Devastating Tsunami Hits Peter Van Buren, Security Clearance and Diplomatic PPT Swept Away in Foggy Waters

The diplomat of 23 years experience now has to use the Visitor's Entrance of the U.S. State Department?  Well, that's what it looks like.  Some folks are quite happy with that - to see Mr. Van Buren's work bag inspected and Mr. Van Buren wanded every time he goes into the Big House.  I suspect that the somebodies rather that he does not show up, but so far, they have not yet figure out how to fire him. They're pouring over the FAM on what regs to cite for that. I hate to think how much manhour-cost the taxpayers are expending just for this very important task.

The good news is, anonymous officials of the State Department can now tell their media contacts that Mr. Van Buren is officially under investigation. But don't worry, the official spokesman will continue to say that this is an internal, personnel matter that he/she is unable to discuss publicly for privacy reasons. 

I can't say for sure who in the Big House reads our blog. But somebody took our advice not to order a tsunami on the book launch of Peter Van Buren's We Meant Well last September 27. It would have looked, you know, bad and vindictive. Well, they followed that advice until today.

On October 18, the ordered tsunami finally hit the cubicle of FSO Peter Van Buren. He was stripped of his security clearance. Well, stripped might be too strong a word. His Top Secret security clearance was officially "suspended" pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation. The suspension of security clearance is, of course, not formal revocation, nor does it indicate that a revocation is in the works.  It is an ongoing investigation, you see.

They also took away his diplomatic passport. Perhaps, they were afraid, he would run away and fly back to Iraq using his black passport. That must be it.

I can't find anywhere in the FAM the regs governing the confiscation of a diplomatic passport. Regs must be behind the firewall.  The Bureau of Consular Affairs has a special issuance unit that does just the issuance of diplomatic and official passports. But it sounds like the "somebodies" at the State Department can also demand the surrender of the black passport at any time; need not even have to be officials of the Consular Bureau.

Well, anytime, they don't want you to run away to Iraq. It's for your own protection. 

So after 23 years, the veteran diplomat's ability to handle protected information is now in question. 

It has nothing to do, of course, with writing a critical book about our reconstruction boondoggle in Iraq.

Yo guys, that sounds suspiciously lame, you realized that? 

.....You don't care?

Well, tigers must eat meat ....

USG Employee's Security Clearance Revoked Because His US Citizen Wife Went to an Islamic School?

Image via WikipediaU.S. Citizen Mahmoud M. Hegab worked as a budget analyst at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) until last year when his Top Secret/SCI security clearance was suddenly revoked. The revocation of his clearance was apparently due to the fact that his newlywed wife who is a U.S. citizen had graduated from an Islamic school located in the D.C. area. Also that she had participated in an ‘anti-war occupation protest in Washington’” on the grounds of the Washington monument, and that she had engaged in pro-Palestinian political activity while a student at George Mason University.

The wife had since graduated from GMU. And if the anti-war protest happened outside of Washington, would it have made a difference?

Last week Mr. Hegab filed a lawsuit against the NGA seeking reinstatement of his clearance. Mr. Hegab's complaint includes a rebuttal of the allegations against his wife.

Am I the only one who find this something out of the twilight zone? This is the United States of America. And here is a U.S. citizen forced to go to court to defend himself against "allegations" against his wife?

Quick excerpts from the court filing (h/t to Secrecy News):

5. Mahmoud M. Hegab, plaintiff, is a United States citizen who was employed by defendant, NGA.

8. Plaintiff was employed by NGA on January 4, 2010 in the position of Financial/Budget Analyst.

9. During plaintiff’s employment by NGA, he held a Top Secret security clearance and Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). There were no problems with plaintiff’s employment and his performance was well regarded by his supervisors.

11. Bushra Nusairat is an American citizen, who at the time of her marriage to plaintiff was residing in Fairfax County, Virginia, and who has continued to reside in Fairfax County Virginia with plaintiff since their marriage.

12. By memorandum dated November 2, 2010, which plaintiff received on November 18, 2010, NGA notified plaintiff of its intent to revoke his security clearance and his access to classified information. The proposed revocation was based in part, on his marriage to Ms. Nusarait, and in part on information previously disclosed by plaintiff as part of his security clearance investigation in 2009 which had been reviewed, discussed and cleared by NGA prior to his being hired and being granted a security clearance by NGA.

24. With respect to his wife, Ms. Nusairat, plaintiff responded that his wife “is a U.S. citizen residing in the U.S. who has never been accused of any illegal activity or being associated with any illegal activity.”

35. NGA’s decision did not resolve all issues. It further continued:

However, the information provided does not mitigate your
spouse’s current affiliation with one or more organizations which consist of groups who are organized largely around their non-United States origin and/or the advocacy of or involvement in foreign political issues. This concern elevates the potential for conflicts of interest between your obligation to protect sensitive or classified United States information and technology and your desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information. (Emphasis added).

53. Plaintiff renewed his argument that his wife’s employment by Islamic Relief USA did not constitute a security risk, that the action taken was solely due to the anti-Islamic bias of NGA’s security personnel, and that the revocation of Plaintiff’s security clearance and access was in violation of his constitutional rights and privileges.

Read the complaint in full here.

Related articles

• Report to Congress: 4.2M hold security clearances (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Ex-worker sues secretive US agency, alleging bias (sfgate.com)

Alleged Fake Amcits Had Contract Jobs at State Dept, Held Security Clearances

Image by alancleaver_2000 via FlickrAlso alleged to have accessed and obtained information relating to approx 250,000  medical records of State Department and other USG employees  


Criminal Case 1:11CR144 is between the United States of America vs. KUANG HAO CHOU, Also known as Edwin Chou, LING YU HSIEH, Also known as Erica Hsieh.

