VA internship with criminal record

[emotgrad]

Question for those of you affiliated with VA sites...I have a friend (not on SDN) who is currently in a clinical psych grad program who is thinking toward applying to internship. She has a record from both fraud and drug convictions which were well over 10 years ago at this point. She has taken the necessary steps to get her record expunged, and she has had no trouble passing background checks for simple searches (using just SS#s). However, the legal folks who helped her with her expungement have told her that a more stringent background check (like a fingerprint one) will produce those old charges, likely showing them as expunged but they will still be visible.

The question is about which internship sites she can apply to. Sounds like DOJ sites are out, but from some initial checking done by faculty, a few TDs indicated that VA sites are likely to evaluate on a more case-by-case basis. Is that true? Would something like this automatically put an applicant in the "no" pile at your VA site?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

It would have been a no at my past VA sites. It is a no at my current non-VA site. Some simple misdemeanor type convictions (one time DUI, one-time shoplifting, petty stuff) can get a pass, but drug and fraud convictions would just be way too much of a liability.

 

[emotgrad]

It would have been a no at my past VA sites. It is a no at my current non-VA site. Some simple misdemeanor type convictions (one time DUI, one-time shoplifting, petty stuff) can get a pass, but drug and fraud convictions would just be way too much of a liability.

Hm, that's interesting. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but if someone has had no legal trouble for over 10 years and has been successful at both getting into graduate school and performing well while in graduate school, I'm not sure why that is a liability? Would it matter to you (when reviewing applications) if there were a letter from the DCT attesting to the student's competence?

 

[Trollest]

That's a good question, but why would an employer risk hiring her when they have 100 other applicants with a clean record?

Hm, that's interesting. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but if someone has had no legal trouble for over 10 years and has been successful at both getting into graduate school and performing well while in graduate school, I'm not sure why that is a liability? Would it matter to you (when reviewing applications) if there were a letter from the DCT attesting to the student's competence?

 

[StellaB]

Hm, that's interesting. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but if someone has had no legal trouble for over 10 years and has been successful at both getting into graduate school and performing well while in graduate school, I'm not sure why that is a liability? Would it matter to you (when reviewing applications) if there were a letter from the DCT attesting to the student's competence?

I think the issue has little to no relevance regarding the student's competence. It has to do with their willingness and ability to follow social rules. Fraud is going to be a big red flag for sites that deal with vulnerable populations, because if this person were to commit fraud or other illegal activity that harms patients, the site may be liable for having overlooked the past criminal behavior. With the drug charges, I could see if this was a misdemeanor involving marijuana in a state that has since legalized it, some sites in that state may not care as much (i.e. may treat it the way one-time DUI is typically treated). But a lot of sites put you in close contact with illicit drugs (e.g. hospitals), or with patients who may have drug problems. The risk may not be worth it to the hiring decision makers.

 

[Justanothergrad]

The fraud is likely to be a much larger issue than the drug offense (at least, if it is a misdemeanor), regardless of the state and their legalization status. I suspect that even with that said the competitiveness of the site will play a role in this as it provides a rationale to exclude, which is part of what folks are looking as they screen piles of highly qualified intern applicants.



It is an interesting commentary on our actual belief in remediation and change though, isn't it?

 

[StellaB]

It is an interesting commentary on our actual belief in remediation and change though, isn't it?

Yes, and it's interesting to think about the role lawsuits play in our society's willingness to take on risks in giving people a second chance.

 

[Lotus143]

If it’s expunged, she does not have to reveal it. She can say “no” to all of the questions, it might still appear in the livescan background check but it will appear as expunged which means they are not legally allowed to use it to discriminate against employment, whether they will or not is another question. The only time you will have to declare it is to the licensing board when u register for the EPPP.

I wouldn’t be too worried about getting a VA internship, esp if she is willing to relocate to expand her options. I would be more worried about the licensing board if I was her. THAT is on a case-by-case basis. If her state declines, her only option is to try another state and either live there or work at the VA where it doesn’t matter what state you’re licensed in.

I was on a VA internship training committee and there was a great applicant - good grades, great essays, did practicum at the Palo Alto VA, had good LORs, only problem was she had a drug felony when she was 18. This was something she declared on her appic application (I’m not sure if it was expunged or not). We and most of the staff psychologists tried to vouch for her but management was against it, saying it wouldn’t be providing “the best care” for veterans.

