Security Clearance Denial

Rampant Sex and Use of Drugs Results in Clearance Revocation

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

The contractor was required to fill out an SF-86 in 2018 for a periodic reinvestigation on which he did not list any illegal drug use. During his interview with the background investigator in June 2019, he again denied any drug use. It was not until a few months later, when he realized he had signed a medical release to allow access to his psychiatrist’s records who knew about his history of illegal drug use, that he came forth and reported his use of methamphetamines and marijuana during sexual encounters with random people he met online. This included having sex in hotels, public restrooms, parks, and adult bookstores. Additional information about the full extent of his sexual activity and illegal drug use came out, along with a diagnosis of having a Bipolar Level II Disorder.

In his appeal, the contractor stated that he no longer uses illegal drugs after completing an awareness program, attended Sex Addicts Anonymous meetings, and had his medication adjusted for his disorder which has stabilized his moods. The contractor also met with a psychologist for an extensive evaluation who opined his monogamy for three months prior suggests he has mastered his sexual impulses. The DOHA judge, on the other hand, was of a different opinion on the matter and stated, “Thirty years of problematic conduct is not enough to convince me that the applicant’s psychological issues are not yet mitigated”. This was an easy one for the judge to uphold the denial. You can read the entire case summary here.


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

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

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

  4. This.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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