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