Rampant Sex and Use of Drugs Results in Clearance Revocation

Originally published at: https://www.clearancejobsblog.com/rampant-sex-and-use-of-drugs-results-in-clearance-revocation/

In one of the more unusual Defense Office of Hearing an Appeals (DOHA) cases, the contractor, who had possessed clearance eligibility since 1997, had it revoked by the DoD in 2019 due to security concerns involving sexual behavior, illegal drug use, and personal conduct. He subsequently submitted a written appeal to DOHA. Here are the highlights…

1 Like

Funny how memories clear up when folks realize the info is discoverable


The guy confessed. The doctors notes would not have been accessible or disclosable under HIPPA. There are only a couple of mental conditions the SF86 asks about. Maybe it was different in the past when this case was.

It is not a HIPAA violation with a signed release of information. He gave consent. We can not only get the records, we can also interview the provider and ask about drugs, alcohol, criminal history, etc.


They absolutely will get your records by having you sign a release. Happened to me this year. I have ADHD and a misdiagnosis from 25 years ago.

HR2C this is your opinion. Also the health provider would be committing an ethical violation and breach of professional oath, standard of care etc by disclosing confidential med health provider - patient confidential info without a court order or subpoena. This is similar to attorney client privilege or religious clergy privilege. A lawyer can answer if a subpoena is needed to get those notes or if medical pros hand them over without a court order. There’s a difference between medical test results and diagnosis and doctors confidential notes. Are you a licensed lawyer? No. I understand you want to scare readers here.

Every after, You’re saying you were misdiagnosed as being dangerously mentally ill / incompetent and the doctor handed over detailed confidential notes and was interviewed by the investigator that vindicated you? 25 years ago is 15 years before the deadline. Why is that relevant?

No. I have never been diagnosed as dangerously mentally ill, nor incompetant. I’m saying I told them I go to therapy to control stressors in my life that contributed to me taking my ex’s Ativan once when I ran out of meds. I don’t want to get into what happened in the past, but it’s the same reason my mother and I haven’t spoken since 2001.

It’s really not all that uncommon for therapists to refuse an interview, and therefore investigators have to go and pull all the records. In my latest doctor’s case he was actually prevented from being interviewed by company policy. He found a way around it by putting my status and prognosis in his notes before they collected them.

Fwiw my investigator told me during my interview that (reading all records) never happens, but the investigator who came and got the new release from me said it happens all the time.

You’re misunderstanding HIPAA. If I sign off giving my express permission to give that ■■■■ over, they best as f. hand it over. If you don’t, you don’t get cleared. So it really doesn’t matter whether it’s “disclosable” or not. It’s my career on the line and I don’t have anything to hide.

This is NOT my opinion. I am an experienced background investigator who does this for a living. I am not only the one who gets the record, I am also the one who interviews the providers. When a provider interview is needed, we will collect an additional release of information that is strictly for the provider we need to talk to. Depending on the issue, we may only ask if the person’s condition is a security issue or, with some issues, we WILL get a FULL record AND provider testimony. You OBVIOUSLY do not understand the law very well. I have absolutely no need to “scare” readers, that doesn’t benefit me at all. I am not a licensed attorney but I dare say, with a Master’s degree in Crimimal Justice, I have probably had more training in the law than you have. A court subpoena is NOT needed when a release of information has been signed. When you have completed thousands of investigations, like I have, come back and we will have a chat. Run along now, you have homework to do.


The medical release form at the bottom of the SF86 states that you only need to fill it out/sign it if you answer yes to any of the mental health questions. If you go to therapy, but not for stuff covered by the SF86, and you answered no to all the questions, then you don’t need to sign the medical release form as instructed to in the form. The questions on the OLD SF86 were different than the current questions. The guy in the example article possibly outed himself which led to the result. As per usual the people claiming to be investigators on this site adopt adversarial hostile attitudes to show superiority. And none of them actually have security clearances.

HR2C I answered your opinion in my next post. You implied everyone who fills out the SF86 gets ten years of medical records analyzed. You’re a frustrated non detective who didn’t become a cop, and a frustrated law student who couldn’t get into law school and you don’t have a clearance. You’re not a vet either. AI is replacing you.

the new SF86 asks whether the applicant has been diagnosed with any one of a series of specifically-enumerated mental health conditions; has been hospitalized for mental health treatment or evaluation; has been declared mentally incompetent by a court or administrative agency or ordered to consult with a mental health practitioner; has been non-compliant with medical (mental health) advice; or, is currently in mental health treatment.

Interestingly, the form also asks the applicant to indicate whether or not s/he has a mental health condition that could substantially adversely affect their judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness – even if s/he is not experiencing symptoms of that condition today. This is a somewhat subjective question, and the worst thing an applicant can do is speculate. Doing so is often an exercise if self-sabotage.

Instead, the best thing an applicant with questions about his or her mental health history can do is to take the pertinent pages of the SF-86 to his or her medical provider and ask them for help in completing the form. There is a strategic reason for doing this beyond just ensuring the questions are answered correctly. The mental health practitioner will be contacted by background investigators in the event of any affirmative answer to Section 21; an unfavorable professional opinion or a guarded one – which is common, even if unwarranted, in today’s litigious society – can tank an otherwise successful application. By putting one’s mental health practitioner on notice now regarding the narrow scope of the government’s concerns it is helping the medical provider better understand the nature of a later inquiry and be more comfortable providing the favorable diagnosis necessary for success.

The revisions to the SF-86 were designed to decrease applicant anxiety over the mental health questions and encourage those working in the national security sector who need mental health treatment to get it. Ironically though, the changes to the form themselves are giving some long-time national security professionals serious anxiety. If this sounds like you, understand that only a miniscule percentage of people with mental health conditions are found unfit to hold a security clearance, and that failing to seek needed treatment or comply with medical advice is often viewed as a far more significant concern. Also keep in mind that the government knows that the form is different now than it was the last time around. Applicants need not (and should not) over-volunteer information not specifically requested unless advised by qualified legal counsel or a mental health professional to the contrary.

This is “Mental Health Awareness Month” and many agencies are putting out articles assuring people that seeking professional help will not jeopardize their clearance.

Many employees remain somewhat skeptical…

1 Like

Like I stated previously (and you apparently did not read) for some issues, we only ask the provider if the condition causes a security issue. Reading comprehension seems to be a struggle for you since I did not say that everyone who fills out a SF86 gets 10 years of medical records analyzed. Some issues require records, some don’t. You make some hilarious claims regarding my profession that further reveals your ignorance. Not every Crimimal Justice major wants to be a “cop” or has dreams of “law school”. You certainly do not know my veteran status or employment history. Your limited understanding of the SF86 is painfully obvious. You are digging for sensitive information regarding the exact way investigations are performed and I am not going to give it to you. Oh, and BTW, if I wanted to pretend to be in a particular profession, there are many more glamorous professions I could choose.

1 Like

Someone else can report you too.

I’m sensing some very very weird aggressive defensiveness. Did you hide something that you’re trying to figure out if the law can protect you from? Strange subject to be passionate about. As someone in this situation, it’s honestly not that big of a deal. I’m a little weirded out about someone possibly cleared getting so worked up over it.

BTW there was a person who was revoked over autism. SF-86 says to report the specific conditions OR if you believe you have a condition that affects your judgement or reliability. I filled out the old one with therapy on it in 2017, thus why I got the ringer.

Trust me, I can’t wait for the PVQ.

I’d say for good reason as an applicant. Maybe if they just disabandon the idea of having a single small adjudication team to handle all guideline I issues regardless of their severity?