The claim by the worker in this article that asking for mental health treatment jeopardizes your security clearance requires explanation. First, seeking or getting treatment does NOT automatically disqualify you from being cleared. /1 hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/12/07/for…
Many people with past or current mental health treatment have security clearance. The instructions on the questionnaire for security clearance specifically say that having mental health treatment does NOT automatically disqualify you./2
To the contrary, the instructions specifically say: “Seeking or receiving mental health care for personal wellness and recovery may contribute favorably to decisions about your eligibility.” /3
And the question about mental health conditions requires disclosure only if they substantially adversely affect your judgement. The instructions specifically say that if you have trauma as a result of military service you don’t have to disclose it unless it meets this standard./4
The quote in the article talks about having a flag put on your security file which is a “scarlet letter” until it is “adjudicated and you’re good” if you say you need treatment. There are several issues here. 1st, it’s unclear if she means clearance is actually suspended. /5
As noted, seeking treatment alone is not a basis for disqualification or even required in most cases to be disclosed. (There are some very sensitive positions were disclosure might be required.) The issue is whether your judgement is substantially adversely affected. /6
So simply saying you need treatment- the situation she describes- should not be causing a red flag on a file. If it is, then 1 of 3 things is causing that: (1) the person’s judgement IS substantially adversely affected, in which case we should want their file to be flagged, /7
(2) the person’s clearance is sufficiently sensitive that simply seeking treatment warrants a temporary flag, which is a tiny fraction of clearances, or (3) the adjudicators putting on the flags need better training because a flag for simply seeking treatment is unwarranted. /8
The worker also speaks of the “stigma” of seeking treatment and/or the red flag on the clearance. The military has worked hard in the cleared community to change that cultural view. Myths & rumors about mental health treatment adversely affecting clearance continue to persist./9
Of course some individuals may still view this issue in an old fashioned way. But the official position of the military & cleared community is very clear that mental health treatment is not automatically disqualifying & only serious mental health conditions are disqualifying./10
More transparency & better training on these issues is always needed to help people understand what is required of them & what to expect from the clearance process with respect to mental health. Leaders also need to correct personnel who create improper “stigma” on this issue./11
At the same time, we should recognize that mental heat issues are a genuine area of concern as a risk to national security if cleared personnel are substantially adversely affected. A clearance is important to a worker, but there is no right to have one. It is a privilege. /12
People who are cleared are responsible for protecting the rest of us. They can rightly be expected to not be exercising poor judgement, including if it is because of a mental health issue. This is not a moral judgement but an appropriate risk assessment. /13
A cleared person in need of mental health treatment should get it regardless of the affect on clearance. 1st, they are personally better off of course. 2nd, it may prevent their condition from worsening & substantially adversely affecting them & threatening their clearance./14
But importantly, a cleared person has a responsibility to address the issue even if it may jeopardize their clearance. The rest of us are completely w/in our rights to expect that the person not act solely in their own personal interests when they are in a position of trust./15
The true answers here then lie, as they usually do, in leadership & training. Leaders should be communicating the military policy encouraging treatment more clearly & myths need to be addressed head on & frequently as they tend to reappear if not actively discouraged. /16
The adjudication community needs to be clearly trained to handle mental health treatment cases properly, focusing suspensions & revocations on cases were a substantially adverse Agee this present. This is largely the case now - very few people lose clearance on this issue./17
Workers need to be advised correctly of the requirements for reporting mental health treatment & when they don’t need to report it & how to raise a concern if they feel they are being stigmatized. They also need to be trained that they have a duty to be transparent about this./18
There also needs to be training for everyone that the adjudication process is not in & of itself a stigma, but is a necessary part of the process that needs to play out & be respected without prejudgment. /19
*degree