I wish people could see the fact that someone was able to turn their life around and have not re-offended in over ten years. You would think that would mean something, esp in this profession.

Tell your friend if she has come this far, don’t give up and just keep trying!

 

[AbnormalPsych]

Hm, that's interesting. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but if someone has had no legal trouble for over 10 years and has been successful at both getting into graduate school and performing well while in graduate school, I'm not sure why that is a liability? Would it matter to you (when reviewing applications) if there were a letter from the DCT attesting to the student's competence?

Unfortunately, not a competence issue. Best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And when legal folks at my site are evaluating applicants, and you have a large group with a clean record, and a handful with any record, it probably makes their decision regarding risk assessment and management easier

All that being said, I'm sorry to hear about that. They could be a wonderful clinician and trainee. But we live in a CYA world and a CYA profession and the risk management people don't mess around.

 

[WisNeuro]

Hm, that's interesting. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but if someone has had no legal trouble for over 10 years and has been successful at both getting into graduate school and performing well while in graduate school, I'm not sure why that is a liability? Would it matter to you (when reviewing applications) if there were a letter from the DCT attesting to the student's competence?

As others have said, not a competence issue, the fraud is the most problematic one. Although the drug conviction would also be problematic given my current setting. Also, as others have said, many areas are saturated with providers, mine included. Why take a risk when I have at least a dozen other high quality applications with no legal red flags to look through? We live in a litigious society where it is very easy to sue people in the medical establishment. I'm fine with someone else taking that risk on.

 

[Seven_Costanza]

If it’s expunged, she does not have to reveal it. She can say “no” to all of the questions, it might still appear in the livescan background check but it will appear as expunged which means they are not legally allowed to use it to discriminate against employment, whether they will or not is another question. The only time you will have to declare it is to the licensing board when u register for the

I’m curious. If the applicant doesn’t have to reveal their criminal record in their internship application since it was expunged, what would happen if they matched for internship with the VA and the fingerprint background check later uncovered the old charges?

 

[psych.meout]

I’m curious. If the applicant doesn’t have to reveal their criminal record in their internship application since it was expunged, what would happen if they matched for internship with the VA and the fingerprint background check later uncovered the old charges?

Not 100% sure, but I think it might depend on the kind of job you have. If you need a security clearance for your position (there are at least a few I know of specifically), you need to disclose all criminal offenses, arrests, etc. Failure to disclose them or any other information when asked will make it unlikely you'll get the clearance. If the job is contingent on the clearance, then you won't be hired or will be fired later on if you're hired provisionally until the clearance investigation is complete.

 

[StellaB]

I’m curious. If the applicant doesn’t have to reveal their criminal record in their internship application since it was expunged, what would happen if they matched for internship with the VA and the fingerprint background check later uncovered the old charges?

This is a good question for an employment lawyer, but my guess is that it would not be a good idea to do this. Interestingly: VA hires providers with malpractice claims & criminal histories – media investigation | Veterans Today | Military Foreign Affairs Policy Journal for Clandestine Services

 

[erg923]

Meanwhile, a VA clinic in Lafayette, Louisiana, hired a psychologist to work at the facility after he had revealed previous felony convictions on his application, according to internal documents. However, the VA didn’t run a background check until a year after he started working at the clinic. That background check ultimately revealed eight arrests, including for burglary, drug dealing, and reckless driving resulting in death.

WTF?! How did that person ever get into a graduate program in this field, much less get licensed somewhere?

 

[WisNeuro]

Meanwhile, a VA clinic in Lafayette, Louisiana, hired a psychologist to work at the facility after he had revealed previous felony convictions on his application, according to internal documents. However, the VA didn’t run a background check until a year after he started working at the clinic. That background check ultimately revealed eight arrests, including for burglary, drug dealing, and reckless driving resulting in death.

WTF?! How did that person ever get into a graduate program in this field, much less get licensed somewhere?

Plenty of diploma mills only care about whether or not they can collect loan money from you. There are no admission standards. Dude probably got his degree from Albizu

 

[StellaB]

Plenty of diploma mills only care about whether or not they can collect loan money from you. There are no admission standards. Dude probably got his degree from Albizu

And if you're working at the VA, you can be licensed from anywhere, right? So, I guess the game is to just get licensed in whatever state has the lowest standards. It's beyond appalling.