The Grand Jury Indictment dated March 17, 2011 includes six counts of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, bribery of a public official and (aiding and abetting), fraud and misuse of immigration documents) and (aiding and abetting), procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully and (aiding and abetting), fraud and related activity with computers, false statement in a security clearance application.

Below are excepts from the indictment:

1. Robert Schofield was a federal employee with the title of Supervisory District Adjudications Officer responsible for processing applications submitted by immigrants requesting adjustments to their United States immigration status. Prior to early 2003, Schofield worked for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). After early 2003, Schofield worked for the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS).

6. On November 30,2006, Schofield pled guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia to Bribery of a Public Official and Procurement of Citizenship or Naturalization Unlawfully. As part of his plea agreement, Schofield admitted to fraudulently providing United States immigration documents, including naturalization certificates; Temporary I-551 stamps, which are evidence of LPR ("green card") status; and Advance Parole documents, to ineligible aliens in return for bribes. Schofield admitted that he utilized various brokers to bring the aliens to him who were willing to pay for falsely made United States immigration documents.

7. KUANG HAO CHOU a/k/a Edwin Chou is a Taiwanese national who entered the United States on or about August 21,1996, as a nonimmigrant B-2 visitor for pleasure. CHOU obtained unlawfully issued immigration benefits from Schofield in return for money. CHOU used his unlawful immigration benefits to obtain a United States Passport and to obtain jobs as a contract employee of the United States
Department of State(DOS) and United States government security clearances. CHOU also brought and referred other foreign nationals to Schofield in order to obtain unlawful immigration benefits for these other aliens.

8. LING YU HSIEH a/k/a Erica Hsieh is a Taiwanese national who entered the United States on or about April 11,1998, as a nonimmigrant B-2 visitor. HSIEH obtained unlawfully issued immigration benefits from Schofield in return for money. HSIEH used her unlawful immigration benefits to obtain a United States Passport and a position as a contract employee of the DOS and United States government security clearances. HSIEH also brought and referred other foreign nationals to Schofield in order to obtain unlawful immigration benefits.

9. KUANG HAO CHOU and LING YU HSIEH are married and have been married since 1991. They have resided in Herndon, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia since 2001.

11. KUANG HAO CHOU and LING YU HSIEH used their fraudulently obtained United States Naturalization Certificates to obtain United States security clearances and jobs working as contract employees with the United States Department of State. On or about September 9,2005, CHOU submitted to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) request number 165787, which contained a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86) in connection with his employment as a contractor to the United States Department of State. On or about September 14,2005, HSIEH submitted to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) request number 172495, which contained a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86) in connection with her employment as a contractor to the United States Department of State.

Count Five:

Between on or about April 8,2010 and November 16, 2010, in Herndon, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia, and elsewhere, the defendant, KUANG HAOCHOU, knowingly and intentionally accessed a computer without authorization and exceeded his authorized access and thereafter obtained information from a department and agency of the United States, to wit: CHOU accessed the United States Department of State eMED database without authorization and exceeding his authorized access and obtained information relating to approximately 250,000 or more United States Department of State and other United States government employees. (In violation of Title 18 United States Code 1030(a)(2)(B).)

Count 6

On or about August 5,2010, in Herndon,Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia, and elsewhere, the defendant, KUANG HAO CHOU, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States, that is the Social Security Administration and the Department of State, did knowingly, unlawfully and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation, to wit: CHOU claimed to be lawfully naturalized United States citizens when CHOU sought to renew his security clearance he originally obtained to work as a contractor for the United States Department of State,in order to work with the Social Security Administration, when in truth and in fact, as CHOU then and there well knew he had paid a bribe for his immigration benefits and was not eligible to obtain or use a security clearance in September 9,2005, nor to renew it on August 5, 2010. On or about August 5,2010, CHOU submitted a Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions and a Declaration for Federal Employment submitted to the United States Office of Personnel Management to maintain his security clearance and reaffirming his false statement and representation concerning his immigration status. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.)

The full copy of the indictment is here (h/t to Emily Babay| Washington Examiner for a copy of the indictment posted in ScribD).

If one of the defendants "obtained" a quarter million information from the medical database, how was that information disposed of? Or perhaps the question might be, how compromised is that information right now? Med records normally include not only names, but also SSNs, blood types, medical clearances, test results (and who knows what else - papsmear and colonoscopy results, physicians' notes, allergies?). 

If the allegations are true, one has to wonder at the motive for accessing personally identifiable information (PII) of State Department and other USG employees.  What was the intent here?  Was the information sold? Was the information hoarded for later disposal? Was it done for much darker reasons? 

But more importantly, how was the data breach discovered? The breach happened in a span of seven months.  Was it also downloaded and copied to a Lady Gaga CD? Did MED discover this breach due to a system warning when a large amount of data was accessed and obtained?  Or was the discovery of the data breach only happened after a collateral investigation of the alleged immigration fraud? 

To be blunt, if the defendant was not discovered to have committed the alleged immigration fraud, would the State Dept Office of Medical Services have discovered the breach in its medical database?

And now that eMed had been eBreached, what do you do to protect yourself?


We have asked this and other questions to Med, we'll post any response we get. 

Don't read WL from your workstation, if read elsewhere make sure you wash your eyes or you go blind....

