Many years ago, I had some mental health challenges. Years later, I applied, and eventually was granted TS/SCI access. During the clearance process, multiple people (field investigators, FSOs, etc) raised concerns that I never sought professional treatment. But regardless, the clearance was eventually granted.
I took their concerns to heart, and combined with some gentle prodding from my significant-other, I eventually started therapy. I’m super-glad I did, and it has helped immensely. (For those debating if therapy can help, YES, it really does help!!)
My 5-year cycle has hit and I need to update my SF-86. Going through the mental health questions, the answer is “no” to all of them. Nothing in my past, nor in my current treatment meets the criteria of a Yes.
Should I still voluntarily disclose my treatment? As far as the government knows, I had an issue many years ago, that I never sought treatment for; and it was definitely counted against me during adjudication. That’s not accurate anymore. Should I “correct the record” when I update the SF-86; or should I just let it go, since it didn’t block my clearance last time? Wouldn’t any future adjudication be helped if they knew that I did eventually receive treatment?
I’ve long heard the classic advice of not volunteering information that’s not asked; so I’m torn how to handle this.
Investigator here. As others have said, don’t list it as it is not required. In 2016 the SF86 was changed and the question of whether or not you have ever sought mental health counseling or treatment was eliminated. So don’t answer questions that aren’t there. Details on the reasoning here:
While your intentions are pure, disclosing mental health counseling fits in the same category as being gay or Muslim - it’s a fact that is private and not of adjudicative significance but may be held against you by people in the system who are biased against people who have one of those characteristics.
Caveat: if you’re directly asked by an investigator if you’ve seen a therapist of course answer truthfully even though that investigator is going off the reservation. Always tell the truth.
I don’t quite agree with this statement. An investigator cannot just go off on their own line of questioning. Only certain topics can be discussed. For the investigator to be able to ask questions the information HAS to either be required on the security questionnaire OR disclosed by another source and the investigator is now “confronting” with the information and giving an opportunity to discuss… the investigator cannot just dig around for information. If the investigator asks questions that are not relevant, I would ask the investigator the reason for the question since it is not required to be listed. I would decline to answer a question that is not related to the required or developed information. If you do this the investigator will either leave it out of the report since they were not supposed to ask anyway and they want to save face OR they will report that you declined to answer but when this is done they have to report the SPECIFIC question you declined to answer and the reason why you declined to answer… in this case, the investigator would report the unauthorized questioning and the reader will see you were asked unauthorized questions. The government is very specific on what we are allowed to ask when it comes to mental health and we are not to stray from that specific line of questioning.
I have an update on my situation. Just wondering what everyone thinks.
As others had recommended, I did not disclose the therapy in my updated SF-86 in 2024; as I did not meet any of the criteria on the form.
I was recently submitted for additional SCI compartment access (on top of my existing TS + SCI compartments). As part of the adjudication, they called me in for an RSI. Had to drive down to my local DCSA office and be interviewed. It was an almost verbatim repeat of the questions I had answered years ago about my mental health challenges. (I presume there’s a standard set of questions for each type of scenario/situation??)
One of the questions the investigator asked was “who else knows about your prior mental health challenges?”. To which stated that my therapist knows. Then there was a few questions about the therapy, and the investigator wrote down the contact details for my therapist.
A few weeks have gone by, and they’ve not reached out to my therapist. So I presume I’m back in the adjudication queue.
So my questions:
-Is it normal not to reach out to a therapist? Are they taking my word for it, and not validating the diagnosis/prognosis? I know my therapist has a positive opinion of me, so I’m not worried about that conversation, just find it weird that they haven’t validated anything.
-Is it normal to be brought in for an RSI, that solely focused on events from decades ago? Events I’ve already detailed (at length) to prior investigators? It’s almost like someone was asking “have you relapsed since the last time we chatted?”
-Is it normal to be told I “have” to be in-person at a DCSA office? In years past, they’ve come to my workplace or done stuff over the phone.
Obviously, I’m going to let this play out, but I’m just trying to get a better understanding of what’s happening. It just seems odd to be rehashing stuff from years past. In my (very) uneducated opinion, I’m not had any relapses or other problems since my first clearance was granted (many years ago) and I’m now getting therapy. So I’d think both would work in my favor. My only thought would be if this particular SCI compartment has some special rules above my current SCI access. What do you all think?