 

[WisNeuro]

And if you're working at the VA, you can be licensed from anywhere, right? So, I guess the game is to just get licensed in whatever state has the lowest standards. It's beyond appalling.

Yes, though the VA does at least have the standard that providers do need to have attended an APA-accredited or VA internship. So, they do have that.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I think I may have posted about this before, but the amount of work a friend of mine had to do to prove he was "past" a drug-related criminal charge from 2002 was, IMHO, a bit much (e.g., legal involvement, two independent psychological evaluations, etc.). But I get the logic. In my state, the board is very "pro-public" as I've heard it called (which I suppose is what we should hope all boards are at the end of the day). The last state I was in though? If you had a pulse and put the paperwork in you were good to go. It was also run by non-psychologists, and these people at one point were under investigation for a bunch of weird drug-related stuff as well.

 

[LadyHalcyon]

There are companies that contract with the FBI in regard to background checks. She could submit her fingerprints to these companies and see what shows up on the searches. If she has an expungement order from the court she can also send it to the FBI. They don't HAVE to discard her prints, but often times they will. Many job applications specify whether you are to include all charges vs all convictions. Some even specifically state to exclude expunged charges/convictions. This website is a good place to start to see what charges are actually visible.

Requesting FBI Records | Federal Bureau of Investigation

FBI records can be requested through both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act.

www.fbi.gov

Hm, that's interesting. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but if someone has had no legal trouble for over 10 years and has been successful at both getting into graduate school and performing well while in graduate school, I'm not sure why that is a liability? Would it matter to you (when reviewing applications) if there were a letter from the DCT attesting to the student's competence?

 

[PsyDr]

I know of a neuropsych that lost his license some 10-20 years after licensed because he selected “no” in the renewal license application. The board already knew of his pre doctoral crime. It seemed like an innocent mistake. But they wanted him gone.

 

[emotgrad]

If it’s expunged, she does not have to reveal it. She can say “no” to all of the questions, it might still appear in the livescan background check but it will appear as expunged which means they are not legally allowed to use it to discriminate against employment, whether they will or not is another question. The only time you will have to declare it is to the licensing board when u register for the EPPP.

I wouldn’t be too worried about getting a VA internship, esp if she is willing to relocate to expand her options. I would be more worried about the licensing board if I was her. THAT is on a case-by-case basis. If her state declines, her only option is to try another state and either live there or work at the VA where it doesn’t matter what state you’re licensed in.

I was on a VA internship training committee and there was a great applicant - good grades, great essays, did practicum at the Palo Alto VA, had good LORs, only problem was she had a drug felony when she was 18. This was something she declared on her appic application (I’m not sure if it was expunged or not). We and most of the staff psychologists tried to vouch for her but management was against it, saying it wouldn’t be providing “the best care” for veterans.

I wish people could see the fact that someone was able to turn their life around and have not re-offended in over ten years. You would think that would mean something, esp in this profession.

Tell your friend if she has come this far, don’t give up and just keep trying!

How to respond to the questions on the APPI is something she's talked about not knowing how to do (yet)...no doubt the DCT will have some thoughts here. If she's able to say "no" for the APPI, then I'd guess getting through internship applications won't be difficult....the background check stuff may come up doing fingerprinting late on.

And I agree that it should be OK if someone was able to turn their life around, get INTO a fully funded clinical psych PhD program and succeed with coursework, practica, etc....but it's actually disheartening to hear on this board people talking about how this person is a "risk." I know her, she's not a risk....

 

[emotgrad]

There are companies that contract with the FBI in regard to background checks. She could submit her fingerprints to these companies and see what shows up on the searches. If she has an expungement order from the court she can also send it to the FBI. They don't HAVE to discard her prints, but often times they will. Many job applications specify whether you are to include all charges vs all convictions. Some even specifically state to exclude expunged charges/convictions. This website is a good place to start to see what charges are actually visible.

Requesting FBI Records | Federal Bureau of Investigation

FBI records can be requested through both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act.

www.fbi.gov

Thanks, super helpful!

 

[StellaB]

...it's actually disheartening to hear on this board people talking about how this person is a "risk." I know her, she's not a risk....