Via WaPo's Federal Eye | Memo from OMB

MODEL AGENCY NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS CONCERNING SAFEGUARDING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND USE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

The recent disclosure of U.S. Government documents by WikiLeaks has resulted in damage to our national security. Each federal employee and contractor is obligated to protect classified information pursuant to all applicable laws, and to use government information technology systems in accordance with agency procedures so that the integrity of such systems is not compromised.

Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents (whether in print, on a blog, or on websites) do not alter the documents' classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents. To the contrary, classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority.

Federal employees and contractors therefore are reminded of the following obligations with respect to the treatment of classified information and the use of non-classified government information technology systems:

• Except as authorized by their agencies and pursuant to agency procedures, federal employees or contractors shall not, while using computers or other devices (such as Blackberries or Smart Phones) that access the web on non-classified government systems, access documents that are marked classified (including classified documents publicly available on the WikiLeaks and other websites), as doing so risks that material still classified will be placed onto non-classified systems. This requirement applies to access that occurs either through agency or contractor computers, or through employees' or contractors' personally owned computers that access non-classified government systems. This requirement does not restrict employee or contractor access to non-classified, publicly available news reports (and other non-classified material) that may in turn discuss classified material, as distinguished from access to underlying documents that themselves are marked classified (including if the underlying classified documents are available on public websites or otherwise in the public domain).

• Federal employees or contractors shall not access classified material unless a favorable determination of the person's eligibility for access has been made by an agency head or the agency head's designee, the person has signed and approved non-disclosure agreement, the person has a need to know the information, and the person has received contemporaneous training on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be imposed on an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.

• Classified information shall not be removed from official premises or disclosed without proper authorization.

• Federal employees and contractors who believe they may have inadvertently accessed or downloaded classified or sensitive information on computers that access the web via non-classified government systems, or without prior authorization, should contact their information security offices for assistance.

Thank you for your cooperation, and for your vigilance to these responsibilities.

As to that item about Columbia University career counselors urging students not to post links to the documents or make comments on social media Web sites, including Facebook or Twitter:

"Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government," said an e-mail the office said it sent to students on the advice of an alumnus who works for the State Department.

Ed O'Keefe also has an update from the State Department's spokesman:  "But the employee's warning, "does not represent a formal policy position," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Saturday.

"This sounds like an overly-zealous employee," Crowley said in an e-mail. "Our focus is advising current employees not to download classified documents to an unclassified network. While we condemn what WikiLeaks has done, we cannot control what is done through private Internet accounts."

Whew! That's good to know,hmmnn?

Anyway, just think about your IT staff who must fumigate your unclassified computer system if you make the mistake of reading these cables at work.

And just to be sure, if you do read these cables elsewhere, wash your eyes or you go blind. Apparently, there's a "voluptuous blond" in there.

DMW: Mental Health Treatment Still a Security Clearance Issue at State Department

We have recently posted an email from HRC to State Department employees on seeking help for mental health issues here.

The day after its release, the Concerned Foreign Service Officers issued the following statement (item below from CFSO volunteer blog, Dead Men Working):

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Yesterday, presumably in response to a series of articles in the September issue of the Foreign Service Journal, Secretary of State Clinton issued an internal statement urging employees needing mental health treatment to get it, stating quite clearly that no Foreign Service Officer had ever lost a security clearance due to having sought mental health treatment. Concerned Foreign Service Officers wants to set the record straight.

Executive Order 12968 provides guidelines for the granting or revocation of a clearance. There are only thirteen criteria under which a security clearance can be revoked, and "seeking mental health treatment" is not one of them. Therefore, it is obvious that no official record would provide "seeking mental health treatment" as the justification for a revocation. Instead, the clearance would have been revoked under a guideline such as "mental disorders" or "personal conduct" and the record would reflect that fact. DS revocation letters are short, and unlike those of other agencies, rarely provide details. But there have been well-documented cases where the unmentioned "cause for concern" under the official guideline was the simple act of seeking mental health treatment and the biased reaction to it by DS adjudicators.

Concerned Foreign Service Officers believes that people who need mental health treatment or counseling should get it. But as long as DS continues to adjudicate security clearances without a real whole-person review, without verification of the facts, and without any real oversight, they do, and will continue to revoke security clearances of employees who obtain mental health treatment.

Active links added above. 


Related post:
Clinton issues note on mental health; seeking help a sign of maturity and professionalism | Sept 10

Related articles by Zemanta

• Kaiser State Department Employees Face 'Stigma' For Seeking Mental Health Help (medicalnewstoday.com)

Clinton issues note on mental health; seeking help a sign of maturity and professionalism

Slightly over two years after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued the DOD guidance on the mental health question, the infamous Question 21 in SF 86 and strongly endorsed the practice of seeking professional help for mental and physical issues, the State Department, at the highest level of the 7th Floor -- that's the Secretary of State -- has now publicly endorsed the practice of seeking professional help to address "unique stresses" including mental health issues. HRC writes that "No one at State has lost a clearance because he or she sought mental health counseling or treatment" and that "recognizing the need for help is a sign of maturity and professionalism." We have previously posted about this here and here.

via Josh Rogin of The Cable:

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

As the summer winds down, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work, commitment to excellence, and service to our country. At the State Department and USAID, we work long hours on complex problems with few clear-cut solutions. Many of you serve in dangerous and remote posts, often far away from friends and loved ones. Your dedication is inspiring, and you have my gratitude and that of President Obama and the American people as well.

I know that your service here comes with sacrifice, both for you and your families, and with unique stresses. We are committed to ensuring that every member of the State Department and USAID family has all the support they need. That's why we've made it a priority to provide access to social workers and mental health counselors, a mandatory high-stress outbrief program and training for anyone who seeks it and particularly for those who are returning from or working with returnees from high-stress posts.

