Prev: University: how do I fidget RESPECTFULLY
Next: stimulant medicines
From: Bob Kaplow on 16 Oct 2005 09:53
In article <dis5d60282u(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> writes:
> Security clearances are not issued by employers, the are issued by the
> Federal government, so I don't see how the government denying one would
> constitute a violation of the ADA by the employer.
>
> The issue with a security clearance is, very simply, can we trust this
> person not to blab. And being very honest about it, as a person with ADHD,
> I can see where ADHD could be a downcheck--one well known characteristic of
> ADHD is that we blurt things out--engage mouth before brain. This does not
> bode well for one's ability to keep secrets, especially if the secrets are
> central to one's work and thus often in the forefront of one's thoughts.

And this person would then be qualified if they instead chose to ignore the
condition and not seek treatment?

As I regular say, it's the government, it doesn't have to make sense.

I stand by my earlier statement. It should be illegal (constitutional
ammendment) for the government to not follow the same laws that they require
individuals and private industry to follow. The laws need to apply to ALL or
NONE.


--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except
to encourage attendance in Christian churches; or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, except to require prayer in schools; or abridging the
freedom of speech, except for those questioning the Bush administration; or
of the press, except that not owned by Rupert Murdoch; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, except those protesting pre-emptive wars; and
to petition the government for a redress of grievance, except those we don't
like." -former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart
From: J. Clarke on 16 Oct 2005 10:56
Bob Kaplow wrote:

> In article <dis5d60282u(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> writes:
>> Security clearances are not issued by employers, the are issued by the
>> Federal government, so I don't see how the government denying one would
>> constitute a violation of the ADA by the employer.
>>
>> The issue with a security clearance is, very simply, can we trust this
>> person not to blab. And being very honest about it, as a person with
>> ADHD, I can see where ADHD could be a downcheck--one well known
>> characteristic of
>> ADHD is that we blurt things out--engage mouth before brain. This does
>> not bode well for one's ability to keep secrets, especially if the
>> secrets are central to one's work and thus often in the forefront of
>> one's thoughts.
>
> And this person would then be qualified if they instead chose to ignore
> the condition and not seek treatment?

They would pass the interim check. That is not the same as being
"qualified". The security clearance process is not perfect--sometimes
people who should be cleared aren't and sometimes people who shouldn't be
cleared are. If you can think of a valid improvement then you might want
to write a letter to the chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Committee.
If your complaint is that it's not perfect, welcome to life.

> As I regular say, it's the government, it doesn't have to make sense.
>
> I stand by my earlier statement. It should be illegal (constitutional
> ammendment) for the government to not follow the same laws that they
> require individuals and private industry to follow. The laws need to apply
> to ALL or NONE.

I'm really not too clear on your viewpoint here. Are you arguing that being
_nuts_ should not disqualify one from obtaining a security clearance? Or
are you arguing that security clearances should be abolished? Or are you
arguing that all applicants should be required to undergo a full
neurological and psychiatric workup? Or are you arguing that the ADA
should be amended to exempt applicants for security clearances? Or are you
arguing that Federal law should be 100% self-consistent? Or what?

In any case, a security clearance would be exempted from the ADA under the
"unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the
covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and
is consistent with business necessity" provision.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
From: Guardenman on 18 Oct 2005 03:39
The security clearance process used by the US government is completely
useless. It does nothing to help security. It disqualifies some of the most
competent people. In fact is probably one of the main reasons, we have so
many incompetent people working in government.


<stigmaed(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1129345185.431186.203960(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have ruined my life because I voluntarily saw a frinking
> psychiatrist!
>
> OK, its not that bad, but on a government form to get security
> clearance, this questions was asked... "In the last 7 years, have you
> consulted with a mental health professional (psychiatrist,
> psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you consulted with another
> health care provider about a mental health related condition?"
>
> I couldn't lie. In the wake of buying a house, turning 30, surviving
> 2001, I became a little depressed. I had trouble sleeping. My ADD
> became worse. I took advantage of my employment benefits and saw a
> pdoc. And a therapist.
>
> So I was depressed, I got over it. I was never crazy, suicidal,
> hospitalized, in fact, no one really knew. I took wellbutrin,
> trazodone, zolfot, and strattera before deciding to suck it up and save
> the money. My last visit to the doc was over a year ago.
>
> So a ex-coworker/friend got me this sweet job with a 30% pay increase.
> I said yeah. 1 problem, I need security clearance from the US
> government. No problem for someone born in this country with a clean
> record.
>
> hehe, section 21 asks the question "have you consulted with a mental
> health professional ". I say yes, provide my doctors' names, and hope
> for the best.
>
> WRONG.
>
> I, a US born citizen, son of two US born citizens, who honestly
> answered NO to EVERY OTHER QUESTION on the form to every negative
> question such as anything to do with foreign countries, military
> record, bad employment, police, illegal drugs, alcohol, financial,
> public records, ect. could not get interim security clearance. And the
> only negative thing on my record is seeing a mental health
> professional.
>
> Biggest mistake of my life, telling anyone, especially a professional,
> that I was depressed.
>
> The stigma of mental illness, alive and well.
>
> Where's the warning label on prozac, zoloft, strattera that says what
> the negative professional and economic impact of taking the mediactions
> are?
>
> I'll get another job, I'll be fine, but this can ruin someon else's
> life. Email me if you want to talk.
>


