The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2016

48 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL are screamed at, publicly humiliated, never thanked and blamed (to senior staff) for the boss’s own bad decisions. Staff who had always gone the extra mile stopped doing so, sick days rose and some left—all as a result of one manager’s behavior. The front office did nothing, calling it “communication misunderstand- ings.” Several people would have been tempted to get mental health counseling had they known about it. But privacy was a big concern. The guy would look for anything at all to use against us. Even with complaints and documentation, the lack of action from anyone was appalling. Human resources experts say that an organization has to change its culture if it is having problems in an area. When State does not actively intervene in cases of abusive behavior, manag- ers are given the impression that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. Even if victims get mental health care after- wards, the damage has been done. Fromwhat I hear, the problem is getting worse and more widespread. It doesn’t have to be this way. Instead of sending out feel-good cables on workplace atmosphere and bullying, put policies in place that have real teeth. A zero-tolerance policy for workplace bullies, administered neutrally and enforced by D.C., would lead to an instant decrease in unacceptable behaviors and the resulting damage they cause. Make it like soccer. If you get a yellow card, you get mandatory management and anger counseling. Get a red card and you’re automatically not considered for promotion for a year or two. Two red cards, and you’re out for the rest of the match/tour. We can’t help violence or chaos outside the embassy doors. What goes on inside, that we can fix. Thanks, this is an issue which really needs to be addressed. a ISO Work-Life Balance I ’m very concerned about the mental health support offered to members of the Foreign Service and eligible family mem- bers. A few years ago I was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). I was fortunate—I was at a post with an eligible family member (EFM) working as a nurse practitioner. I had discussed my mental health with the regional psychiatrist during his visits, but he just gave me Xanax and told me panic attacks were normal. He asked me about work-related stress, but reported the results of our meetings with post leadership, contributing to my stress. QUESTION 21: THE BASICS When it comes to filling out the required Standard Form 86, “Questionnaire for National Security Positions,” nothing causes more angst than the so-called “Question 21” (actually Section 21 on the 127-page form). SF 86 is the federal security clearance application form, which you may also know as e-QIP, the online Elec- tronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing. Sec- tion 21 is the place where you are asked about whether you have had or are in mental health counseling. Section 21 has been revised some 10 times since the 1950s, and it is still evolving and under regular review. The latest update included a third exempt category: mental health care related to being a victim of sexual assault. The Section 21 language currently in effect, as of December 2015, reads as follows: Section 21 – Psychological and Emotional Health Mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a clearance. In the last seven (7) years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition? Answer “No” if the counseling was for any of the following reasons and was not court-ordered: (1) strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or (2) strictly related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment. Please respond to this question with the following additional instruction: Victims of sexual assault who have consulted with the health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition during this period strictly in relation to the sexual assault are instructed to answer “No.” If you answer “Yes,” then you fill out the rest of Sec- tion 21, including dates of counseling, provider names and contact information. That does not, however, give Diplomatic Security permission to contact those provid- ers. DS reviews the file and determines whether a MED review is needed; if so, the case is referred to the MED psychologists who work exclusively on clearance issues. MED then decides whether they need more informa- tion; if they do, MED notifies the employee and asks her or him to sign a release allowing MED to contact the mental health provider for a summary report. According to MED, no provider is contacted without the release. —Shawn Dorman