These are important resources and I hope more of you will take advantage of them in the future.

Seeking help is a sign of responsibility and it is not a threat to your security clearance. No one at State has lost a clearance because he or she sought mental health counseling or treatment. In fact, Diplomatic Security has advised that receiving recommended treatment for mental health concerns is a favorable factor during security clearance determinations. For all of us, managing our mental health is an essential part of maintaining our well-being, and recognizing the need for help is a sign of maturity and professionalism. Talking to someone can make all the difference in the world.

To learn more about the Department's Deployment Stress Management Program and the resources available to you and your family through the State Department, I encourage you to visit MED's website at:

If you have questions about security clearances, you can always contact the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability Customer Service Center at 1-866-643-4636 or send an e-mail to 

As we head into the fall and the holidays to come, please consider making use of the excellent programs and staff that are available.

We have a lot to do, and I know you are up to the job. I am proud of the work we are doing together every day on behalf of our nation. It is an honor to be your Secretary and I look forward to all we will continue to achieve together.

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Related items:
DOD: Mental Health Questions, Standard Form (SF) 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions


Related posts:

• On the Infamous Q21, PTSD (Again) and High Threat Unaccompanied ...| Jul 29, 2010
• State Dept's WarZone Deployment Incentives, Programs, Training and ...| Apr 25, 2010
• DS Agent Arrested After Wife Reports Assault | Diplopundit | Jun 30, 2010
• On the Infamous Q21, PTSD and the Wholeness of People in the ...| May 04, 2008

Alleged Cuban Spies Fall for a Cigar

Image via Wikipedia

The Myers spy case is all over the papers now. It seems so cold-warish now but the Cubans seem caught in that forever time warp. This is not the first time they have a husband and wife team for spies. There was the case of Carlos and Elsa Alvarez who were arrested in 6 January 2006. There was the case of George and Marisol Gari, indicted in August 2001 on charges of spying for the Cuban government as part of the "Wasp Network.” If the allegations against the Myers are true, that's thirty years of double life!

USA v. Walter Kendall Myers a/k/a Agent 202 and Gwendolyn Steingraber Myers a/k/a Agent 123 and Agent E-634 alleges the following violations: Conspiracy, Agent of Foreign Government, Wire Fraud, Forfeiture and Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done.

Part of the indictment papers filed includes a portion where the Myers stated their admiration for Ana Montes.

Kendall Myers stated “I have great admiration for [Cuban spy] Ana Montes. She’s a hero …But she took too many chances in my opinion…She wasn’t paranoid enough.

Kendall Myers said that “the funny thing, of course, some of the stuff I supplied, [Ana Montes] supplied. There was duplication…Because I read the stuff that she gave. Gwendolyn Myers continued “which is terrific what they got was verified…from two different places.

Referring to Ana Montes, Gwendolyn Myers stated, “She was not paranoid enough…But she loved it…she did what she loved to do. Kendall Myers continued, saying “we have a great admiration” for Ana Montes.

Ana Montes was the Defense Intelligence Agency's senior Cuba intelligence analyst who was sentenced on October 16, 2002 for spying for Cuba (see CI Centre coverage of sentencing). Montes was sentence of 25 years in prison with no possibility of parole, followed by five years of supervised release.

It seems odd that faulting Montes for lack of paranoia, Mr. and Mrs. Myers then fell for a cigar from a stranger. Item #40 of the criminal complaint states that an undercover source (UCS) for the FBI approached Kendall Myers in front of the SAIS school, mentioned a CuIS Intelligence officer, offered him a cigar and congratulated him on his birthday. It went down for the couple from there on. Should be an interesting hearing when this unfolds in court, unless its closed to the public for national security.

Related Items:

• DOJ Press Release, 5 June 2009: Former State Department Official Walter Kendall Myers and Wife Gwendolyn Steingraber Myers Arrested for Serving As Illegal Agents of Cuba for Nearly 30 Years
• Statement, US Department of State, 5 June 2009: Arrest of Walter Kendall Myers
• Criminal Complaint, 4 June 2009: US vs. Walter Kendall Myers
• Indictment, 4 June 2009: US vs Walter Kendall Myers and Gwendolyn Steingraber Myers
• Extensive collection of court papers from cryptome

Love as "Unindicted Co-conspirator”

US Embassy Beijing contractor gets jail time ...

In January this year, a civilian contractor who performed work on the United States Embassy in Beijing, China, pleaded guilty to conspiring to make false statements about and concealing his frequent and lengthy contact with a female Chinese national.

Gregory W. Blackard, 37, of Houston, was arraigned on charges alleged in a superseding indictment returned Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2009, and thereafter entered a plea of guilty to the first count of that indictment before United States District Judge David Hittner. Count One of the superseding indictment accused Blackard of conspiring with a female Chinese national to make false statements to federal agents about his frequent contacts with her over the course of a two-year period and taking steps to prevent discovery of the personal relationship while he was employed as a senior manager of a contractor performing work on the United States Embassy in Beijing. Blackard had obtained the high level security clearance needed to work on the embassy construction and received extensive training and materials on Standards of Conduct (fraternization policy) and counterintelligence programs.

At the hearing, Blackard admitted he had a two-year relationship with a female Chinese national which began in February 2005 and continued through June 2007 and knowingly failed to disclose his frequent and intimate contact with her as required on frequently requested and submitted questionnaires, contact reports and travel reports. He further acknowledged he and the Chinese national, an unindicted co-conspirator, used various methods to prevent the discovery of their relationship including the use of different entrances to his apartment, different meeting places, non-use of cellular telephones or text messaging (because they create a record), avoiding places where westerners might congregate, and constantly were on the lookout for evidence the Department of State Personnel Security Services could possibly use against them. During the two-year period, Blackard received more than $200,000 in salary.