I don't think anyone on here is saying that SHE is a risk per se, but that hiring someone with a previous fraud conviction is a risk, because it puts the person making the hiring decision in the line of fire should anything go awry. I also don't think anyone on here is saying that they don't believe in rehabilitation. We're just trying to answer the original question of whether this record would put an applicant in a "no" pile automatically. Clearly some sites would, but also clearly (from the article I posted), some sites would be fine with it.

 

[WisNeuro]

And I agree that it should be OK if someone was able to turn their life around, get INTO a fully funded clinical psych PhD program and succeed with coursework, practica, etc....but it's actually disheartening to hear on this board people talking about how this person is a "risk." I know her, she's not a risk....

How you or I feel about risk in this situation is irrelevant. How the state and federal statutes regarding healthcare view risk is.

 

[emotgrad]

I don't think anyone on here is saying that SHE is a risk per se, but that hiring someone with a previous fraud conviction is a risk, because it puts the person making the hiring decision in the line of fire should anything go awry. I also don't think anyone on here is saying that they don't believe in rehabilitation. We're just trying to answer the original question of whether this record would put an applicant in a "no" pile automatically. Clearly some sites would, but also clearly (from the article I posted), some sites would be fine with it.

Right, I think I responded too quickly. I guess it's disheartening that the hiring person, the state, etc. would priortize a past record over the training and effort going into the PhD in clinical psychology. I mean, I guess folks at a VA or other hospital in charge of hiring aren't psychologists themselves, but plenty of people on this thread have suggested this is a risky person (I know, on paper, compared to people without a criminal history....). Putting 5+ years of your life into a doctoral degree AFTER getting your life together, getting an undergrad degree with honors, etc.....I dunno. I'm just left thinking about how hard "the system" seems to make it to successfully rehabilitate.

 

[LadyHalcyon]

I often hear people use the words rehabilitation and criminal justice system together; I find this very perplexing. I don't mean this in a snarky/condescending "know it all" kind of way, but our criminal justice system is not rehabilitative and really was never intended to be. Yes, therapeutic jurisprudence was first introduced in (I think) the 90s, but the intent of jails and prisons is containment and public safety.

Right, I think I responded too quickly. I guess it's disheartening that the hiring person, the state, etc. would priortize a past record over the training and effort going into the PhD in clinical psychology. I mean, I guess folks at a VA or other hospital in charge of hiring aren't psychologists themselves, but plenty of people on this thread have suggested this is a risky person (I know, on paper, compared to people without a criminal history....). Putting 5+ years of your life into a doctoral degree AFTER getting your life together, getting an undergrad degree with honors, etc.....I dunno. I'm just left thinking about how hard "the system" seems to make it to successfully rehabilitate.

 

[StellaB]

Right, I think I responded too quickly. I guess it's disheartening that the hiring person, the state, etc. would priortize a past record over the training and effort going into the PhD in clinical psychology. I mean, I guess folks at a VA or other hospital in charge of hiring aren't psychologists themselves, but plenty of people on this thread have suggested this is a risky person (I know, on paper, compared to people without a criminal history....). Putting 5+ years of your life into a doctoral degree AFTER getting your life together, getting an undergrad degree with honors, etc.....I dunno. I'm just left thinking about how hard "the system" seems to make it to successfully rehabilitate.

In general, I agree that the system makes it extremely hard to successfully rehabilitate. But I think there is a valid argument to be made that certain roles in society require a significant amount of public trust, and thus extremely high standards. Unfortunately, as noted before, the fraud conviction is going to likely cause your friend the most consternation. It's not terribly uncommon for psychologists to have drug or alcohol-related offenses deep in their past. But fraud is far less common (and therefore less understandable/excusable in many people's minds), and psychologists frequently work in roles in which fraud would be easy to commit but difficult to detect (e.g. insurance billing). A student in my grad program was dismissed after falsifying a record (to indicate they had assessed suicide risk, when this had not actually occurred) - and to be sure, there were other problems before that - but it does kind of go to show how important the field takes this kind of thing. That plus our ethics code requires us to be gatekeepers of the field, and I think some internship TDs could reasonably feel uneasy in this situation.

As an aside, you do keep bringing up your friend's training (getting into a program, working hard through it) - and while these are commendable, they are not actually relevant. A smart and hardworking scam artist could do those things. I'm not suggesting that is what your friend is, but her accomplishments thus far won't convince everyone of rehabilitation. Community service, making reparations to those affected by the fraud, etc. - those are potentially more relevant to the question of rehabilitation.

