Security Clearance Questions

Hello All,

This question applies to those that have or have had security clearance questions.

I have a mentor from Dept Homeland Security that is encouraging me to apply with DHS for an IT/InfoSec position and some of these positions require govt clearance. I know from reading the FAQ that they ask questions regarding financials, drug/alcohol, etc, and illegally obtaining copyright material. Did anyone's past ever come to haunt them during the application/interview process? I know not everyone is perfect but i'm reluctant to apply because I don't want to let down my mentor especially if he is allowing me to use him as a reference.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

scaredoftests

They don't go back that far with Secret (5 years as I recall). Top Secret they go way back.

the_Grinch

The level of clearance will dictate how far back they go. Nothing to come back to haunt you if you disclose it. I always tell people the following: if you disclose it, you get the chance to explain it. This means that if you are upfront then you have the "chance" to explain what happened and how you learned from the experience (if enough time has past). Don't disclose it and have your investigator find out? No explaining and they will now look at you differently.

Ultimately you are looking at some variation of the following:
Credit Check
NCIC Check
Local Law Enforcement Check
Tax Document Reviews
College Review
Social Media Review
Employment Review

Typically, for the downloading of copyrighted material, they want you to have not done so for at least a year and to refrain from doing it again. If it's a TS/SCI be prepared for them to interview a ton of people, some you listed and some they find on their own. You are correct not everyone is perfect and no one is expecting you to be perfect. But they expect you to be upfront and honest about yourself.

mbarrett

Most of the time, just being 100% honest about everything is enough. The major hangup for a lot of people is their credit check, or any messy problems in their personal life, outstanding legal issues, etc. I knew a guy who had the same name as his father, who had terrible issues with credit, debts etc. - It worked out for him in the end, but it took them a while to be satisfied they were getting the correct view of his situation.

the_Grinch wrote: »

Don't disclose it and have your investigator find out? No explaining and they will now look at you differently.

Pretty much this, if you don't disclose something and they find out about it, they will have questions.

jt2929

I believe the SF-86 now asks "Have you ever..." instead of "In the past 7 years, have you...".

As others have said, disclose and explain if asked.

bermovick

Most of the TS goes back 10 years, although some things go all the way back.

Agreed with everyone else though, absolutely disclose anything; like previous posters said, in the interview you get a chance to explain them if need be.

Also while chatting with my investigator, I was joking about the question on if you were ever a member of a terrorist organization, asking if anyone would ever answer in the affirmative and he let me know that one of the reasons they ask such questions is because if you lie during the interview (which is mostly going down the SF-86 again verbally), then that's a federal offense.

EANx

Tip #1: Don't lie
Tip #2: See tip #1

The whole reason for the investigation is to see if you could potentially be influenced by a foreign government. Don't lie (it's a federal offense for one) and don't cover up anything obvious. Had an affair you wife didn't know about? Let them know. The first and only time you did Coke in college? Let them know. Of course, they don't need to know which issue of what girly magazine you thought you were hiding from your mother at 14 and there's a lot of flexibility regarding credit. Again, the key is "being influenced by a foreign government". Someone who has missed a ton of payments over the last year but is otherwise paid up and living within their means is a better risk (clearance wise) than someone who has never missed a payment but is stretched to the max. The first person is forgetful which isn't illegal and certainly doesn't give anyone a foothold. The second is a lot riskier.

dhay13

I did the SF-85 and it went back 7 years. The one thing that sticks out in my interview was he asked how I supported myself in between jobs for a few months. I told him 'unemployment'...lol. I guess if that was the most interesting fact he needed clarified then I apparently had a pretty dull life.

LSagee

I am all to familiar with clearances. S goes back 7 yrs / TS goes back 10 yrs + the "Have you ever" questions.

As many have stated if you lie or try to cover things up, it is an instant Kiss of Death which will most likely kill any chances of a clearance down the road if you initially get denied for a different reason.

If you have derog info or need to explain something, be prepared to have proof for the investigator and explain in detail on the SF-86 comments field so they can look it over before talking to you. It saves them time and you won't get grilled on it as long in person.

If you have derog info, anything that is not a hard, automatic disqualifier by the regs. (incarcerated for more than 1-2 yrs straight for example) can usually be explained away with time or verifiable proof that you have changed / in the process of improving your situation.

The investigation revolves around the "Whole Person" concept. People get caught up with worrying about what is unfavorable and gathering the necessary documents to mitigate. However, few take the time to submit favorable items and present it to the investigator. Even if you look great on the SF-86, have copies of favorable job evaluation reports, certificates, awards, etc to give to the investigator.

Last piece of advice. If you messed up, own up to it. It happened. You did it. You learned your lesson and are moving on. It will be well received.