On May 29th, Mary Flood of the Houston Chronicle reports on Blackard’s sentencing before U.S. District Judge Gray Miller. The court papers call Blackard's love an "unindicted coconspirator." His lawyer also asked the court for leniency because Blackard had never been in trouble before, was a good worker, a good father and a good son.

Judge Miller sentenced Blackard to the six months in prison and refused the lawyer’s request that it be served in a community facility. The sentence includes three years of post-prison supervision and 180 hours of community service. Blackard will reportedly remain free on bond but must report to prison when told to do so by the Bureau of Prisons. I think he got lucky; it could have been worse. According to DOJ, conspiracy conviction carries a penalty of not more than five years imprisonment, a fine of not more than $250,000 and a supervised release term of not less than three years.

Who can resist stories like this? Perhaps it is the human interest here or maybe it's just that I've never heard of "love" called an unindicted co-conspirator before. It just seems so ... so stupid to imagine that you won't get caught. At the same time, it also seems understandable that somebody who is aware of the consequences would still go to great lengths to do this. He should have known better... right. But who can explain the crazy things people do when they are in love? Can you? As Patsy sings it, "worry, why do I let myself worry..." I guess that's why there's the regs, so one knows understand what's at stake and not let oneself worry ...

Related Items:

• AFSA Reminder: Rules for Reporting Foreign Contacts and Intent to Marry or Cohabit with Foreign Nationals (May 11, 2009)
• 12 FAM 270: Security Reporting Requirements
• 12 FAM 262: Security Awareness and Contact Reporting

Olson v. Clinton: Court Grants Summary Judgment for State in a Discrimination Suit

Leonard Link recently wrote State Department Wins Round Against Gay Foreign Service Officer (h/t to Digger of Life After Jerusalem).

“U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled on March 12 that the U.S. State Department was entitled to summary judgment in a sexual orientation discrimination case brought by Karl Olson, a gay Foreign Service Officer (FSO) who claimed that adverse Employee Evaluation Reports concerning his service in Brazil were impermissibly tainted due to the homophobia of the Consul General in Rio de Janeiro. Olson v. Clinton, 2009 WL 635977 (D.D.C.).”

I had time to spare so I thought I would dig up more about this story.

FSO Karl Olson has been an FSO since 1985, tenured in 1988, and was NIV chief at ConGen Rio de Janeiro from 1993-1996. The case was originally brought against Secretary Rice but was substituted with Secretary Clinton as lead respondent when she became SoS. In his lawsuit, Olson seeks “judicial review of a Foreign Service Grievance Board (“FSGB” or “Board”) decision, alleging that it was arbitrary and capricious and tainted by prejudicial procedural errors.”

He received two Employee Evaluation Reports (EER) during his Rio de Janiero tour -- looks like both reports were from one rating officer but reviewed by two different officers. EERs are use by the Foreign Service Selection Boards to evaluate FSOs for promotion or selection out of the Service.

On May 22, 1998, Olson filed a grievance with State “alleging that the EERs covering his time in Rio were inaccurate and falsely prejudicial, omitted favorable information, contained inadmissible comments, and were based on the anti-homosexual bias of Beffel and Zweifel” (his rating and reviewing officer). The case went to the FS Grievance Board (FSGB), was appealed, decided upon, went to the US District Court (D.C.), got remanded back to FSGB, decided upon, then finally went back to the US District Court (D.C.) where it landed on District Judge Gladys Kessler’s court.

You can read Judge Kessler’s March 12 Memorandum Opinion for Olson v. Clinton, 2009 WL 635977 (D.D.C.) here. Mr. Olson apparently filed all his pleadings under seal, so the Opinion is redacted/blacked out in various sections.

There are four things that strike me most about this case.

#1. Getting entangled with the FSGB and the Court looks like a real hard slog; Gosh, golly – this one took over 10 years! The website for the FSGB is here; everything there seems to be in Word document right now with ongoing work Notice says they are trying to “to make it more user friendly,” but website is bare, except for four annual reports in PDF files. Oh yeah, the search function makes me feel really dumb.

#2. Just see how many characters populated this case besides the FSO and his rating and reviewing officers. There was a third Consul General with his say, an Economic Officer who overheard criticisms about plaintiff, a Deputy Principal Officer with his say, an Administrative Officer, and an Ambassador who stated that he “received so many complaints about Mr. Olson” that he initiated a “campaign to emphasize ‘courtesy and respect’ to our visa officers.” Then there were those colleagues of Mr. Olson who felt that there were "homophobic attitudes" or an "atmosphere of homophobia," including a DAS, a CA management analyst, and three Consular Officers.

Mr. Olson was the NIV chief at a constituent post, which means, there were a few folks between him and the chief of mission. The hierarchy would have been the Consular Section Chief and Consul General at ConGen Rio and then the Deputy Chief of Mission and the Ambassador at Embassy Brasilia. But who’s missing in the line-up of quotes? I have not seen any FSGB documents but no HRO, Consular FSNs, or DCM appeared to be quoted here. In a case like this, I wonder if the co-workers are naturally divided between the litigants? Who decides who speaks out for the record?

#3. There was that 1994 cable to Diplomatic Security from Rio, which the Court find most disturbing. “The cable targeted Plaintiff for no reason other than his sexual orientation and cited his homosexuality as its basis for initiating a defensive briefing (see page 8 for excerpt of cable).”