 

[psych.meout]

Right, I think I responded too quickly. I guess it's disheartening that the hiring person, the state, etc. would priortize a past record over the training and effort going into the PhD in clinical psychology. I mean, I guess folks at a VA or other hospital in charge of hiring aren't psychologists themselves, but plenty of people on this thread have suggested this is a risky person (I know, on paper, compared to people without a criminal history....). Putting 5+ years of your life into a doctoral degree AFTER getting your life together, getting an undergrad degree with honors, etc.....I dunno. I'm just left thinking about how hard "the system" seems to make it to successfully rehabilitate.

Firstly, no one here is making any assessments about your friend in particular. They are simply discussing how hiring works in practice and how, in general, past behavior is the best predictor we have of future behavior.

Secondly, it's really just a matter of supply and demand. There are plenty of psychologists without fraud convictions. Even if there wasn't an explicit policy prohibiting psychologists with fraud convictions from being hired, why would anyone be expected to take that risk when they can easily hire someone without that past? Can you really blame them? Maybe if your friend had some relatively rare specialization or skill set, or if she went to work in an underserved area she'd have better chances.

I often hear people use the words rehabilitation and criminal justice system together; I find this very perplexing. I don't mean this in a snarky/condescending "know it all" kind of way, but our criminal justice system is not rehabilitative and really was never intended to be. Yes, therapeutic jurisprudence was first introduced in (I think) the 90s, but the intent of jails and prisons is containment and public safety.

Actually, for several decades, the prison system was intended to be rehabilitative, which is how many practices that continue to today started. E.g., the prison yard. It wasn't simply meant for exercise, but instead as a means by which prison authorities could observe inmates interacting with each other. They wanted to see how well they socialized with others as a way to gauge their potential for parole and return to society. Whether this is actually a valid method of risk assessment is a different matter, but the intent was there.

There also used to be robust educational and skills training (much like trade schools) in prisons so that inmates would be employable after release and not have to resort to crime to provide for themselves and their families. Take Folsom Prison. When Johnny Cash famously played there in 1968, the majority of inmates who were released were never imprisoned again, in large part due to these rehabilitative programs. Now, Folsom has one of the highest recidivism rates in the world.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I know of a neuropsych that lost his license some 10-20 years after licensed because he selected “no” in the renewal license application. The board already knew of his pre doctoral crime. It seemed like an innocent mistake. But they wanted him gone.

Wow

 

[cara susanna]

The VA also asks for character witnesses or whatever you'd want to call them when they screen you. I know for a fact that they contacted mine when I was getting on boarded for internship. It's pretty thorough.

This thread is making me think of Les Miserables and the idea of the punishment exceeding the crime, by the way.

 

[psych.meout]

The VA also asks for character witnesses or whatever you'd want to call them when they screen you. I know for a fact that they contacted mine when I was getting on boarded for internship. It's pretty thorough.

This thread is making me think of Les Miserables and the idea of the punishment exceeding the crime, by the way.

Well, it's a balancing act. We don't have any empirically-driven ways of assessing which applicants to doctoral programs, internship sites, post docs, or post-licensure jobs will commit ethical or legal offenses, but we can go to what their past behavior was. Yes, it seems unfair to have a person's past haunt them forever, but then again, they aren't necessarily being ostracized and blackballed from every field, or even from every psychologist position. More importantly, the health and welfare of patients is paramount and patients are in particularly vulnerable positions. Is it that unreasonable that someone in a position to hire a psychologist would prefer to hire someone without a history of intentionally defrauding others, especially when there are ample opportunities to defraud the organization, patients, and payors in the position?

 

[cara susanna]

No, I'm not necessarily saying that I'm against the policy or anything, it's just more this broader philosophical underpinning of the idea of rehabilitation and how much of recidivism is brought about by the system itself. The BBC miniseries of Les Miserables is airing in the US right now so that's something I've been thinking about lately in general.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this since the OP a few days ago. While emotionally I want this person to have a chance to redeem themselves, logically I can’t get past the idea that if I hired them and something went wrong that put my clients, agency, me (and by default my family) at risk, I’d have a difficult time not telling myself “I told you so.” Fact is, most internship applicants didn’t get convicted of fraud or selling drugs, and I’d likely have many other equal if not better options. Behaviors have consequences, and one of the consequences for your friend is that reasonable, generally understanding and forgiving people like me will be reticent to take a chance on her, at least for her entry level positions in the field where- in the case of internship at least- you are overworked and underpaid.

