues - collections, delinquencies, and taxes).

For the record, the investigators don’t normally review your past SCAs or ROIs. That is done for us by people who are paid to go through reports and records for missing or variant information for the investigators. They provide a summary of the information to the investigator, reviewers, and adjudicator.

When information discrepancies are found that require clarification - the investigator will ask you about the missing/different/unclear information. Be honest in your response. We understand things change (divorce means you no longer have foreign relatives, you corrected erroneous information after your last investigation, etc)

The SCA forms can be confusing. This is one of the benefits of having a forum like this one - though too many don’t look for help until after their submission. Rember though, even with all the knowledge found in this forum - good, well intentioned, or bad, you are still responsible for the information you provide. Others can only help clarify the question, no one can tell you how to answer. If in doubt, list the information - at most you might have to discuss the information with an investigator or security official.

Omit required information, even at the advice of a lawyer, and you will be tagged for the Personal Conduct issue.