I guess we need some historical context here. In 1971 there was Gayer v. Laird, a challenge to anti-gay security clearance rules. In 1975, in Singer v. U.S Civil Service Commission, a gay federal employee was fired for being “flamboyant.”

As background, federal agencies used the sexual perversion criteria in the early 1950s to categorize homosexuals as security risks and separate them from government service. Agencies could deny homosexual men and women employment because of their sexual orientation until 1975, when the Civil Service Commission (now OPM) issued guidelines prohibiting the government from denying employment on the basis of sexual orientation. The guidelines, which further define the provisions of Executive Order 10450, resulted from court decisions requiring that persons not be disqualified from federal employment solely on the basis of homosexual conduct. Although the public policy change resulted in the restrictions against employment of homosexuals being lifted, the guidance for granting security clearances to homosexuals remained generally vague or restrictive until the early 1990s.

In 1995, President Clinton signed Executive Order #12968 on Access to Classified Information stating clearly that:

(c) The United States Government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information.

(d) In determining eligibility for access under this order, agencies may investigate and consider any matter that relates to the determination of whether access is clearly consistent with the interests of national security. No inference concerning the standards in this section may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee.

#4. Finally, although the Court pointed out some shortcomings in the FSGB’s decision, it says, “the Court must determine not whether the Board’s decision was perfectly correct, but whether it was arbitrary.” It also states that “it is not this Court’s role to determine the facts anew or to reach its own conclusions whether Plaintiff’s EERs were accurate.” The critical question according to the Court “is not whether bias existed – it did – but whether the FSGB’s decision was arbitrary and capricious when it determined that the EERs were not falsely prejudicial.”

The Court citing Ackerman v. United States [324 F.Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2004)] also states that “Under the highly deferential administrative review standard, the decision to weight different events in a foreign service officer’s employment history is within the expertise of the FSGB and must receive deference.” (See FSGB report on this, p.11)

Now, that brings some rather sobering thoughts, doesn’t it?

Kessler’s Memorandum Opinion on Olson v. Clinton is supposed to be accompanied by an Order, but I can’t locate that right now. I’ll add it here if/when I find it. If you have the link, do please give me a holler.

Join the Petition: Revised Q21 for the Foreign Service

I don't know what it is like to have post-traumatic syndrome disorder or PTSD; the closest I've been was what I'd call "moving blues" which lasted for about six months. It was dark and depressing but nothing like what Kristin Loken, a Foreign Service officer with USAID had experienced. In the January 2008 issue of the Foreign Service Journal, she writes:

"Strong emotions would come and go without any relevance to what was happening around me. I had regular nightmares about running away from uniformed men with guns trying to kill me. Sometimes I would also have what I called “daymares.” I would encounter a person at work in a meeting and see them suddenly fall victim to some horrible trauma — a car wreck, a shooting, a bomb explosion. These daymares struck quickly, then disappeared, leaving me sitting in a meeting not knowing what I had missed. As I tried to regain normal functioning, I noticed that my mouth wouldn’t work right; I couldn’t talk properly and could hardly communicate with people around me.

There was a great deal going on inside my head, but it had no relevance to what was going on in the world around me. I could answer a direct question in a few words, but then could not say anything more for long periods of time. I didn’t feel sad; I didn’t feel happy. Often I didn’t seem to feel anything at all."

It seems like every week, I get somebody online with the search phrase "PTSD and security clearance concerns." It's been months since the Secretary of Defense has successfully advocated the revision of Question 21 of the SF-86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions for DOD and I have not heard a single thing out of State. With a few remaining days left in office, I doubt if this is going to get any attention from the current occupant of the 7th Floor. I also find it troubling that none of the webpages of Mental Health Services, Bureau of Diplomatic Security or "M" carry any information nor guidance on mental health consultations/treatment and its relevance to the employee's medical and security clearance. Please don't tell me they are on the intranet. Family members and partners do not have ready access to that thing. In any case, I figure that with an incoming Secretary of State, this would be a good time to initiate a petition. I have considered the pros and cons of an online petition and have reservations not just with publicly posting names of petitioners, but also whether the intended recipients ever actually read online petitions. Thus, this one is going to be an old fashion, paper and snail mail petition. Below is the text of the petition urging the revision of Question 21 of SF-86 for the Foreign Service. You can download the petition in Word file here or PDF file here. Please sign it, collect five other names/signatures from your immediate colleagues and mail it off to the Mother ship. I also urge you to pass on this petition to family members and friends of the Foreign Service for additional support. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to examine the nomination of Hillary R. Clinton to be Secretary of State on Tuesday (January 13, (9:30 am, SH-216). On January 15, the SFRC will have a business meeting to consider HRC's nomination. With a simple majority needed for confirmation, I expect that she will be confirmed very shortly after the new president takes office. I would therefore suggest that petition letters be mailed off between now and February 20, 2009 to help ensure that the letters will be at her office when she assumes her duties. ~ ~ ~

Date

The Honorable Hillary R. Clinton Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520

PETITION: Revised Q21 for the Foreign Service

We, the undersigned call on the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton upon assumption into office, to reaffirm that the Department of State strongly endorses the practice of seeking professional help to address all health- related concerns whether mental or physical; to also reaffirm that the Department of State considers it a mark of strength and maturity to seek appropriate health care whenever required; and to make clear that seeking professional care for mental health issues in and itself is not a reason to revoke or deny an individual’s security clearance. This is important in the Foreign Service, whose members are exposed to traumatic events with psychological impact not only in conflict zones but also in diplomatic hardship assignments worldwide.