 

[emotgrad]

For what it's worth, I *think* the fraud charges were all surrounding the drug use. I don't think she sold drugs, but possessed them. I think the fraud stuff was writing bad checks or something, to get money for drugs. It was not about intentionally defrauding individual people (unlike the case study I read the other day of someone with ASPD who delighted in stealing money from elderly people).

I also totally understand that the best predictor of past behavior is future behavior...and I believe that people should have a chance to change and turn their lives around. The data--which are based at the group level--are not always relevant to individual people, but it's hard to deviate from the data to make impressions or judgments of individuals. I do get all that. She knows she's going to have a hard road on getting an internship and getting licensed, but she's determined and I hope that she'll be given the chance to prove herself.

 

[StellaB]

If that’s the case, her best shot might be to just completely embrace her past as part of what makes her worth taking a shot on. She can try writing a version of her personal essay that goes into short but relevant detail about her descent into drug use and her path of redemption. It would be a risky/bold move, but far less risky than trying to conceal something that is likely to crop up anyway. If she does the latter, it will project the message that she is still comfortable lying, even if that’s not how she really feels.

 

[temppsych123]

It's also worth remembering that lots of trainees don't necessarily match to a site during Phase I of the match, and that there are typically VA sites that show up in Phase II as well as in the Post-Match Vacancy Service. They are often in less desirable geographic locations, but TDs who are trying to fill a spot later in the game may also be more flexible or willing to address concerns like this on a case-by-case basis, compared to during Phase I, when there's just way more likely qualified people for each spot than spaces.

For instance, this year's Phase II match included the following accredited VAs:
- Southern AZ
- Central Arkansas
- UCSD Consortium (including VA)
- Rocky Mountain VA
- Norwood VA (GA)
- VA Illiana
- Roudebush VA
- Iowa City VA
- VA Central Iowa (Des Moines)
- VA Eastern KS
- VA Central Western MA
- Montgomery VA
- Kansas City VA
- VA St. Louis
- VA Nebraska - Western Iowa
- VA Western NY
- VA Hudson Valley
- Chillicothe VAMC
- Columbus VA
- VA Dayton
- Coatesville VA
- WJB Dorn VA
- Sioux Falls VA
- Memphis VA
- VA Texas Valley Coastal Bend
- South Texas VA
- VA Central Texas
- VA White River Junction
- VA Hampton
- McGuire VA
- Spokane VAMC
- Sheridan VA

And the following accredited VAs showed up in the Post-Match Vacancy Service:
- VA Central Texas (Waco, TX)
- VA Texas Valley Coastal Bend (Harlingen, TX)
- VA Illiana (Danville, IL)
- VA Western NY (Buffalo, NY)

It's also possible to get a job at the VA without having done a VA internship, if that's her eventual goal. I would be more concerned about looking into different states' licensing board regulations related to licensure and various criminal charges, as states vary a lot.

 

[psychRA]

For what it's worth, I *think* the fraud charges were all surrounding the drug use. I don't think she sold drugs, but possessed them. I think the fraud stuff was writing bad checks or something, to get money for drugs. It was not about intentionally defrauding individual people (unlike the case study I read the other day of someone with ASPD who delighted in stealing money from elderly people).

I recommend that your friend steer VERY clear of making any statements or arguments along the lines of what you wrote above. Suggesting that particular acts of fraud are somehow different or less concerning because they were motivated by drug use ventures into exceptionalism; her crimes are not less concerning because they were driven by drug use. People with ASPD are a very small segment of the population. The vast majority of people committing fraud are not intentionally defrauding people for the fun of it - they're doing so because it is a means of getting money. Your friend used the money for drugs, others may use it as a primary source of income, for gambling, for extra expenses, etc. It doesn't make her circumstances unique in comparison to other people who commit fraud. It just means that (just like nearly every other fraudster out there) at that point in her life, she was willing to defraud others to meet her needs.

I don't say that as a moral judgment of her as a person. Her criminal actions don't define her or make her a bad person. But any attempt to minimize or downplay her previous offenses is going to hurt her case, not help it.