Type 2 Lost Job due to Restrictions imposed due to Diabetes 'Unfair'?....

[Hendricks#55]

Hi - First post - Looking for advice and help - I am a Type 2 fully controlled with pills and doing OK . However recently I applied and was offered a senior management job requiring SV security clearance which I received but came with caveats due to the perceived risk from the Security Vetting people (quoting the Cabinet office 'rules' but these have not been shared....). The new employer could not work with restrictions so lost the job.... I am in contact with the Security Vetting people seeking clarification but getting nowhere.. So question is there any suggestion on where to go with what I believe is an unfair restriction? Thanks in advance Garry

 

[Mr_Pot]

Hi - First post - Looking for advice and help - I am a Type 2 fully controlled with pills and doing OK . However recently I applied and was offered a senior management job requiring SV security clearance which I received but came with caveats due to the perceived risk from the Security Vetting people (quoting the Cabinet office 'rules' but these have not been shared....). The new employer could not work with restrictions so lost the job.... I am in contact with the Security Vetting people seeking clarification but getting nowhere.. So question is there any suggestion on where to go with what I believe is an unfair restriction? Thanks in advance Garry

What makes you think this is related to your diabetes?

 

[ickihun]

A good union man/woman can apply for the why; so....... you can too. All of it.

 

[Rachox]

If you are comfortable to say can you just tell us what pills you take? I was just wondering if they are one of the ones that carry a risk of hypo? And would this therefore compromise your ability to do the job in question?

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Hi - First post - Looking for advice and help - I am a Type 2 fully controlled with pills and doing OK . However recently I applied and was offered a senior management job requiring SV security clearance which I received but came with caveats due to the perceived risk from the Security Vetting people (quoting the Cabinet office 'rules' but these have not been shared....). The new employer could not work with restrictions so lost the job.... I am in contact with the Security Vetting people seeking clarification but getting nowhere.. So question is there any suggestion on where to go with what I believe is an unfair restriction? Thanks in advance Garry

Are you sure that it was SV?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/security-vetting-and-clearance
"
There are 3 security levels:

• Counter Terrorist Check (CTC): is carried out if an individual is working in proximity to public figures, or requires unescorted access to certain military, civil, industrial or commercial establishments assessed to be at particular risk from terrorist attack
• Security Check (SC): determines that a person’s character and personal circumstances are such that they can be trusted to work in a position which involves long-term, frequent and uncontrolled access to SECRET assets
• Developed Vetting: (DV) in addition to SC, this detailed check is appropriate when an individual has long term, frequent and uncontrolled access to ‘Top Secret’ information. There is also Enhanced DV

"

So more likely SC or DV?

A while since I looked at this and they keep changing the names; I think the lowest check used to be Basic Check or BC.

Regardless, I don't know of any reason that T2 controlled by pills (but which pills?) should affect security clearance.

Perhaps you could tell us what medication you are on?

It is possible that if you are on a medication which carries the risk of hypoglycemia there are certain duties (including but not only driving) which might cause issues. For example being sole person on site out of hours.

In which case it would be an operational thing (like working a crane or driving a forklift) and not a security clearance thing.

 

[DCUKMod]

Hi - First post - Looking for advice and help - I am a Type 2 fully controlled with pills and doing OK . However recently I applied and was offered a senior management job requiring SV security clearance which I received but came with caveats due to the perceived risk from the Security Vetting people (quoting the Cabinet office 'rules' but these have not been shared....). The new employer could not work with restrictions so lost the job.... I am in contact with the Security Vetting people seeking clarification but getting nowhere.. So question is there any suggestion on where to go with what I believe is an unfair restriction? Thanks in advance Garry

Garry - As someone who has been through a PV process in the past, both as the subject and as a referee, it can be quite something.

I'm unsure whether you would be able to access any of the records of the process would be available to you via a Subject Access Request, under GDPR. It would be very useful to see their audit trrail and notes on their rationale.

If you are a member of a union, you could consult with them, or put in a call to ACAS, although the nature of your query could be quite specialised.

I would be utterly astonished if a government department didn't have policies and procedures written up. I don't know if this job was a sort of civil service internal move or as an outsider moving it, but I would formally ask to see the relevant documentation. If they won't agree, I'd ask them which legislation prevents their compliance with your request.

At this point in time, would you accept the job, if they changed their decision? That last bit isn't any of my business, but it probably might influence how far you might be willing to dig your heels in.

 

[dipsydo]

I am not a lawyer so these are just my thoughts. I cannot see how diabetes can make a difference to security and what could be the security concerns . If Mrs May as a type one Diabetic could be PM and that would have involved the highest security, a type 2 who is on tablets I would think should not be an issue. Maybe you should mention to the security people that the Ex PM was a type 1 and ask them to explain what they think are the issue with you. If they hold their line then maybe you can suggest you may be making a claim of discrimation and that you need them to explain their reasoning as sometimes just suggesting there may be the discrimation will get someone who has got more common sense involved in the decision . It may just be a simple misunderstanding .
You could go an organisation like citizens advice to ask their view.

 

[Marie 2]

It seems like it probably depends a lot on what medication you are on. Because say it's a position where you have to drive off suddenly but you are having a low so you can't? Or maybe you have to defend or protect someone and a low could interfere?
Think about it, if you are a bodyguard for Mrs May and you have to rush her off stage, but because of a low you had to eat something and you are not there? Or if you are in the middle of a dessert and you have to take a certain medication by a certain time but are in the middle of a dessert?

So you would need to know why they turned you down and if it's a medication, there could be reasons for it.

 

[Hendricks#55]

What makes you think this is related to your diabetes?

The Letter from the UK Security Vetting team spelt it out...

 

[Hendricks#55]

A good union man/woman can apply for the why; so....... you can too. All of it.

Not a member of a union...

 

[Hendricks#55]

I am not a lawyer so these are just my thoughts. I cannot see how diabetes can make a difference to security and what could be the security concerns . If Mrs May as a type one Diabetic could be PM and that would have involved the highest security, a type 2 who is on tablets I would think should not be an issue. Maybe you should mention to the security people that the Ex PM was a type 1 and ask them to explain what they think are the issue with you. If they hold their line then maybe you can suggest you may be making a claim of discrimation and that you need them to explain their reasoning as sometimes just suggesting there may be the discrimation will get someone who has got more common sense involved in the decision . It may just be a simple misunderstanding .
You could go an organisation like citizens advice to ask their view.

Thanks for the advice - I am holding back on mentioning discrimination until such time as they provide further explanation (or not..)

 

[Hendricks#55]

It seems like it probably depends a lot on what medication you are on. Because say it's a position where you have to drive off suddenly but you are having a low so you can't? Or maybe you have to defend or protect someone and a low could interfere?
Think about it, if you are a bodyguard for Mrs May and you have to rush her off stage, but because of a low you had to eat something and you are not there? Or if you are in the middle of a dessert and you have to take a certain medication by a certain time but are in the middle of a dessert?

So you would need to know why they turned you down and if it's a medication, there could be reasons for it.

The role is Senior Project Management so not 'Physical' - My Medication is fairly ordinary so very unlikely to put me in a Hypo situation.. I am asking for the details and the 'rules' but they are becoming very unresponsive...

 

[Hendricks#55]

Are you sure that it was SV?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/security-vetting-and-clearance
"
There are 3 security levels:

• Counter Terrorist Check (CTC): is carried out if an individual is working in proximity to public figures, or requires unescorted access to certain military, civil, industrial or commercial establishments assessed to be at particular risk from terrorist attack
• Security Check (SC): determines that a person’s character and personal circumstances are such that they can be trusted to work in a position which involves long-term, frequent and uncontrolled access to SECRET assets
• Developed Vetting: (DV) in addition to SC, this detailed check is appropriate when an individual has long term, frequent and uncontrolled access to ‘Top Secret’ information. There is also Enhanced DV

"

So more likely SC or DV?

A while since I looked at this and they keep changing the names; I think the lowest check used to be Basic Check or BC.

Regardless, I don't know of any reason that T2 controlled by pills (but which pills?) should affect security clearance.

Perhaps you could tell us what medication you are on?

It is possible that if you are on a medication which carries the risk of hypoglycemia there are certain duties (including but not only driving) which might cause issues. For example being sole person on site out of hours.

In which case it would be an operational thing (like working a crane or driving a forklift) and not a security clearance thing.

Hi Yes the level of Security clearance was incorrectly types it is SC . The job is a Senior Project Manager and need clearance to handle Security sensitive materials.. I am on Metformin, Sigagliptin, Simvastatin and Empaglifozin and my HbA1c is OK I am quite active for example I race cars.. (yes I declare that I am diabetes on my annual race Medical..) - Thoughts?

 

[Fndwheelie]

I could be sticking my nose in where it don’t belong here, but if your just in the office looking at sensitive files I don’t see how your diabetes could affect that. If you were responsible for transporting files between locations on your own, I’d understand how they want assurances that the diabetes wouldn’t leave you and the files vulnerable. If I were you I’d keep on wanting an explanation of why the diabetes required restrictions, and what they were exactly.

 

[NicoleC1971]

Being denied SC on grounds of being type 2 on the medications you describe (some risk of low blood sugar taken in combination but I am assuming you've never had one needing assistance?) sounds implausible. If the prevalence rate is 7-8% then surely lots of civil servants would be ineligible for SC also? I hope you can find out more and can clear up your record with the vetting agency.

 

[Mr_Pot]

I could be sticking my nose in where it don’t belong here, but if your just in the office looking at sensitive files I don’t see how your diabetes could affect that. If you were responsible for transporting files between locations on your own, I’d understand how they want assurances that the diabetes wouldn’t leave you and the files vulnerable. If I were you I’d keep on wanting an explanation of why the diabetes required restrictions, and what they were exactly.

My title was Senior Project Manager before I retired. I only handled normal commercially sensitive material so I can't help the OP but I can tell you that there is bit more to the job than looking at files or carrying them about.

 

[Fndwheelie]

@Mr_Pot I don’t doubt there is a lot more to the job, I apologise if my comment wasn’t appropriate.

 

[Mr_Pot]

@Mr_Pot I don’t doubt there is a lot more to the job, I apologise if my comment wasn’t appropriate.

No problem, I put a smiley icon after my post but for some reason it didn't appear.

 

[bulkbiker]

@Garry Brandon

Just a thought but if that is your real name then posting using it in an open forum about your security clearance might not be the smartest move?

 

[DCUKMod]

I'd tend to agree with @bulkbiker , @Garry Brandon . Not only that, but many employers search Google and social media when looking at and for staff.

If you would like a name change, then you can PM me, or any other Mod and we'll ge that sorted. When a user name is changed, the historic content is re-labelled with the new name.