Nearly 60% of our Foreign Service personnel are at posts considered by the U.S.Government as "hardship" due to difficult living conditions (for example, violent crime, harsh climate, social isolation, unhealthy air, and/or terrorist threats). Of those hardship posts, half are rated at or above the 15-percent differential level which constitutes great hardship, and where family members are unable to accompany such assignments.

In April 2008, the Secretary of Defense has successfully advocated the revision of Question 21 of the SF-86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions, which asks about mental health treatment. The revised question excludes counseling related to marital, family or grief issues, unless related to violence by the applicant/employee. It also rules out counseling for adjustments from service in a military combat environment. The OSD guidance also points out that failure to seek care increases the likelihood that psychological distress could escalate to a more serious mental condition, which could preclude an individual from performing sensitive duties.

Your immediate predecessor has not released a similar affirmation to encourage the treatment of PTSD and other related mental health issues. The Concerned Foreign Service Officers has noted “the continued revocations of security clearances based on mental health treatment - a practice that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security routinely perpetuates even after DOD and OPM have agreed not to count certain types of treatment, e.g. for PTSD, against the employee.”

The organization of the 21^st century will be judged by the wholeness of its people. The first step to getting us there is to help ensure that Foreign Service officers, specialists, and family members and partners obtain the help they need without fear that such consultation/treatment jeopardizes their security clearance and employment.

Sincerely, Employees, Family Members/Partners and Friends of the U.S.Foreign Service

Your name/signature:

Collect five more names/signatures

Name/signature 1:

Name/signature 2:

Name/signature 3:

Name/signature 4:

Name/signature 5:

References:

Office of the Secretary of Defense - Revised Q21 http://www.army.mil/docs/OSD_Guidance_on_Revised_Q21.pdf

Concerned Foreign Service Officers Warning On Mental Health Treatment http://www.emaxhealth.com/7/11720.html

Foreign Service Journal January 2008: Focus on PTSD and the Foreign Service http://www.afsa.org/fsj/2008.cfm

Executive Order 10450 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.html

Executive Order 12968 http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/eo12968.asp

~ ~ ~ Download: Petition in Word (if you want to insert your own story) Petition in PDF Sorry I don't have a mail budget so the stamp is on you :-). Please mail signed petition to:

Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520 Many thanks for your help!

On the Infamous Q21, PTSD and the Wholeness of People in the Foreign Service

Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that applicants for government security clearances will no longer have to declare whether they sought mental health counseling after serving in combat zones. He emphasized while talking to reporters at a new PTSD center at Fort Bliss, Texas, that the troops’ psychiatric counseling for wartime mental health problems is "not going to count against them" if they apply for national security clearances for sensitive jobs. The announcement received wide media coverage. You can read the coverage by AP, WaPo, and Air Force Link by clicking on each hyperlink here.

The new policy revises the infamous Question 21 on the SF-86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions. The revised question excludes counseling related to marital, family, or grief issues, unless related to violence by the applicant. It also excludes counseling for adjustments from service in a military combat environment. You can read the official guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense dated April 18, 2008 here (the link will open as PDF file). The WaPo report also indicates that this change will apply not only to military and civilian employees of the Department of Defense but also to all applicants for security clearances.

Hmmn …. I’ve looked at that guidance from OSD and it was only addressed to all military components . I’ve scoured the net for a similar guidance from OPM addressed to other Federal agencies but so far have come up empty. I’ve searched state.gov – nada (could not also find any easy reference to post traumatic stress disorder there).

In January this year, AFSA’s Foreign Service Journal did devote an entire issue on PTSD or post traumatic stress disorder in the Foreign Service. It also included a sidebar containing a joint State Department M/DG/DS Press Guidance dated May 4, 2007 about mental health and security clearance (see below):

Q: Does seeking mental health treatment following service in Iraq or Afghanistan jeopardize one’s security clearance?

Seeking mental health treatment following service in Iraq or Afghanistan does not jeopardize one’s security clearance. To suggest so is not only incorrect, but does a disservice to our employees who have served so admirably in these dangerous assignments. In fact, in October 2004, the department issued a notice to employees titled “Mental Health Counseling and Your Security Clearance,” specifically stating that concerns about their security clearance should not deter any employee from seeking professional assistance.

Q: What is our reaction to the warning issued by the “Concerned Foreign Service Officers” to Foreign Service officers regarding seeking mental health care?

The warning issued by Concerned Foreign Service Officers to Foreign Service officers regarding seeking mental health care is completely unfounded. Furthermore, the department considers this “warning,” which has no basis in fact, detrimental to the health of our employees.

The group referred to in the second question runs an open blog called, Dead Men Working and they have written about the security clearance and PTSD recently here and here. This issue was a gut-wrenching read because anyone in the FS could easily imagine oneself in such a position, have friends who've been through this and could not rule this out as a potential affliction in everyone's card. Below are selected excerpts from the FSJ issue.

Kristin K. Loken was a Foreign Service officer with theU.S. Agency for International Development from 1980 to 2001. She served in El Salvador during the civil war, Lebanon, West Bank/Gaza, Eritrea and India. You can read her entire story here (document will open in PDF file):

"In late 1981, after two-and-a-half years in this war zone, I returned to Washington. It took several weeks before I realized I wasn’t getting back to normal. I still jumped at loud noises and saw dead bodies on desks at work at the State Department. Strong emotions would come and go without any relevance to what was happening around me. I had regular nightmares about running away from uniformed men with guns trying to kill me. Sometimes I would also have what I called “daymares.” I would encounter a person at work in a meeting and see them suddenly fall victim to some horrible trauma — a car wreck, a shooting, a bomb explosion. These daymares struck quickly, then disappeared, leaving me sitting in a meeting not knowing what I had missed."

