I’m working this weekend on my SF86 for a contractor job for DOS. I’ve never done this before, though I’ve had extensive background checks for private sector jobs with high responsibility. I’m keen on being very transparent. However, I also don’t want to introduce confusion or cause concern with inaccurate answers.
5 years ago i was arrested for “possession of marijuana less than one ounce”. The court agreed to dismiss the charges if I informally attended a series of NA/AA meetings. I did so and Bob’s your uncle.
The question asks “Have any of the following ordered, advised, or asked you to seek counseling or treatment as a result of your illegal use of drugs or controlled substances?”
This can easily be read to be a distinctly different thing than my situation. This question seems to be asking something more pointed. I had, however answered in the affirmative, wanting to be fully transparent.
But then the following questions ask for the name address and telephone number of “The treatment provider”, and there was none. It’s anonymous. 
I attended meetings in multiple locations, fitting them in between long work hours where I could. It also asks if I successfully completed the ‘treatment’, of which there was none and therefore cannot be a ‘success’ or a ‘failure’.
I just had coffee and cookies and politely attended the meetings and got a signature on a sheet of paper which I gave my lawyer to show the court that Ihad attended as promised.
So, answering affirmatively put me in a position where I cannot complete the form. This seems emperically to indicate that my response to the question should not be affirmative. If I could divulge -and- complete the form, I’d be happy to do so…
I hope this is sufficiently coherent, I’m not used to such questions and the rigor required to respond appropriately. I’d sure appreciate some insight.
Thank you!
If it were me, I would put down my lawyer’s phone number and add comments at the end (I think there is a place where you can add additional info for any ‘yes’ responses). The attorney should be able to verify that you complied with the direction of the court.
Not a great answer but if the form insists that you put down a phone number then you’ve got to do your best to put something in there that is not totally bogus. There are a number of investigators who read these forums, let’s see what they say.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your kindness.
It always helps to write things out too. After giving this much thought I think that including the information about the NA/AA meetings as a remark in section 22, and indicating that I am unable to complete that information in the section 23 should show my complete transparency and effort to fully inform/divulge. It seems that the lack of a conviction should validate that I wasn’t convicted. Voluntarily providing and making certain the details are provided would seem to cover my bases?
Same information, just placed where it ‘fits’ into the form.
What do you think?
The first concern is to make sure the form validates and you can submit it! Of course the main goal is to disclose the incident and not make it seem like you are not being honest. You’ll almost certainly get a chance to discuss this in greater detail with the investigator.
1 Like
Being forthwith…as I used to say…over reporting beats shading or under reporting…essentially by explaining the situation fully as possible you are being up front. If the BI person determines it is a non reportable issue…so be it. However, if you fail to speak to ot then the process must determine if you tried to hide what they thought was clearly required reporting. Hence, I lean towards sharing the warts of the 10 year look back.
1 Like
AA is a tough one. I would report as best as possible and complete the SF86 as best you can. The court record will be checked and may reflect the AA ‘treatment,’ even though AA is not treatment in the classic sense. I would list and report so no surprises are found which could delay your case.
AA/NA meetings are not treatment. AA/NA treatment centers (in-patient) are medical treatment.
The difference is a medical/certified counselor/provider versus an edcational support group.
This is from years of FI experience.
1 Like
Isn’t there some sort of one on one counseling with AA?
1 Like
Bingo! I think we’re on the same page. So, I take it you think I’ve got a good plan. Thanks!
I realize that this and previous usage will be questioned and considered negatively. I never thought I’d be applying for a clearance, but I’m rather plain vanilla.
I’m not overly concerned. I’ve had a great career, I’ve got no debt, my landlord loves me (so do my cats). Either I gain clearance, or it doesn’t happen. If it does, America gets a very skilled and experienced engineer for a role that I’m particularly well suited for. If not, then I can’t directly benefit from, or contribute to economic recovery and growth in this way, and at this time.
I’m OK with that. So, I’ve no intent other than to be clear and honest as can be. I love my country and proud to be an American.
Thank you, great article and perspective. I’d love to hear from an investigator to comment as you say. To say in their opinion if this concept applicable to the meetings I attended. But, yes. I think that’s why it doesn’t quite fit in the form.
Thank you.
Well, as noted I’m happy to over report for all that’s worth. The form won’t validate that way though, so I’m forced to use the additional notes method it appears.
Thank you. I agree and don’t want any suprises for anyone. I’m OK with over reporting, unless that itself is inappropriate and causes trouble for the process. I’ve zero intent to withhold. The issue isn’t so much as whether to report, as how. The form won’t allow me to report it as treatment if I wanted to.
Alcohol education classes, like first time offender programs or the AEP are not considered treatment/counseling.
1 Like
AA/NA meetings are often required by court order but they are not court ordered counseling/treatment. If you were required to attend - list the AA./NA as part of the court requirements. If you voluntarily attend AA/NA meetings, list them as a mitigating factor.
1 Like
People coping with addiction/dependency who desire can ask someone to ‘sponsor’ them. This is a mentor relationship with a person having their own dependency problems that brought them to ‘the rooms’. They have been successful in beating their addiction for some period of time. They are peers and have no formal training, accreditation, nor any official capacity. Though they are an intrinsic part of the program. Being anonymous, there is no recognition of the individuals involved in the relationship by the organization.
1 Like
Alcohol education and/or alcohol evaluations are not alcohol counseling/treatment.
2 Likes