I’m applying for a job that requires an SSBI with a federal contractor. I told the OPM special agent that for 10 months I was visiting a prostitute and that the behavior stopped 6 months ago. I told her I am currently seeing a therapist for sex addiction. Do I have a chance?
I must say, I’m amazed that you would voluntarily disclose such information when it isn’t required on the sf-86… Personally, I don’t think you’ll be cleared. Additionally, now that you’ve given the government this information they’ll always have it to use against you in the future.
A bit of advice - read job applications and background questionnaires very carefully. In your case - sex addiction is not required to be disclosed on the sf-86 as it is a controversial diagnosis and is not included in the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)…
2 Likes
Although it may not specifically ask questions related to visiting a prostitute, depending upon the state, the subject still may have engaged in illegal activity. It may not be listed on the SF86, but the follow up questions such relating to people that may question his/her conduct or character or reasons for blackmail may pose a risk. The counseling may not be the issue at all. Additionally, it is not clear if the individual filled out the most recent edition of the SF86 or the 2010 version. The mental health questions are very different.
1 Like
Ahhhh yeah, so I guess you get points for honesty, but you burned yourself. I can’t imagine the question was asked out of the blue, so why would you said that?
I don’t mean to Monday morning quarterback, and I’m sure as heck not passing any sort of righteous judgement based on the prostitute thing. However, that was a mistake and will likely cost you your ability to hold a clearance right now. Over the last 15 years, the DoD, and I assume the rest of the USG, has been pushing the whole “Trafficking in Persons” (TIP—Seriously, that’s the acronym you choose?) thing, which includes prostitution. So now you have compounding issues, which are both optics issues, and in my opinion both invalid. Not only are you susceptible to potential blackmail, but your corrupt moral code and family values are not at the high levels the USG has come to expect. You know, just like the Secret Service, and our President… But I digress.
So why do I say they are invalid (which is absolutely irrelevant)? Well, the concern about blackmail fails on it’s face, because, you told them about it. I guess they could be worried that you’ll go and do it again, which then raises the moral code thing. I won’t go any further than to say I think it’s bs.
I wish it was better news my man, not ill afraid that you shot yourself I the foot in this one. Maybe put a little bit more time between your therapy start date and giving it another try. 6 months mine as well have been yesterday.
The biggest irony about your whole story is you’re very likely are closer to OPM’s righteous ideal applicant than the vast majority of the IC. You sought out therapy, as it sounds like it was voluntarily in your post. You disclosed this to the investigator and it, and it sounds like you’re otherwise a good candidate. But OPM can’t see past the stacks of case files that continue to accumulate, which lest we forget it’s because of their own stupidity. And maybe, just maybe, they could protect our information. They need to get their own house in order before they hold any credibility with me.
So yeah, like I said, that was a bad choice …
1 Like
@northstar, the intent of the recent SF86 version on the mental health portion was to clarify the older versions rather than changing the meaning. Applicants will need to be judicial in how they answer those open-ended questions that you mentioned. I am not suggesting dishonesty here; rather, use their best judgment.
@dave019 and @BigNutz arguments are valid and I agree. The issue here is the frequency and recency of the conduct, which I believe will be tough to mitigate. While I normally like to believe that adjudicators will give applicants fair shake, this one probably will go above the adjudicators (such as agency mandate). I think OP has better chance with a security clearance judge than an adjudicator on this one.
If the OP is serious about obtaining clearance, he should prepare his defense by getting character references, requesting a copy of his investigation report and consulting a security clearance attorney. While clearance attorney will cost pretty penny, but it is a lot cheaper than losing that job and a “denial”.
Obviously, I don’t recommend him to withdraw his application and try again because it has already been documented and submitted. Might as well see this one through.
OPM has its problems but let’s not lead one to assume they have final say - they’re just passing along the information to the agency who does the adjudication. I see what you’re saying, though.
Probably not in the IC, especially CIA. Elsewhere, you might still be in the running.
I agree that agency adjudicators may have a hard time with this one and that, when it gets that far, the OP has a good chance with a judge. At this point, I would not bother to consult an attorney until an SOR is received. Then I would get help drafting the response. The reasons that you ended up with a prostitute, the reasons that you stopped. The fact that you stopped. The fact that you are in therapy. There are all sorts of potential mitigating factors here but we just don’t have all of the information. It also seems that it should work in your favor that you visited “a prostitute” not that you were “visiting prostitutes”
It doesn’t really matter that “Sex Addiction” isn’t covered in the DSM. The treatment is likely to address the reasons for the behavior in any case.
The concern about blackmail, isn’t only that someone will threaten to tell your employer but also that they will tell your family. The OP was open with his investigator but we don’t know what he has told his family.
Can you clarify or elaborate on that?
I think you are saying that attorney will not be much of help until a SOR is received, yes? In that case, I agree. For this particular case, I think it will be beneficial to consult attorney as early as possible. I am a firm believer of best defense is offense since the poster will likely receive LOI/SOR. Nonetheless, I would not recommend OP to retain an attorney until he receives LOI/SOR.
Yes . . . There’s not much for an attorney to do at this point. A consult isn’t a waste of time but the OP doesn’t yet know what will come up and what issues the adjudicators could have. He has already been through his interview. Legal advice might have helped there.
Visiting a single prostitute isn’t the same pattern as visiting a series of prostitutes. Psychologically, there are many reasons to become attached to a particular woman, even if you have to pay her. It’s like falling in love with a married woman, having an affair and leaving your wife for her as opposed to having a series of meaningless affairs without any attachment. The mitigation is potentially much easier. It also shows that your risk is with one woman, not with just any woman.
Just my thoughts . . .
1 Like
If Cyril Figgis can work for International Secret Intelligence Service then so can you.
That makes a sense… I see what you mean…
Do you have a chance? Well you told the truth so thats definitely better than lying
Sorry been busy, I appreciate all the replies. Heres the thing, its actually for contractor that works for OPM (ironic huh?) it was one prostitute and I told them her real name. (just the first name)