ClearanceJobs.com Logo
Mental Health and Final Security Clearances
William Henderson for ClearanceJobs.com - March 19, 2010
Post to Facebook
Post to Facebook
Bookmark and Share
Share Article
E-Mail This Article
Print Article

AFFECTED PERSONS

“An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans . . . suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.”1  Nearly two-thirds of these people do not seek treatment; some because of the stigma that is associated with mental health treatment.2  Mental health issues can adversely affect an individual’s eligibility for a federal security clearance, but many clearance applicants worry unnecessarily and sometimes choose not to seek treatment due to fears that it could result in the denial or revocation of a clearance.

Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information” is one of the least understood criteria for being granted a security clearance. Regarding the standards for eligibility for access to classified information, Executive Order 12968, issued in 1995, states:

"No negative inference concerning the standards in this section may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling. . . . However, mental health counseling, where relevant to the adjudication of access to classified information, may justify further inquiry to determine whether the standards of subsection (b) of this section are satisfied, and mental health may be considered where it directly relates to those standards.”

This policy is restated in slightly different words in Guideline I and on the Standard Form 86—SF86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions).

Of the 150,000 security clearance applications processed each year by the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) only 5 applicants were denied clearances in 2009 by Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judges because of Psychological Conditions. A July 2009 article at www.Army.mil reported that the US Army Central Clearance Facility’s “adjudicative history indicates that 99.98 percent of cases with psychological concerns obtained/retained their security clearance eligibility.”

SECURITY CONCERN

A past or present mental, emotional, or personality disorder is not by itself a disqualifying condition for a final security clearance. A psychological condition does not have to be formally diagnosed as a disorder to be a security concern. The security concern arises when the possibility of future unreliable or dysfunctional behavior is indicated by either abnormal behavior or the opinion of a qualified mental health practitioner. When a psychological condition (or the side effects of medication) adversely affects a person’s judgment and behavior, such things as disappointment, failure, or perceive injustice or betrayal may cause reactions that are irresponsible, self-destructive, retaliatory, and/or unlawful. This can result in willful or negligent compromise of classified information, violence, sabotage, or espionage.

INVESTIGATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

A “yes” response to the “Mental and Emotional Health” question on the SF86 indicates that additional information beyond the required dates of treatment and identification of the health care provider is needed to make a final security clearance determination. Wording of the question can be somewhat confusing. It reads:

Mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a clearance. In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition? Answer “No” if the counseling was for any of the following reason and was not court-ordered:
1) strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or
2) strictly related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment.

There is no exception for relationship counseling that does not involve a spouse or other family member. In the question the word “strictly” is used to rule out situations where the applicant seeks mental health counseling for one of the exceptions and is diagnosed as having a different or separate problem. For example an applicant initially seeks marital counseling and is diagnosed as having bipolar disorder. It is unclear whether the intent of the question is to make the exceptions equally applicable to situations where an applicant “consulted with a health care professional” or was “hospitalized.”  If there is any doubt about whether counseling or hospitalization should be disclosed, it is always preferrable to answer “yes” to the question and provide both the required information and a detailed explanation in the comment section or continuation space on the SF86.

When applicants answer “yes” to this question they are directed to complete an “Authorization for the Release of Medical Information.” This form is on the last page of the SF86 and authorizes a mental health practitioner to answer 3 questions:

Does the person under investigation have a condition that could impair his or her judgment, reliability or ability to properly safeguard classified national security information?

If so, describe the nature of the condition and the extent and duration of the impairment or treatment.

What is the prognosis?

When the mental health practitioner(s) answer(s) “no” to the first question, there is no further investigation of this issue, unless the investigation surfaces contradictory information from some other record or personal source. When there is a “yes” to the first question, the applicant is usually required to complete an INV Form 16A, Specific Medical Release, which is used to obtain more detailed information regarding medication, other treatment, test results, and medical opinions regarding health, recovery and/or rehabilitation. If necessary a security adjudicator will consult with a qualified government mental health practitioner, and if any doubt remains about an applicant’s reliability, the applicant can be required to undergo a medical evaluation by a psychiatric consultant.

There is a presumption that mental health treatment that occurred more than 7 years ago or any treatment related to one of the exceptions to the “Mental and Emotional Health” question on the SF86 is not relevant or material to a security clearance determination. However if information is developed during an investigation that unlisted mental health treatment is relevant, information about the treatment can be pursued.

ADJUDICATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines lists 3 specific examples of potentially disqualifying conditions and 5 specific examples of mitigating conditions. Ultimately almost all cases where a final clearance is denied due to psychological conditions involve 1 of the 4 following situations:

  1. The applicant has displayed dysfunctional or abnormal behavior, and the applicant refuses to seek treatment or refuses to undergo medical evaluation.

  2. A qualified medical practitioner has determined that the applicant’s condition could impair his or her judgment or reliability, and the applicant has failed to take medication or participate in other treatment as prescribed.

  3. A qualified medical practitioner has determined that the applicant’s condition could impair his or her judgment or reliability and the condition can not be adequately treated.

  4. A qualified medical practitioner has determined that the applicant’s condition could impair his or her judgment or reliability and there is a lack of persuasive evidence that the condition is under control and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

INTERIM CLEARANCES

The federal policy against drawing negative inferences solely on the basis of mental health treatment and the very low denial rates for final clearances do not apply to interim security clearances. Unless properly documented mitigating information is submitted with clearance applications, interim clearances are frequently declined when applicants list mental health treatment on their SF86.  See the article entitled Mental Health and Interim Security Clearances.

William H. Henderson is a retired security investigator, author of Security Clearance Manual, and regular contributor to ClearanceJobsBlog.com and ClearanceJobs.com.

Copyright © 2010 Last Post Publishing. All rights reserved.


Average (Not Rated)

0.0 stars
You must be logged in to recommend articles.
Comments
When do we get to start applying this to political candidates?
Bob (US) on February 1, 2012 at 12:02pm

been on medication for anxiety and depression for 10 yrs..................TS/SCI granted.
NSAman (C'ville, VA) on January 25, 2012 at 10:30pm

For an internship with a federal agency, in response to questions regarding mental health counseling, I answered that I have not sought counseling and do not have a mental health condition when in fact, I do. I misrepresented the fact because my condition is along the same lines as bipolar (though it is not exactly that), and I had not yet accepted the diagnosis and was afraid that I would be denied clearance for that. I realize now that I should have been truthful and provided information that my condition is completely under control when I treat it with medication and counseling. My internship is over, but I would like to work for the feds at some point in the future, and would like to know if I should write a letter to straighten out and rectify the record now regarding my mental health. If I write a letter to rectify the record now, would I receive a 3-year debarment letter even though I am not currently seeking fed work? And if I rectify the record now and apply for fed work in 5-6 years, would I receive a debarment letter when I reapply for fed work? I am a lawyer, so I would have to report any debarment to the state bar and and my license could be suspended for it. Is there any way I can rectify my record and wait years (maybe even a decade) to reapply for fed work without getting debarred?
Intern (VA) on September 18, 2011 at 1:40pm

Four years ago I sought counseling in regards to a few major events that happened in my life (death of a close relative, my first year completed at a miliatry college that I did not want to go back too). I was subquently put on anti depression/aniexty medication for a period of two months. Do I need to disclose this on the SF86 form? In my mind, it was not "violence done by me" or am I wrong in my understanding of that section?
Vince S (NYC, NY) on July 19, 2011 at 11:01pm

ASB (ny, ny):
Congratulations on completing your law degree at an earlier age than most others. Had your hospitalization and therapy occurred within the last 7 years, you would have to list it on the S86. However, be aware that the FBI gives their applicants different instructions for completing the SF86 than what is written on the form. I believe they may also have a supplemental questionnaire that goes deeper into your background. I doubt that even the FBI would disqualify a person for something that happened and was resolved when they were 13 years old. For employment with the FBI you will be vetted for both employment suitability and security clearance. See my article on “Employment Suitability Versus Security Clearance” posted on this website.
William Henderson on June 10, 2011 at 10:55am

