Top Law Schools

Anyone know what standard form (SF-85, 85P, 85p-s, 86, etc.) that semester interns do these days at the USAO?

pretty sure it was SF 86 but it went through eQIP rather than a specific form so I could be wrong. also you get a waiver, not an actual clearance.

Did you work on national security stuff/cases?

Anonymous User wrote:Did you work on national security stuff/cases?

no, they wouldn't put anyone there for a semester on those because they said it would take too long to get a real clearance. even the waiver can take months.

Interesting. I have done an sf-86 before, but for a different agency. I would have thought USAO would only require an sf-85p.

Anonymous User wrote:pretty sure it was SF 86 but it went through eQIP rather than a specific form so I could be wrong. also you get a waiver, not an actual clearance.

Is a wavier the same as "interim clearance" or is a waiver something else?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:pretty sure it was SF 86 but it went through eQIP rather than a specific form so I could be wrong. also you get a waiver, not an actual clearance.

Is a wavier the same as "interim clearance" or is a waiver something else?

They are different. An interim clearance is almost as good as the real thing, but can also take months to be granted. And the SF-86 is a huge pain.

InGoodFaith wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:pretty sure it was SF 86 but it went through eQIP rather than a specific form so I could be wrong. also you get a waiver, not an actual clearance.

Is a wavier the same as "interim clearance" or is a waiver something else?

They are different. An interim clearance is almost as good as the real thing, but can also take months to be granted. And the SF-86 is a huge pain.

Thank you. I have filled out an SF-86 before and it was a pain. I had no idea how much more complex this all was. So they just say forget it and waive you as long as you haven't done anything crazy or done drugs recently? Do they do this for all summer/semester interns?

They give you an interim clearance so you can start work. If you want to stay on longer, then they actually do the full clearance. But they don't give you the interim clearance if they see any red flags.

InGoodFaith wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:pretty sure it was SF 86 but it went through eQIP rather than a specific form so I could be wrong. also you get a waiver, not an actual clearance.

Is a wavier the same as "interim clearance" or is a waiver something else?

They are different. An interim clearance is almost as good as the real thing, but can also take months to be granted. And the SF-86 is a huge pain.

the waiver can also take months and is a huge pain, but I think it's for interning for 6 months or less.

kalvano wrote:They give you an interim clearance so you can start work. If you want to stay on longer, then they actually do the full clearance. But they don't give you the interim clearance if they see any red flags.

Based on your knowledge, do they still investigate, interview references, etc., with interim?

depends on the office. last year I was asking about a certain form and everyone on here was like, "you don't have to fill that form out." Southern District of california at least has you fill out SF86 for summer. Kinda sucks to have to expose 7 years of drug history for an internship that won't lead to a job.

Anonymous User wrote:depends on the office. last year I was asking about a certain form and everyone on here was like, "you don't have to fill that form out." Southern District of california at least has you fill out SF86 for summer. Kinda sucks to have to expose 7 years of drug history for an internship that won't lead to a job.

That seems to be the answer--it depends on cases the USAO has while you are there. Thank you.

Anonymous User wrote:

kalvano wrote:They give you an interim clearance so you can start work. If you want to stay on longer, then they actually do the full clearance. But they don't give you the interim clearance if they see any red flags.

Based on your knowledge, do they still investigate, interview references, etc., with interim?

They never interview for a secret clearance unless its called for. Its national agency, local, agency, and credit. And yes, the OPM rules for interim clearances require the investigation to be open and no known reasons that may eventually disqualify. If they find disqualifying info, they come back through your agency and you have to respond with info...then they investigate before they adjudicate the clearance.

Also, the USAO has no control other than what clearance they are requesting. Once their security manager opens the clearance, OPM rules apply.

- Former security manager in the military

Anonymous User wrote:

kalvano wrote:They give you an interim clearance so you can start work. If you want to stay on longer, then they actually do the full clearance. But they don't give you the interim clearance if they see any red flags.

Based on your knowledge, do they still investigate, interview references, etc., with interim?

I think it depends on the situation. If they see something that bothers them, they'll probably dig a little deeper, make some calls. If you look clean, then it's pretty clear sailing. None of my references were called, but a girl I worked with said a couple of hers were. But she was there a lot longer than me.

Kalvano is dead on with regard to references. Also, prior drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier. They just want you to be honest. The only auto ding is if you lie to them and they find out.

I know the sf-86 can ask for information as far as 7 or 10 years back...what happens when you literally can't find someone (outside of family members) to verify a period of residence or unemployment. Immediate ding or if you reasonably didn't know anyone it's not a huge red flag?

InGoodFaith wrote:Kalvano is dead on with regard to references. Also, prior drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier. They just want you to be honest. The only auto ding is if you lie to them and they find out.

false. wtf? it is indeed an automatic ding to have recent drugs. not automatic if it was a while back.

speaking of which, this is from the President's book: "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it." Pretty sure that would disqualify him from an AUSA job.

Anonymous User wrote:

InGoodFaith wrote:Kalvano is dead on with regard to references. Also, prior drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier. They just want you to be honest. The only auto ding is if you lie to them and they find out.

false. wtf? it is indeed an automatic ding to have recent drugs. not automatic if it was a while back.

speaking of which, this is from the President's book: "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it." Pretty sure that would disqualify him from an AUSA job.

I know for a fact that you're wrong, and you can PM me if you want the deetz.

Prior PCP / meth use will disqualify you. Prior weed use won't automatically.

I spoke with an AUSA this week about the background check. The only drug-related *automatic* ding was post-bar drug use. Now, I can't imagine they'd love to see pre-bar drug use, and if it was extensive enough I'd imagine it could ding you, but it's not automatic. (InGoodFaith wrote "prior drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier," which isn't quite the same as the anon's "It is indeed an automatic ding to have recent drugs.")

(The other auto-dings were financial - late payment of taxes, failure to pay taxes, failure to pay student loans. I'd imagine tax fraud counts as failure to pay?)

Of course, I have no idea if different districts have different policies, but I don't think so, because the AUSA made it sound like they sent all the checks to a central place, and that central unit set the policy.

[edited to add after kalvano posted: and yeah, I'd imagine they treat different drugs differently when they're considering the case-by-case basis.]

I should clarify:

Drug use will in a position of authority, like post bar or with a security clearance, is an auto ding. There are other auto sings as well, but prior drug use isn't one of them.

Anonymous User wrote:I spoke with an AUSA this week about the background check. The only drug-related *automatic* ding was post-bar drug use. Now, I can't imagine they'd love to see pre-bar drug use, and if it was extensive enough I'd imagine it could ding you, but it's not automatic. (InGoodFaith wrote "prior drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier," which isn't quite the same as the anon's "It is indeed an automatic ding to have recent drugs.")

(The other auto-dings were financial - late payment of taxes, failure to pay taxes, failure to pay student loans. I'd imagine tax fraud counts as failure to pay?)

Of course, I have no idea if different districts have different policies, but I don't think so, because the AUSA made it sound like they sent all the checks to a central place, and that central unit set the policy.

[edited to add after kalvano posted: and yeah, I'd imagine they treat different drugs differently when they're considering the case-by-case basis.]

Did you learn anything about standard forms?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I spoke with an AUSA this week about the background check. The only drug-related *automatic* ding was post-bar drug use. Now, I can't imagine they'd love to see pre-bar drug use, and if it was extensive enough I'd imagine it could ding you, but it's not automatic. (InGoodFaith wrote "prior drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier," which isn't quite the same as the anon's "It is indeed an automatic ding to have recent drugs.")

(The other auto-dings were financial - late payment of taxes, failure to pay taxes, failure to pay student loans. I'd imagine tax fraud counts as failure to pay?)

Of course, I have no idea if different districts have different policies, but I don't think so, because the AUSA made it sound like they sent all the checks to a central place, and that central unit set the policy.

[edited to add after kalvano posted: and yeah, I'd imagine they treat different drugs differently when they're considering the case-by-case basis.]

Did you learn anything about standard forms?

No, sorry; I know I had to fill one out for a previous internship there, but I don't remember which one it was. Is there some significant difference between them all?

Edited: honestly, I'm not sure it was any of the forms the OP listed - the 85P seems closest, but I know I got asked about foreign contacts as well, which seems like the 86. Like someone else here, a lot of it was through e-QIP, so different format. (I also had paper forms to fill out.)

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I spoke with an AUSA this week about the background check. The only drug-related *automatic* ding was post-bar drug use. Now, I can't imagine they'd love to see pre-bar drug use, and if it was extensive enough I'd imagine it could ding you, but it's not automatic. (InGoodFaith wrote "prior drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier," which isn't quite the same as the anon's "It is indeed an automatic ding to have recent drugs.")

(The other auto-dings were financial - late payment of taxes, failure to pay taxes, failure to pay student loans. I'd imagine tax fraud counts as failure to pay?)

Of course, I have no idea if different districts have different policies, but I don't think so, because the AUSA made it sound like they sent all the checks to a central place, and that central unit set the policy.

[edited to add after kalvano posted: and yeah, I'd imagine they treat different drugs differently when they're considering the case-by-case basis.]

Did you learn anything about standard forms?

No, sorry; I know I had to fill one out for a previous internship there, but I don't remember which one it was. Is there some significant difference between them all?

Edited: honestly, I'm not sure it was any of the forms the OP listed - the 85P seems closest, but I know I got asked about foreign contacts as well, which seems like the 86. Like someone else here, a lot of it was through e-QIP, so different format. (I also had paper forms to fill out.)

Thanks.