The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

agents, and to contractors, instructing them not to have fur- ther contact with a particular for- eign national. Yet I never received such an order (either written or verbal). DS has never asked me to sign such an order or provided an explanation for why they have not done so. Searching for Dirt Meanwhile, in the ongoing inquiry being conducted on me, DS employees have engaged in inappropriate behavior and an improper line of questioning directed against the Foreign Service National in question. Topics included lewd and perverse sexual references about her and me. Recently, the FSN was badgered so much in interviews, and coerced to make verbal and written statements under duress, that she responded by filing a formal sexual harassment com- plaint with department EEO officials. DS’s techniques do not appear to be geared toward ascertaining the truth or discovering alerting CI concerns in protecting U.S. national security, but are instead focused on obtaining sexual innuendo and gossip or employing any method or tactic to ensure my security clearance is revoked. What purpose does this serve? I am also troubled how both DS and the depart- ment’s Office of Medical Services handled DS’s referral of me to MED in connection with my security clear- ance. Throughout the course of this investigation, I have been totally honest, open and forthright in dis- closing medical treatment I had been undergoing at my last post and have continued to date while back in Washington. In fact, I was able to do my job at post even while undergoing treatment and performed at an outstanding level, as documented by my supervisors. No limitations were ever placed on me and I per- formed my full duties, including providing protective security for the U.S. ambassador. My current private doctor, who has treated me since I have been back in Washington, notes that I am fine and fit for law enforcement duties including overseas. So one can imagine how astonished I was when I discovered that MED made an initial E.O. 10450 determination that undermined my efforts to regain my security clearance. MED acted solely on the basis of a suspect DS Report of Investigation that was factually incorrect. It never even bothered to call me in for a face-to-face con- sultation; nor was my private doc- tor ever contacted. My AFSA legal representative successfully pushed DS to request another E.O. 10450 determination from MED in order to obtain input from my private doctor. This time, the determination was posi- tive and was communicated to DS. But doubts remain in my mind. I ask the question, is DS still considering my medical condition as derogatory information to use in proposing revocation of my clearance? Conflicts of Interest DS’s proposed revocation of my clearance also relies in part on the statements of two colleagues at my last post who were assigned to the same office that took part in investigating me. In fact, one of the sources sat in on many of the interview sessions and participated in asking me questions. I believe that this first source cannot be objective in rendering an opinion about my understanding of security clearance responsibilities. This first source, meanwhile, was directly supervising the second source, who also provided a negative rec- ommendation. I believe that the second source could not serve as an objective source, either, due to the fact that the first source was her rating officer. Nevertheless, I was curtailed from post, my security clearance has been suspended, and I have been reas- signed to non-sensitive duties for two years now while awaiting resolution of the DS investigation. I have shared my plight with AFSA and my congressional rep- resentative and requested them to intervene with DS on my behalf. Over the last two years, I have sent e- mails and letters to DS senior management seeking prompt resolution of my case and providing my version of events. They never answered me, nor even acknowl- edged my queries. For a 18-year DS veteran like myself, who has served at several hardship posts and received outstand- ing evaluations and various department awards, this is the greatest hurt: that my own organization treats me in such a manner. Investigators have engaged in inappropriate behavior and an improper line of questioning. F O C U S S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 63