Am applying for an FBI job, with a law degree and multiple language fluency. At age 13 I had a "suicide attempt" (I OD'd on pills)... I had some family problems. However, I went through treatment (hospitalization + therapy) and have been considered to be fine and without any mental health diagnosis ever since (I am 23)... Considering the treatment ended up being strictly family therapy, without a resulting actual diagnosis, does this qualify for me to mark "no" under the "mental health condition" question (also considering it was over 10 years ago, and the question refers to the past 7 years)? If not, would it even be possible for me to obtain clearance?
ASB (ny, ny) on June 9, 2011 at 3:02pm

J (Fairfax, VA):
I strongly doubt that the therapy will result in a clearance denial. Your failure to list the therapy on your SF86 is a potential falsification issue that can result in a clearance denial, but only if it is perceived as being intentional. If you were asked by the investigator why you failed to list the therapy on the SF86 and you gave a plausible unintentional reason for the omission, it should not result in a clearance denial. If you were not asked about your reason for the omission when you gave the investigator details about the therapy, you will be given an opportunity to give your reason at some point in the future, if the omission is perceived as a potential falsification issue. Your belief that the therapy was not “mental health” counseling within the meaning of question #21, may be sufficient to justify the omission.
William Henderson on August 21, 2010 at 5:16pm

Bill,

Thank you for your article. I admit that I was one of the people who was confused by section 21. I was seeing a mental health counselor because I was feeling a lot of grief and discouragement over what I saw as my poor job performance in the job I held before moving to the civil service. I have no history of substance abuse, violent, or self destructive behavior. Never attempted suicide, inflicted injury on myself, or was hospitalized. Without thinking twice, I marked 'no' on section 21 thinking it did not apply to me.

I had told my previous supervisors that I had sought therapy in order to improve my job performance. I had a good relationship with everyone I worked with, but they knew I was very unhappy in the job. My previous supervisors gave positive recomendations to the investigator working on my TS clearance as I learned upon obtaining my SSBI through a FOIA request. However, (probably because they had too) they disclosed the fact that I went to counseling. Upon seeing this information, the adjudicators sent my investigation back to the field for an SRI. I was contacted and asked to provide the names and dates of the counselors I saw. Will this result in a denial of my clearance?
J (Fairfax, VA) on August 20, 2010 at 3:01pm

I concur with Fed-less. As a veteran and federal contractor for the DOD I have seen this kind of abuse incured by the mysogynistic sociopaths that are both in uniform and retired. Most of these men probably have never been married or even have girlfriend and if they do God help those women. Its no wonder so many are seeking mental health services these days.
J (Odenton Maryland) on May 16, 2010 at 1:40am

In my DOD agency I tired of working with misogynistic sociopaths and psychopaths who denigrate women. My point is to put your well-being first. In DOD you are just a billet, not a person. Billets can endure grueling shift work, brutal overseas environments and career instability. If you get to the point where you need mental health services that‘s the indicator you need to bail out. I put my mental and physical well-being first and retired the minute I turned 55. I’m now being treated for Major Depressive Disorder and will never again put myself in a position of vulnerability where I can be victimized by brutal and abusive active duty, reserve and retired military males. The good news is that I now have the power to send the next creep who even looks at me wrong to jail.
Fed-less (VA) on April 5, 2010 at 10:35pm

Bill,

Again, excellent article. With the growing population of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with symptoms diagnosed or related to PTSD, this article shines a well deserved light on a misunderstood and seldom discussed subject.
Ken H (Norfolk, VA) on April 2, 2010 at 2:47pm

Bill H.,
Excellent article. Adjudicators always struggle with cases where mental/emotional issues are presented. It is often very hard to rely on the training and experience of psychologists and psychiatrists to evaluate information or incidents that seem impossible to mitigate via the guidelines or common sense.

I once had a case with a very detailed five-year history of erratic and dangerous behavior by a young woman, none of which was related to criminal conduct, alcohol or drug abuse. The psychiatrist reported “no diagnosis” and noted “she doesn’t have any more problems than anyone else in the Army”. I wanted to have the psychiatrist checked out, but my boss would not allow it. We granted the young lady and she subsequently had additional incidents and was discharged for a diagnosis of personality disorder. Anyway, keep up the good work.
Bill L. (Annapolis, MD) on March 25, 2010 at 11:35am

Add Your Comments
Display Name:
Location:
E-Mail Address:
Comments:
 
Enter characters