I What the list covers
Reporting obligations for cleared people come from SEAD 3. Read the list and the pattern is immediate: every item is about your own conduct, contacts or circumstances.
Arrests. Involvement in criminal activity. Foreign contacts and travel. Financial changes that could create pressure. Treatment related to alcohol or drug use. Unofficial media contact about classified matters.
A clearance assesses judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. Someone committing a crime against you says nothing about any of the three.
Calling the police for help is not a reportable activity. Seeking protection is not a reportable activity. Being named as the protected party in a court order is not your conduct.
The fear is understandable and it is also, in the ordinary case, misplaced. The cost of not calling is real and immediate. The clearance cost of calling is, for a victim, zero.
II What genuinely is reportable
| Reportable | Note |
|---|---|
| Your arrest | Even if minor, dropped or dismissed |
| Involvement in criminal activity | Charged or not |
| Significant financial change | Bankruptcy, judgment, garnishment |
| Alcohol or drug treatment | At any access level |
Also foreign contacts and travel, unofficial media contact, and changes in personal status such as marriage or cohabitation. Timeframes are set by your agency and are short — report promptly rather than waiting to see how something resolves.
Failing to report is almost always a worse problem than the thing itself. Prompt disclosure is read as candour, which is a mitigating factor; concealment goes to personal conduct, which is not.
III The one real intersection
There is a single place where calling for help and your reporting obligations genuinely meet, and it is worth knowing in advance rather than discovering at the time.
Dual arrest
If you are arrested, that is reportable. Even if you believe it was wrong. Even if no charges are ever filed. Even if everything is dismissed.
An arrest reported promptly, with context, is a situation security offices deal with regularly. An arrest discovered later through continuous vetting that you did not report is a different and much worse conversation.
If this happens: report it within your agency’s window, and get legal advice before you write the statement.
IV Counselling and Question 21
This is where most of the fear actually sits, and the form answers it directly. Question 21 of the SF-86 states that mental health counselling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a clearance.
More than that, it tells you to answer “No” where the counselling was strictly related to:
- Marital or family issues — not court-ordered, and not related to violence by you
- Grief
- Being a victim of sexual assault
- Adjustment from service in a military combat environment
Those exceptions exist precisely because people were avoiding treatment out of fear. A “Yes” cannot by itself deny an interim clearance, and the fuller treatment of the form is in completing the SF-86.
Seeking care is treated as responsible. A favourable prognosis from a treating professional is a recognised mitigating factor. And refusing needed treatment can itself be a concern under the psychological conditions guideline.
The calculation most people make here runs backwards.
V Who may ask you what
Commanders, supervisors and security managers are not authorised to ask you — or anyone else — about psychological health care disclosed under Question 21, for purposes unrelated to the suitability or national security determination.
You do not have to answer unauthorised questioning about it, and improper questions can carry consequences for the person asking. Information about mental health treatment is handled on a strict need-to-know basis.
That matters in a situation where the person causing you harm is a colleague, or where you simply do not want your chain of command to know your business. The rules are on your side here.
VI Where to get help
| Resource | Detail |
|---|---|
| Emergency | 911 |
| National Domestic Violence Hotline | 1-800-799-7233, or text START to 88788 |
| Your agency’s EAP | Free, confidential, and not reportable |
The Employee Assistance Program is the one most federal employees forget they have. It is confidential, it costs nothing, it typically covers counselling sessions plus legal and financial referrals, and using it is not a reportable activity.
Your agency may also offer safety-related accommodations — a schedule change, a different work location, a parking arrangement, help with workplace security. Those are handled through HR or your supervisor as a workplace matter, entirely separately from anything to do with your clearance.
If you are unsure whether something in your situation is reportable, you may ask your security officer in the abstract — what the policy covers, what the window is — without naming anyone or describing the incident.
Agency supplements differ, so the answer for your agency is the one that matters.
What the reporting rules reach
Every item is about your own conduct.
What is actually true
- Calling the police for help is not reportable.
- Being a victim of a crime is not reportable.
- Your own arrest is reportable, even if charges are dropped.
- If you are arrested, report promptly and get legal advice first.
- Counselling strictly for family, grief or sexual assault can be answered “No” on Q21.
- Supervisors may not question you about Q21 disclosures.
- Refusing needed treatment is itself a potential concern.
- EAP is free, confidential and not reportable.
Questions
Calling the police for help is not a reportable event and is not among the adjudicative concerns. The reporting requirements in Security Executive Agent Directive 3 concern your own conduct and contacts: arrests, criminal involvement, certain foreign contacts and travel, significant financial changes, treatment for alcohol or drug use. Nothing on that list is triggered by being the person who needed help or by seeking protection. If you are in danger, call.
No. The reportable activities are things you did, or contacts and circumstances that could create leverage over you. Having a crime committed against you is neither. A clearance assesses your judgment, reliability and trustworthiness, and being harmed by someone else says nothing about any of those. Agencies may have their own supplemental policies, so if you are unsure, you can ask your security officer a hypothetical question without naming anyone.
Chiefly your own arrest or involvement in criminal activity, even where charges are minor, later dropped or dismissed. Also significant financial changes such as bankruptcy or a judgment, treatment related to alcohol or drug use, certain foreign contacts and foreign travel, unofficial media contact about classified matters, and changes in personal status such as marriage or cohabitation. Timeframes are set by your agency and are short, so if something on that list happens, the sensible move is to report it promptly rather than wait to see how it resolves.
Then the arrest is reportable even if you believe it was wrong, even if charges are never filed, and even if everything is later dismissed. Some jurisdictions make dual arrests where both parties are taken in. That is the one real intersection between calling for help and your clearance obligations, and it is a reason to speak to a lawyer early rather than a reason not to call. Reporting promptly is itself treated as candour, and failing to report is a far more serious problem than the underlying event usually is.
An order that protects you is a different thing from an order against you, and the reporting rules are concerned with your own conduct. Many agencies ask about involvement in legal proceedings in broad terms, and agency supplements vary, so if your situation involves a court order of any kind the straightforward approach is to ask your security officer what their policy covers. You can do that without disclosing details of the underlying incident.
Often not. Question 21 of the SF-86 instructs you to answer No where the counselling was strictly related to marital or family issues not court-ordered and not related to violence by you, to grief, to adjustment from service in a military combat environment, or to being a victim of sexual assault. The form itself states that mental health counselling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a clearance, and a Yes answer cannot by itself deny an interim clearance.
Generally not. Guidance states that commanders, supervisors and security managers are not authorised to ask an applicant or anyone else about psychological health care revealed in response to Question 21 for purposes unrelated to the suitability or national security determination, and that individuals do not have to answer unauthorised questioning about it. Improper questions can themselves have consequences for the person asking.
No, and the guidelines point the other way. Seeking care is treated as responsible, a favourable prognosis from a treating professional is a recognised mitigating factor, and refusing needed treatment can itself be a concern under the psychological conditions guideline. The fear that getting help will cost you a clearance is the thing the exceptions in Question 21 were written to address, and it is a far more common reason people lose eligibility than treatment ever is.