SF86 Question 22.2 on conjunctive question on conviction

I have a question about the first bullet of question 22.2 copied below. This question appears to be written in the conjunctive with the word AND meaning that all of the parts needing to be true in order for the answer to be affirmative. If there EVER was a misdemeanor conviction in a court, but the applicant was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding a year, and did not serve a sentence of not less than a year, then isn’t the answer to this questions NO since all of the conjunctive parts of this question are not true and applicable? Isn’t answering NO to this question under those facts a truthful answer? Any guidance is appreciated.


22.2 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)


Splitting hairs is never the way to go. They will see any and all convictions putting an applicant behind the 8 ball trying to plausibly explain why their logic should prevail. If you even remotely meet the definition…speak to it. Then ask the BI person if it is reportable. Bring your paperwork to speak to it. Sidestepping, doublespeaking, trying to “technically” answer the question but not reveal a shortcoming…

2 Likes

@Amberbunny2 That gave me a brand new perspective on the process. I didn’t know we could discuss with the interviewer later and decide whether something we reported can be removed because of lack of fit. Why not, indeed, report everything and anything even remotely associated with a question and “edit” later in the interview. Diffuses any concerns over candor from the get go.

I say treat it like a confessional. Obviously the things spoken/written too are serious, with life and career implications. It’s hard talking about mental health, drugs, arrests, etc. But just so much better speaking to it up front. Trust me, if it is out of scope the BI person says so. They are focused on what the scope of the question is and will clearly tell you yes or no that an item needs expounded upon. We have a couple of solid BI folks regularly posting here who can give you more. From my perspective it is hard to bring something up that doesn’t apply…but hurts you. If it doesn’t apply, it passes through one ear, out the other. These guys/ladies can conduct a lot of interviews in a week. If it isn’t Germain to the BI…it goes in the mental shredder.

Right. I hope we can get some clarity on this question: if we bring up something that doesn’t apply, will the BI have an obligation to report on it and will it have to make it into the hands of adjudicators?

If not, concerns about oversharing become nothingburgers and a large part of the purpose of this message board is accomplished with the message to overshare now, overthink later.

Now you are tracking. All convictions will be uncovered. Period. If you were required to report and didn’t…that is held against you as a “lack of candor.” Rarely will anyone win an institutional argument as to did they adequately answer the question, though some do fight and get overturned on appeal. I’ve been downright shocked how hard drug abuse can be overcome in the appeals eye. If it is truly behind them, good for them. If one speaks to stuff that is clearly out of scope…the adjudicator will make note, but take no scoring action against the person. If it indicates a pattern…it can be scored against a person. Say, a person had DUIs every 4th year. That is a "have you ever "question. Normally a dui from years ago doesnt affect a clearance. But, if an applicant is coming up on 4 years…is it safe to assume they have a pattern of bad behavior, choices, etc? That may require consideration. In either case if you spoke to it, and it doesnt matter? It is meaningless. If you don’t, and they decide ot mattered…the “parsing of words,” being a technical argument…won’t save a person. Once they feel you lied…general belief is you are a liar.

Few years back I was filling out eQIP for a periodic update. There were a couple of employment entries still listed that were no longer in scope; however, I was nervous about deleting anything so I left them in there.

The BI said if it was in the forms, he had to look into it, even if it was outside the timeline.

2 Likes

Goes with Amberbunny’s suggestion to bring all the paperwork. Amberbunny couldn’t be more right. There’s no justification to deny someone based on something out of scope. Erring on the side of oversharing is really the only way to go.

“Treat it like a confessional.” I’ll always remember that. Thanks @Amberbunny2

1 Like