"I went to my boss and told her I thought I was going through some postwar emotional problems and asked if the State Department or USAID had some counseling services available. She said she was sympathetic but thought senior people would probably frown on my having emotional problems, and advised that disclosing my condition might negatively affect my eventual tenuring with USAID. So it would be best to keep a “stiff upper lip.” Her advice was to see a private therapist, for which she would give me as much administrative leave as I needed."

"As I tried to regain normal functioning, I noticed that my mouth wouldn’t work right; I couldn’t talk properly and could hardly communicate with people around me. There was a great deal going on inside my head, but it had no relevance to what was going on in the world around me. I could answer a direct question in a few words, but then could not say anything more for long periods of time. I didn’t feel sad; I didn’t feel happy. Often I didn’t seem to feel anything at all. "

Rachel Schneller joined the Foreign Service in 2001, serving in Skopje, Conakry and Basrah, where she was a Provincial Action Officer from 2005 to 2006. You can read her entire story here (document will open in PDF file):

"It has taken enormous amounts of energy and effort to endure and withstand PTSD treatment. To hazard a comparison to something I know nothing about, I would compare the process to learning how to walk again after a major car accident while kicking a cocaine habit. It was something I did because the only alternative I had was to go through life in a zombie-like state of misery and despair, and I didn’t like that alternative."

"In June 2006, after having worked in Basrah for several months, I took leave to return to Washington for a few weeks. A Foreign Service National employee in my office had been murdered, and I’d dreamed of hanging myself from my office light fixture. During leave, I asked the Medical Services Bureau for help and they referred me to an in-house social worker. While telling him about the whole horrible situation, including the dream about killing myself, I broke down in sobs. The social worker was nice but offered me no actual treatment. He did not refer me to a psychiatrist for an evaluation; he did not offer me medication for my depression; and he did not address my thoughts of suicide. Disappointed, but fearful of being labeled a “quitter” or worse, I chose to return to Iraq."

"After all I’d been through, I was grateful to be home alive and in one piece, reunited with family and friends. But soon I just stopped functioning normally. I was unable to sleep. I started getting lost on my way home from work, waking up in a sort of fugue state blocks away from my apartment in Georgetown. I don’t remember precisely how, but I burned myself several times so badly that I scarred — yet I didn’t feel it. I only noticed the burns the next day. Rage overwhelmed me. I nearly attacked another person in one of my FSI training classes, but walked out of the class in time and had a meltdown in the bathroom. (That poor woman had no idea how close she came to being strangled by me for making a completely innocent comment.)"

And then there was the story of a senior FSO whose name was withheld by the Journal. The anonymous writer was not suffering from PTSD but something more common than we’d think – depression. Below are selected excerpts of his account on seeking help, and getting entangled with the security and medical clearance process within the State Department. You can read the entire account here (document will open in PDF file):

"His first question was whether anything had changed since I had submitted the online form, and I mentioned my weekly counseling sessions and the antidepressants. He just nodded in a kindly fashion. Imagine my surprise when, last April, I received an e-mail from a security officer in Washington. It demanded that I ask the regional psychiatrist to answer a set of questions fully within the next 10 days, and warned me that my medical condition could “affect [my] security clearance eligibility or suitability for employment.”

The FSO eventually had his clearance renewed for five years but further writes:

“The department’s handling of mental health treatment surprised me once again during my recent medical clearance exam. I learned that I would receive a Class II medical clearance because I am on antidepressants. I had assumed that treating my depression with medication would be on par with treating my osteoporosis with medication, as other people treat their diabetes, high cholesterol or high blood pressure with prescription drugs. Instead of applauding me for tackling my problem head-on, however, State seems to prefer that I go off my meds and become the unhappy, less productive, less collegial employee I was a year ago. No wonder so many FSOs are in bad moods!"

Considering that State has its own clearance process and is a separate agency from DOD, I’m waiting for revised guidance for State Department personnel from Secretary Rice herself. Uhm, no offense intended; the guidance from “M” or “DGHR” or “DS” is fine but I don’t think that really cuts the cake here.

I’d like to see the Department of State, at the highest level of the 7th Floor, affirm and strongly endorse the practice of seeking professional help to address all health related concerns, including mental health. The press guidance above only refers to service in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about service in the rest of the FS hardship assignments? The emotional toll of constant moving and relocation coupled with dangerous and challenging assignments is not something that we can or should ignore. Depression is a real cloud in our midst and unless we want a bunch of dysfunctional individuals running around trying to do their jobs, we must ensure that people get appropriate help without fear that their jobs could be jeopardized.

At a chance of being accused as having a “me, too” mentality here, I would like to see the Department of State, like DOD, publicly articulate that it considers seeking appropriate healthcare, including mental health care, whenever needed, as a mark of strength and maturity (and not a sign of weakness and deficiency). Clear guidance from Secretary Rice similar to the one released by Secretary Gates would help ensure that all the moving parts of the State Department are on the same page. We cannot leave to chance the possibility that Q21 would be parsed and interpreted in many different ways by the employees or the clearance issuance arm.

The organization of the 21^st century will be judged by the wholeness of its people. Here’s the first step to getting us there.

- - - Available Online Resources:

Returning from the War Zone – Guide for Families of Military Members (PDF file with some information useful to returning Foreign Service Members)

A Guide to Managing Stress in Crisis Response Professions

National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

PTSD - National Institute of Mental Health

PTSD Sanctuary - Resources