From: Guardenman on 18 Oct 2005 03:46

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ditq4k015u7(a)news2.newsguy.com...
> Bob Kaplow wrote:
>
>> In article <dis5d60282u(a)news4.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> writes:
>>> Security clearances are not issued by employers, the are issued by the
>>> Federal government, so I don't see how the government denying one would
>>> constitute a violation of the ADA by the employer.
>>>
>>> The issue with a security clearance is, very simply, can we trust this
>>> person not to blab. And being very honest about it, as a person with
>>> ADHD, I can see where ADHD could be a downcheck--one well known
>>> characteristic of
>>> ADHD is that we blurt things out--engage mouth before brain. This does
>>> not bode well for one's ability to keep secrets, especially if the
>>> secrets are central to one's work and thus often in the forefront of
>>> one's thoughts.
>>
>> And this person would then be qualified if they instead chose to ignore
>> the condition and not seek treatment?
>
> They would pass the interim check. That is not the same as being
> "qualified". The security clearance process is not perfect--sometimes
> people who should be cleared aren't and sometimes people who shouldn't be
> cleared are. If you can think of a valid improvement then you might want
> to write a letter to the chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Committee.
> If your complaint is that it's not perfect, welcome to life.
>
>> As I regular say, it's the government, it doesn't have to make sense.
>>
>> I stand by my earlier statement. It should be illegal (constitutional
>> ammendment) for the government to not follow the same laws that they
>> require individuals and private industry to follow. The laws need to
>> apply
>> to ALL or NONE.
>
> I'm really not too clear on your viewpoint here. Are you arguing that
> being
> _nuts_ should not disqualify one from obtaining a security clearance?

No we are saying seeking help should not automaticly disqaulify someone.

Or
> are you arguing that security clearances should be abolished?

Yes! The system we use now is so useless, it does no good at all.


Or are you
> arguing that all applicants should be required to undergo a full
> neurological and psychiatric workup?

Makes more sense than disqualifing someone who got help for a problem and
aceptting someone who didn't. If you are not going to do psychiatric testing
take those questions off the form.

Or are you arguing that the ADA
> should be amended to exempt applicants for security clearances? Or are
> you
> arguing that Federal law should be 100% self-consistent? Or what?

This just doesn't make sense. Sorry I just can't figure out what yor
quesation is.

>
> In any case, a security clearance would be exempted from the ADA under the
> "unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the
> covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question
> and
> is consistent with business necessity" provision.

Why?

>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


From: Guardenman on 18 Oct 2005 03:52

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:diqsul028ip(a)news1.newsguy.com...
> stigmaed(a)bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> I have ruined my life because I voluntarily saw a frinking
>> psychiatrist!
>>
>> OK, its not that bad, but on a government form to get security
>> clearance, this questions was asked... "In the last 7 years, have you
>> consulted with a mental health professional (psychiatrist,
>> psychologist, counselor, etc.) or have you consulted with another
>> health care provider about a mental health related condition?"
>>
>> I couldn't lie. In the wake of buying a house, turning 30, surviving
>> 2001, I became a little depressed. I had trouble sleeping. My ADD
>> became worse. I took advantage of my employment benefits and saw a
>> pdoc. And a therapist.
>>
>> So I was depressed, I got over it. I was never crazy, suicidal,
>> hospitalized, in fact, no one really knew. I took wellbutrin,
>> trazodone, zolfot, and strattera before deciding to suck it up and save
>> the money. My last visit to the doc was over a year ago.
>>
>> So a ex-coworker/friend got me this sweet job with a 30% pay increase.
>> I said yeah. 1 problem, I need security clearance from the US
>> government. No problem for someone born in this country with a clean
>> record.
>>
>> hehe, section 21 asks the question "have you consulted with a mental
>> health professional ". I say yes, provide my doctors' names, and hope
>> for the best.
>>
>> WRONG.
>>
>> I, a US born citizen, son of two US born citizens, who honestly
>> answered NO to EVERY OTHER QUESTION on the form to every negative
>> question such as anything to do with foreign countries, military
>> record, bad employment, police, illegal drugs, alcohol, financial,
>> public records, ect. could not get interim security clearance. And the
>> only negative thing on my record is seeing a mental health
>> professional.
>>
>> Biggest mistake of my life, telling anyone, especially a professional,
>> that I was depressed.
>>
>> The stigma of mental illness, alive and well.
>>
>> Where's the warning label on prozac, zoloft, strattera that says what
>> the negative professional and economic impact of taking the mediactions
>> are?
>>
>> I'll get another job, I'll be fine, but this can ruin someon else's
>> life. Email me if you want to talk.
>
> Well, now, a psychiatric exam is part of the medical exam required for
> admission to the service academies, so if that alone disqualifies one from
> obtaining a security clearance then nobody who went to Annapolis would be
> allowed to command a nuclear powered warship.

Usually they ask if you went on your own. A required test for employment
wouldn't count.


>
> The form is only part of the process--there's also an agency check and for
> the higher levels interviews with the neighbors, co-workers, etc. The
> simple fact is that you do not _know_ why you failed the check. And if it
> _was_ the psychiatrist then it's more likely that you said something
> damaging to the psychiatrist than the simple act of seeking help--for
> security clearances you have to authorize release of your records IIRC so
> doctor-patient confidentiality is not an issue. The worst thing you could
> have done was tell the psychiatrist something different from what you put
> on the form--they look for inconsistencies and inconsistencies are the
> kiss
> of death.


Having more than ten working brain cells is usually a disqualifier as well.

>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: University: how do I fidget RESPECTFULLY
Next: stimulant medicines