Prev: University: how do I fidget RESPECTFULLY
Next: stimulant medicines
From: J. Clarke on 19 Oct 2005 08:58
Guardenman wrote:

>
> "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.

And your source for this information is? I'm sorry, but there have been too
many very difficult things done in black programs for that contention to be
anything other than laughable.

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

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
From: J. Clarke on 19 Oct 2005 08:55
Guardenman wrote:

>
> "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.

So we should let _anybody_ who has seen a shrink muck about with weapons of
mass destruction before first finding out, from the medical records, _why_
he saw the shrink?

> 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.

(a) what leads you to believe that it is useless?
(b) Can you propose a system that would be more effective?
>
>
> 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.

So it is your proposal that _every_ person who applies for a security
clearance should undergo psychiatric testing? And who is going to pay for
all of this and how long will it take?

> 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.

You aren't Bob Kaplow so it wasn't directed at you anyway.

>> 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?

Why what?

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

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
From: Guardenman on 24 Oct 2005 17:53

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:dj5g7m123ud(a)news3.newsguy.com...
> Guardenman wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
> So we should let _anybody_ who has seen a shrink muck about with weapons
> of
> mass destruction before first finding out, from the medical records, _why_
> he saw the shrink?

No I am saying that just because you never saw a shrink, doesn't mean you
don't need to. I don't think simply going to see one, means you should
automatically be disqualified. I personally worry more about the people who
never go get help, than the ones who do.

>
>> 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.
>
> (a) what leads you to believe that it is useless?

Years of working with incompetent people who have very high security
clearances.


> (b) Can you propose a system that would be more effective?

A good background check with extensive interviews. Tests for various
reactions in simulated situations, Make them talk.

>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> So it is your proposal that _every_ person who applies for a security
> clearance should undergo psychiatric testing? And who is going to pay for
> all of this and how long will it take?

I am saying a simple question or two, is not an effective method for
screening people. If you are going to pretend to screen people based on
mental health a few questions, on a form, is a stupid way to do it.

>
>> 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.
>
> You aren't Bob Kaplow so it wasn't directed at you anyway.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Why what?
>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


From: Guardenman on 24 Oct 2005 17:57

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:dj5g7r323ud(a)news3.newsguy.com...
> Guardenman wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
> And your source for this information is? I'm sorry, but there have been
> too
> many very difficult things done in black programs for that contention to
> be
> anything other than laughable.


Black operations? The man was Appling for a simple security clearance, not
black opps. Besides every single person who works in black opps sees a
shirk, or should.



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


From: J. Clarke on 25 Oct 2005 21:46
Guardenman wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:dj5g7r323ud(a)news3.newsguy.com...
>> Guardenman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> And your source for this information is? I'm sorry, but there have been
>> too
>> many very difficult things done in black programs for that contention to
>> be
>> anything other than laughable.
>
>
> Black operations? The man was Appling for a simple security clearance, not
> black opps. Besides every single person who works in black opps sees a
> shirk, or should.

You are confusing operations and programs. If he's not working on a black
program of some sort he has no need of a clearance.

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

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: University: how do I fidget RESPECTFULLY
Next: stimulant medicines