Who Ya Gonna Call? Security Clearance Myth Busters
This week on FEDtalk, tune in for an in-depth assessment of the most common myths in security clearance disputes. Peregrine D. Russell-Hunter, Director of Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA), joins host Chris Keeven for the conversation. Keeven and Russell-Hunter also provide an update on clearance reforms since FEDtalk’s last program on the issue: Sussing out the Security Clearance System.
Before they dive into the myths, Keeven and Russell-Hunter briefly discuss the Department of Defense’s January 14, 2021, memorandum signed by then Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security Ezra Cohen-Watnick. The memo would extend the established administrative process rights currently enjoyed by contractor employees to civilian employees, men and women in uniform, and contractors seeking SCI.
Keeven reviews the support the memo has received from leaders in clearance reform, such as former Senior Director at the National Security Council, John P. Fitzpatrick, who called the reform step “overdue.”
Keeven went on to share Fitzpatrick’s statement explaining, “[The reform] will both unify and fortify the handling of these important security clearance appeal cases across all security offices in the department. This action should make outcomes in such cases more consistent and more transparent… Defense agency security offices likely will feel they lose some control with this change, but I would suggest that instead these offices are gaining a great partner. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals is as professional and experienced an office as you will find in government, and anyone dealing with them on these matters should be confident of a fair outcome.”
Russell-Hunter acknowledged the concerns that some Defense agency security offices may have as well. He noted that he is committed to working with all DoD partners to ensure that these reforms do no harm and that the most important feature of these reforms is to ensure that individuals have their day in court before they lose their eligibility, rather than after. Russell-Hunter explained where DoD stands in the process of implementing the memo, including the weekly working group meetings in which he and representatives all of the interested DoD Components participate actively.
Keeven and Russell-Hunter then discuss the most common myths in the security clearance adjudication process including marijuana use, mental health treatment, dual citizenship, and the duty to self-report.
The first myth Keeven and Russell-Hunter busted was the idea that clearance holders who live in a state where marijuana is legal can use marijuana despite its continued status as a schedule one controlled substance under federal law.
Russell-Hunter explained origin of this myth and emphasized the continued federal illegality of marijuana use regardless of state action.
Russell-Hunter continued, “While marijuana may be legal in a growing number of states (no pun intended), the individuals who use it still have to report that they used marijuana illegally, or that they used an illegal drug, and it would be adjudicated via the guidelines. In fact, in 2014 on October 25, James Clapper, who was then the [Director of National Intelligence] issued a memo in which he said the guidelines are not changed by the fact that someone was using marijuana in a state, territory, locality, or district where it was legal.”
Still, Russell-Hunter stressed that being honest about illegal marijuana use is more important than past use. “We really care about people being honest and forthright on the SF86,” Russell-Hunter said.
Next, Russell-Hunter and Keeven discussed mental health treatment and the common myth that receiving mental health treatment may negatively impact eligibility for a security clearance.
Keeven noted how individuals have reached out to him about needing mental health treatment but being afraid of the security clearance ramifications, particularly service members returning from combat.
Russell-Hunter distinguished situations where mental health issues may pose a risk from the most common mental health issues individuals may experience. He explained how question 21 on the SF86 has been amended to narrowly require disclosure of only mental health issues that pose a risk to national security, instead of the broad request for counseling that had existed for many years. He noted that a sample of the small number of individuals who had actually lost eligibility under the mental health guideline showed that most of them had answered the old question 21 with a “no” either because they had chosen to forgo necessary mental health treatment or chosen to lie on the form about their treatment. The question now focuses on a specific set of diagnoses which, based on research by the Personnel Security Research Center, actually correlate with risk.
The pair then discussed how investigators review and verify information on mental health treatment and the boundaries that protect patient privacy.
In the second half of the show, Keeven and Russell-Hunter break down two more myths: concerns regarding dual citizenship and maintaining multiple passports, and the duty to self-report in the age of social media and continuous evaluation, including the evolution of the investigative process to include publicly-available social media activity.
To hear to the full discussion between Keeven and Russell-Hunter, listen to the full FEDtalk episode now on Federal News Network, Podcast One, Apple Podcast, or Spotify.
You can stream the show online anytime via the Federal News Network app and listen to the FEDtalk podcast on PodcastOne and Apple Podcasts.
FEDtalk is a live talk show produced by Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm. Bringing you the insider’s perspective from leaders in the federal community since 1993.
FEDtalk is sponsored by the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP). The FLTCIP is sponsored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, insured by John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company, under a group long term care insurance policy, and administered by Long Term Care Partners, LLC (doing business as FedPoint).
