Two Interviews reaons to worry?


#1

I applied for a security clearance back in March. I was granted a Interim Secret clearance in July and started work a few weeks later. About six weeks ago I had an interview with an investigator and we basically went over all the questions I had on the SF86. Today I got a call from the same investigator saying some things came up during the investigation and they need to speak with me further.

Is this a bad thing? I was as honest as I could be on the SF86. All of my references that were contacted provided positive information about me. Do I have reason to worry?

Thanks


#2

I had two interviews as well. The first interview was to collect information, and it was sent up to a reviewer who would see if the info was complete before sending it to adjudacations. THat guy still had questions about unanswered questions, so he sent it back to the investigator for them to ask me those questions. It was random stuff like, where's all the addresses your work sent you to, who knew about this and that, where's the address for the sport you played in college, etc.


#3

It is normal to be contacted a few times by the investigator, either to clarify information previously provided or to clear up discrepant information.


#4

I had the second interview today. Turns out someone in the investigation process provided some false information about me and they wanted to see what was up. They said I had been involved in drugs and underage relationships. I am 35 years old now. But when I was 21, in 2002, I dated a 17 year old girl with permission from her folks and I was also living with the family at the time. I did have sexual relations with her so I did admit that to the investigator. Other than that, the drug claim is false and I've never dated anyone underage other than that girl. Could I be denied because of that?


#5

Ok, so I've done some research. Age of consent in the state this happened is 16. So it shouldn't be illegal although the investigator assumed it was. What knowledge of state laws do adjudicators have? This information should be thrown out because what I did was legal and should have no bearing on my clearance.


#6

Anything that happened 13 years ago is mitigated by time. It should not be considered an issue and you were not required to disclose it since you were not charged with a crime.


#7

I understand I was not charged with a crime. However, during the investigation a person whom was contacted brought up the fact that I was involved with a minor when I was younger. The investigator came back and spoke with me concerning this involvement. He asked if I had a sexual relationship with her, which I said I did. To which he asked if I was aware that it was illegal. So that will unfortunately be in his report. I am just saying it shouldn't be included as it was a legal relationship regardless if she was under the age of 18.


#8

I don't think you have to worry about this. The adjudicators have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the report of investigation is fair and complete, to include vetting any assumptions or conclusions the investigator may have to come to incorrectly, particularly as it relates to matters of this nature.