Question 21: Does it punish troops who are victims of sexual assault?

Question 21 on applications for troops seeking national-security jobs asks if the applicant has ever needed any mental-health counseling. Troops with post-traumatic stress disorder or martial problems are exempted. Victims of military sexual assault are not. 

|
Carolyn Kaster/AP/File
Former Marine Corps officer Ariana Klay is one of eight current and former members of the US military who allege in a new federal lawsuit that they were raped, assaulted, or harassed during their service and suffered retaliation when they reported it to their superiors. Other women say they have been punished for seeking counseling after being raped.

When Tech Sgt. Jennifer Norris was raped during her time in the Army, she sought help in the form of counseling and antidepressants. 

But years later, as she contemplated a switch to a new job within the National Guard, that decision to seek counseling for sexual assault put her security clearance – and her job – in jeopardy. 

The issue was “Question 21,” which asks anyone applying for a national security-related job: “In the last seven years, have you consulted with a mental health professional (psychiatrist, counselor, etc.) ... about a mental health related condition?”

US troops can answer “no” to the question – even if they have received counseling – so long as the therapy was for post-traumatic stress resulting from battle, marital strife due to war-related separation, or grief counseling from losing a fellow soldier.

But not for victims of military sexual assault, and advocacy groups are now pushing to change that. 

The Service Woman’s Action Network (SWAN) was alerted to concerns surrounding Question 21 after receiving phone calls from sexual-assault victims afraid of losing their security clearances after seeking counseling. 

Those troops “are literally hanging on and white-knuckling this process out of fear that their careers will be jeopardized along with any future civilian job prospects,” says Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine officer and executive director of SWAN.

For her part, Ms. Norris stopped taking antidepressants “to safeguard my career,” she explains. “I had to keep going on and off medication because I didn’t want it to show up on my drug test.”

She paid for counselors out of pocket in the hopes the military would never find out. It was expensive, however, “so I couldn’t get the consistent counseling I needed.”

When she ultimately acknowledged on Question 21 that she was receiving counseling and on medication, she was suspended without pay and medically discharged from the military. “It was ultimately because I was taking care of myself after being raped that I lost my career,” she says. “I love my country. I want to serve.” 

At the Capitol Hill office of Rep. Chellie Pingree (D) of Maine, communications director Willy Ritch estimates that the office gets phone calls “on a nearly daily basis” from constituents concerned about how Question 21 might impact their careers.  

Under pressure from veterans groups and lawmakers, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a letter to Congresswoman Pingree last month that the office would not create another exemption for Question 21.

Mr. Clapper instead promised to “revise the question completely.” Just what form that revision will take remains to be seen.

The security form “is intended to gather relevant information about an individual so that an adjudicator may make an informed judgment about the individual’s ability to maintain our nation’s secrets,” Mr. Clapper wrote to Pingree. “As we evaluate Q21, we will tailor the question in a manner such that it provides the government with the information it needs, while taking into account an individual’s privacy interests.” 

Ms. Bhagwati said in a statement that while SWAN is heartened by the decision to review Question 21, the organization is “not thrilled about the tone of Director Clapper’s letter.” 

That’s because, in 2008, “when deciding to exempt combat-related counseling, there was no talk of security concerns trumping privacy. The only consideration then, as it should be now, was what was best for the health of the troops.” 

Says Pingree of the DNI’s decision to revise the question, “I’m going to withhold final judgment until I’ve seen the new wording.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Question 21: Does it punish troops who are victims of sexual assault?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0403/Question-21-Does-it-punish-troops-who-are-victims-of-sexual-assault
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe