Opinion ID: 743575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: dod background

Text: 12 DOD regulations stipulate that a person is eligible for access to classified information or for placement in a position deemed to be sensitive only if based on all available information, the person's loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that entrusting the person with classified information or assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security. 32 C.F.R. § 154.6(b). Incumbent employees may be subject to reinvestigation to examine their fitness for continued employment. To evaluate a person's fitness for employment in a position with access to classified information or in a position designated critical sensitive, DOD has used questionnaires known as the DD Form 398 and the DD Form 398-2 (DD Forms) which have recently been superseded by the Standard Form 86 (SF 86). Failure to provide requested information might result in the denial of security clearance and/or removal from a sensitive position. 13 Individual employees and the AFGE brought suit alleging that the DD Forms violate the employees' constitutional right to privacy, their fifth amendment right against selfincrimination, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The individual plaintiffs, all incumbent civilian employees of DOD, include a cement finisher at Robins Air Force Base, a sheet metal worker at Robins, and an administrative contracting officer. 14 The challenged items on the DD forms include a question regarding financial history which asks: 15 a. Have you ever filed a petition under any chapter of the bankruptcy code (to include Chapter 13)? 16 b. Have you ever had your wages garnished or anything repossessed? 17 c. Have you ever had a lien placed upon your property for failing to pay taxes? 18 d. Do you have any judgment against you which you have not paid? 19 e. Are you now or have you been significantly delinquent on debts (Paid more than 120 days from scheduled payment due date)? Another challenged question asks: 20 a. Have you ever been arrested, charged, cited, held, or detained by Federal, State, or other law enforcement or juvenile authorities regardless of whether the charge [326 U.S.App.D.C. 189] was dropped or dismissed or you were found not guilty? 21 DOD considers an employee's arrest record even when the record has been expunged. 32 C.F.R. pt. 154, App. H. A question regarding substance abuse asks: 22 a. Have you ever tried or used or possessed any narcotic (to include heroin or cocaine), depressant (to include quaaludes), stimulant, hallucinogen (to include LSD or PCP), or cannabis (to include marijuana or hashish), or any mind-altering substance (to include glue or paint), even one time or on an experimental basis, except as prescribed by a licensed physician? 23 b. Have you ever been involved in the illegal purchase, manufacture, trafficking, production, or sale of any narcotic, depressant, stimulant, hallucinogen, or cannabis? 24 c. Have you ever misused or abused any drug prescribed by a licensed physician for yourself or for someone else? 25 d. Has your use of alcoholic beverages (such as liquor, beer, wine) ever resulted in the loss of a job, disciplinary action, arrest by police, or any alcohol-related treatment or counseling (such as for alcohol abuse or alcoholism)? 26 DOD also poses questions regarding the mental health of the employee: 27 e. Have you ever been treated for a mental, emotional, psychological, or personality disorder/condition/problem? 28 f. Have you ever consulted or been counseled by any mental health professional? 29 Finally, the DD Forms require individuals to sign a release authorizing 30 any duly accredited representative of the Department of Defense ... to obtain any information relating to my activities from individuals, schools, residential management agents, employers, criminal justice agencies, financial or lending institutions, credit bureaus, consumer reporting agencies, retail business establishments, medical institutions, hospitals or other repositories of medical records. This information may include, but is not limited to, my academic, residential, achievement, performance, attendance, personal history, disciplinary, criminal history record, arrest, conviction, medical, psychiatric/psychological, and financial and credit information. 31 The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the administration of the questionnaire. This court reversed in NFFE v. Greenberg, 983 F.2d 286 (D.C.Cir.1993), holding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their facial attack. The plaintiffs then amended their complaint and the government moved to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. While the action was pending, the DD Forms were superseded by the SF 86 effective January 1, 1996. The SF 86 provides that answers to the drug use question will not be used in subsequent criminal proceedings and limits inquiries regarding financial history, drug use, and mental health to the past 7 years. The district court then issued an opinion dismissing the AFGE for lack of standing because the class was not sufficiently tailored. With regard to the claims of the individual plaintiffs, the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the question whether the government could compel disclosure of expunged criminal history. The court held that this information was relevant to trustworthiness but that there was a strong individual privacy interest in resisting disclosure. The district court permitted the substance abuse question only for two plaintiffs who had previously reported substance abuse to DOD and had taken related leaves of absence. As for the other plaintiffs, the district court concluded that there was not a sufficient nexus between the positions occupied by the plaintiffs and the dangers cited by the government. The court disposed of the mental health question similarly, permitting it to be asked only of the plaintiffs with a background of substance abuse. With one exception the court held that the interest of the plaintiffs in financial privacy outweighed the government's interest in obtaining the information; the court permitted the questions to be posed only to a contract warrant officer with authority to bind the government. In regard to the release form, the district court held that the release form could not be constitutionally required of any of the plaintiffs. Because [326 U.S.App.D.C. 190] none of the plaintiffs was in a position to pose a direct threat to national security, so vast an intrusion by the government could not be justified. Finally, the court held that the illegal drug use question on the SF 86 would not violate the Fifth Amendment because it contains the equivalent of a use immunity statement. Because the DD Forms did not contain such a statement, the court held that their use was unconstitutional. The government filed the instant appeal. Because the questionnaires administered by HUD and DOD raise similar issues, we decided to hear the cases together.