PVQ
Personnel Vetting Questionnaire
What it is
The single modernised questionnaire that will replace the SF 86, SF 85, SF 85P and SF 85P-S. It shortens the look-back on most questions from seven or ten years to five, narrows mental-health questions to a five-year window aimed at conditions affecting judgment, separates marijuana from other drugs, and drops the physical-description and Selective Service questions. The rollout began on 1 June 2026 with ten companies, for five-year updates only; the government target for using it in all vetting scenarios is September 2027.
What you do
Almost certainly nothing yet. If you are completing a questionnaire today it is still very likely the SF 86, and the SF 86 look-back periods still apply to it.
Also called
PVQ, new SF-86, SF-86 replacement, personnel vetting questionnaire.
Where this comes from
DCSA Vetting Operations newsletter, June 2026. DCSA newsletter records the 1 June 2026 start with ten companies; Trusted Workforce 2.0 quarterly report FY26-Q2 sets September 2027 for all vetting scenarios.
Where this sits
Stage: Questionnaires and releases · Applies to: Government-wide
Other documents at this stage
- Questionnaire for National Security Positions · SF 86
- Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions · SF 85
- Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions · SF 85P
- Supplemental Questionnaire for Selected Positions · SF 85P-S
- Consent for Access to Records · SF 713
- Specific Release for Investigative Information · OFI 16A
How the process worksA contested case follows a published sequence. Open this for the short version, or put a question to Ask Mode on the home page. Accounts are free and include up to 25 questions per day.
A contested case follows a published path: a Statement of Reasons, the government's written list of its concerns (an SOR), a written answer, a hearing or a decision on the written record, the judge's decision, and in some cases an appeal.
Read the stages of a DOHA case · Ask a question about the process
Checked against the issuing agency's own published source. Descriptive research on published procedures. Not legal advice, and not a prediction about any pending case.
Where to go from here
I do this for clients
Rank every decision by how closely it matches a matter, see how the assigned judge has ruled, and keep it together with cited exports.
For attorneys and firms →I am researching or teaching
Statistics, exports, monitoring, and the API, arranged individually. For scholarship and public interest work that usually means no charge.
Request access →Decided public cases: descriptive, never a prediction.