KEYWORD: Mental
DIGEST: The Applicant suffers from a Bipolar Disorder, manic depression, for which he was last
hospitalized in 1994.  He has been compliant with his medication since this last hospitalization.  His
Psychiatrist avers that the Applicant is stable and does not pose a security risk.  His Treating
Psychologist echos this view; and as a result, is ceasing his treatment of the Applicant.  The
Government Psychologist, who last saw the Applicant in April of 2004, avers the Applicant was
stable and complying with his medication.  Those who know the Applicant, to include two retired
Air Force Colonels, recommend him for a security clearance.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is
granted.
CASENO: 02-00659.h1
DATE: 02/20/2007
DATE: February 20, 2007
In Re:
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 02-00659
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
RICHARD A. CEFOLA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jennifer Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Lynn Swenson, Personal Representative
2
SYNOPSIS
The Applicant suffers from a Bipolar Disorder, manic depression, for which he was last
hospitalized in 1994.  He has been compliant with his medication since this last hospitalization.  His
Psychiatrist avers that the Applicant is stable and does not pose a security risk.  His Treating
Psychologist echos this view; and as a result, is ceasing his treatment of the Applicant.  The
Government Psychologist, who last saw the Applicant in April of 2004, avers the Applicant was
stable and complying with his medication.  Those who know the Applicant, to include two retired
Air Force Colonels, recommend him for a security clearance.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is
granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 1, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the reasons why DOHA
could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied
or revoked.
Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on May 26, 2006.
The case was received by the undersigned on December 15, 2006.  A notice of hearing was
issued on January 5, 2007, and the case was heard on January 22, 2007.  The Government submitted
documentary evidence, and called one witness to testify.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant,
who also called a witness to testify on his behalf.  The transcript (TR) was received on January 30,
2007.  The record was left open to receive closing written arguments, which were received in a
timely fashion, the Government’s on February 6, 2007, and the Applicant’s on February 13, 2007
(Appellant Exhibits 1 and 2).  The issue raised here is whether the Applicant's admitted mental
disorder militates against the granting of a security clearance.  [The Applicant admits the underlying
facts of both allegations.]
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents
and the live testimony.  The Applicant is 43 years of age, and is employed by a defense contractor,
who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant.  After a complete and thorough review
of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following
additional Findings of Fact.
Guideline I - Emotional, Mental and Personality Disorders
The Applicant was first diagnosed as suffering from a Bipolar Mental Disorder, manic
depression, in 1989 (TR at page 65 lines 15~23, at page 157 line 21 to page 158 line 14, and at page
164 line 16 to page 166 line 6).  At that time he was a 25 year old Petty Officer Second Class in the
3
U.S. Navy, was hospitalized for “two to three month;” and as a result, was subsequently discharged
from the Navy (TR  at page 164 line 16 to page 166 line 6).
In 1994, the Applicant went off of his prescribed medication; and as a result, he was
hospitalized “for three days” (TR at page 158 lines 15~25).  Since 1994, the Applicant has complied
with his medication prescriptions (TR at page 167 line 19 to page 168 line 11, and at page 175 line
21 to page 176 line 1).
4
1.a.  Since January of 2000, the Applicant has been under the care of his current Psychiatrist
(Government Exhibit (GX) 3, but see Applicant’s Exhibits (AppXs) D~F).  Most recently, on
January 11, 2007, his Psychiatrist averred, in part, the following:
. . . as stated in my subsequent letter [subsequent to GX 3], May 19, 2006, . . . [the
Applicant] has remained medication-compliant and responsible throughout the six
(now seven) years I have known him, with only brief and minor mood fluctuations
throughout that time.  Furthermore, I anticipate that he will maintain this mood
stability, and should therefore pose no risk to national security (AppX F).
1.b.  In April of 2004, the Applicant was evaluated by a Government Psychologist (GX 2).
That Psychologist testified at length at the Applicant’s hearing (TR at page 33 line 23 to page 11 line
25).  When the witness evaluated the Applicant, he exhibited “no manic symptoms,” and the
medication seemed to be working (TR at page 66 lines 2~6, and at lines 21~25).  The Government
Psychologist, in part, reiterated his report in the following terms: “. . . [the Applicant] is currently
functioning very well on his given medication and I don’t see a compromise in judgment or
reliability” (TR at page 67 lines 3~6).  In answer to the undersigned’s questions, he also averred the
following:
JUDGE CEFOLA:  In April 2004, when you saw him, he was being
medicated.  Was there a high or low probability of recurrence or exacerbation of his
manic depressive condition?
THE WITNESS: At that time I would say that . . . if it was based off of what
I observed . . . [t]hen I think that that(sic) - - it was low at the time; otherwise I
wouldn’t have written what I did (TR at page 80 lines 15~25).
The Applicant’s Treating Psychologist also testified (TR at page 113 line 12 to page 142 line
5).  The frequency of this Psychologist’s sessions with the Applicant have been decreasing as the
Applicant is more and more stable (TR at page 116 lines 7~14).  The Applicant’s mental condition
has stabilized to the extent that the Psychologist has ceased treating the Applicant (TR at page 124
lines 2~7).  The witness also offered the following observation of the Applicant, “I have no reason
to question his reliability or honesty or integrity” (TR at page 126 lines 10~11).
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors and
conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern, and which must be given binding
consideration in making security clearance determinations.  The conditions should be followed in
every case according to the pertinent criterion, however, the conditions are neither automatically
determinative of the decision in any case, nor can they supersede the Administrative Judge's reliance
on his own common sense.  Because each security clearance case presents its own unique facts and
circumstances, it should not be assumed that these conditions exhaust the realm of human
experience, or apply equally in every case.  As set forth in the Directive, each clearance decision
must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the
relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in enclosure 2,
5
including as appropriate:
a. Nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding
circumstances.
b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.
 c. Age and maturity of the applicant.
d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct
was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of
the consequence involved.
e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.
f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in
the future.
The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have
a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.
The Government must make out a case under Guideline I (Emotional, Mental, and
Personality Disorders) which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness.  While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's
adverse conduct and his ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to
sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.
Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation,
explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely
to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.
An individual who suffers from a mental disorder may have a defect in judgement, reliability
or stability.  The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security
clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places.
CONCLUSIONS
The Applicant is suffering a Bipolar Mental Disorder, which, arguably, in 1989 and again
in 1994 caused “significant defects or likely defects in judgment and reliability.”  The first
disqualifying condition is therefore applicable as there was an “opinion by a credentialed mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may indicate a defect in judgement,
reliability, and stability.”  As a result, the Applicant was discharged from the Navy.  This is clearly
6
countered, however, by the testimony not only of his treating Psychiatrist and Psychologist, but also
by the testimony of the Government Psychologist.
Furthermore, I am not limited to the mitigating conditions, delineated in the Regulation, in
deciding if an Applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation.  Here, those who know the
Applicant best, to include two retired Air Force Colonels, speak most highly of his character,
credibility and trustworthiness (AppX G~N).  The totality of the Applicant’s conduct and
circumstances, as set forth at length above, clearly warrants a favorable recommendation under the
“whole person concept.”  Mitigation is shown.  Guideline I is thus found for the Applicant.
Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his
mental condition.  The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guideline I, and of
Section E2.2. of the Directive.  Accordingly, he has met his ultimate burden of persuasion under
Guideline I.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: FOR THE APPLICANT
a. For the Applicant.
b. For the Applicant.
Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and
CONCLUSIONS, supra.
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge