{"id":1095,"date":"2016-10-10T21:53:18","date_gmt":"2016-10-11T01:53:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/eisenshapiro.com\/law\/?p=1095"},"modified":"2019-08-06T17:31:17","modified_gmt":"2019-08-06T21:31:17","slug":"complete-the-sf86-form-eqip-when-online-fully-and-accurately","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eisen-shapiro.com\/law\/2016\/10\/10\/complete-the-sf86-form-eqip-when-online-fully-and-accurately\/","title":{"rendered":"Completing the EQip or SF86"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"eqip\"<\/h2>\n

Once you have been sponsored for a clearance, your critical first step is to complete the SF86 form (“EQip” when online)\u00a0fully and accurately. You can download a copy of the most current SF86 form here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Most folks who go through this process find themselves facing one of more of\u00a0three problems. First, there’s information you simply do not recall and will have significant difficulty researching. Second, this form is ambiguous and you may misunderstand\u00a0a question. Third, we all have to look in the mirror in the morning. Sometimes\u00a0the SF86\u00a0requires that you disclose embarrassing aspects of\u00a0your past that you don’t really think of as your past, or who you are today, or that you’ve “rephrased” in your mind; your memory of the matter\u00a0may be different than what the documentation shows or the recollections of others involved at the time.<\/p>\n

If your SF86 proves to be inaccurate, or even seems to be inaccurate, you have opened yourself up to the charge that you have not been candid and forthcoming. That’s a violation of Guideline E of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Unlike most of the Adjudicate Guidelines, which instruct that a given situation or conduct “could”<\/em> raise a security concern and “may be”<\/em>\u00a0disqualifying,”\u00a0 failing to provide full, frank and truthful answers “will normally result”<\/em> in an unfavorable clearance action.” You\u00a0really<\/em><\/span> want to avoid a Guideline E charge.<\/p>\n

The First Rule: Tell the Truth<\/h4>\n

The first rule, which is to tell the truth, sounds easy enough in theory. Usually those involved in some past event can generally agree on the facts. But sometimes people\u00a0have different recollections of what is true. The rule of thumb here is to assume that the adjudicator has\u00a0or will get “the other side of the story.” If you do not fully disclose from the start, the “other side” will be believed over what you recollect and believe.<\/p>\n

When the facts surrounding some past event\u00a0could<\/em> be embarrassing\u00a0if related by someone else involved, you should be the first to bring this out. Your response should\u00a0make sense of the different views and recollections for your benefit and for the benefit of the process.<\/p>\n

Read\u00a0the question carefully and then read it again.\u00a0Many of our clients come to us for help because they have misread or misunderstood a question. “I guess I was in a hurry and just missed that word,” they say. Once an error is detected, the working assumption will be that the omission or inaccuracy is intentional. No functionary is going to give you a pass, even if you later have a convincing explanation. “Above my pay grade,” they would say, meaning that there is a process to consider your explanation and it’s not one that first-line reviewers have the authority to bypass, no matter how convincing the explanation seems.<\/p>\n

Other Rules\u00a0For Completing the SF86<\/h4>\n

Every situation is different and it’s not feasible in a note of this size to cover the\u00a0range of issues and situations you may face in answering this large and complex form. But a few general rules are worth noting, because we see them violated\u00a0all the time.<\/p>\n

Err against your own self interest and disclose in some manner.<\/h5>\n