DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
  
  
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 08-08721 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Braden F. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
In August 2010, a clinical psychologist diagnosed Applicant with a cognitive 
disorder and a delusional disorder. The psychologist found Applicant’s suffered from 
delusions. Applicant failed to rebut or mitigate the psychological conditions security 
concerns. Clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intent to deny or revoke 
her eligibility for an industrial security clearance. Acting under the relevant Executive 
Order and DoD Directive,1 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued 
 
1 
 
                                                          
1 Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security 
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the adjudicative guidelines 
(AG) effective within the DoD on September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on November 1, 2010, detailing security concerns under 
Guideline I, psychological conditions. 
  
 In Applicant’s undated answer to the SOR, she did not request a hearing, but 
Department Counsel did. Government’s request for a hearing was made Hearing Exhibit 
(H Ex.) II. On March 2, 2011, I was assigned the case. On March 21, 2011, DOHA 
issued a Notice of Hearing for the hearing held on April 12, 2011.  
 
 At the hearing, the Government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 4, which were 
admitted into evidence without objection. Department Counsel also offered copies of the 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, 
DSM-IV-TR for 294.9 and 297.1, which were admitted as H Ex. I. Applicant testified on 
her own behalf and submitted Exhibit A, which was admitted into evidence without 
objection. On April 20, 2011, DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.). 
 
Motion to Amend SOR 
 
On April 12, 2011, the Government moved to amend the SOR because the 
wording of Guideline I was from an earlier, outdated version of the DoD Directive 
5220.6. The motion requesting the current wording of Guideline I be substituted for the 
earlier wording was granted. (H Ex. III, Tr. 18, 127) The decision will be based on the 
wording of the current Directive. Although the wording of Guideline I changed, the 
allegations remained the same. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, she admitted the factual allegations, but 
denied her the police or company employees were unable to substantiate her 
assertions. She also denied in SOR 1.d. that she had not sought professional 
assistance or counseling. I incorporate Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations. 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following 
findings of fact: 
 
 Applicant is a 54-year-old senior administration associate who has worked for a 
defense contractor since July 1991, and seeks to maintain a security clearance. 
Applicant called no witnesses other than herself, and produced no work or character 
references.  
 
 In September 2005, Applicant informed her company’s security office that she 
believed she was being stalked 24 hours a day, seven days a week by persons 
unknown. (Ex. 2. Tr. 75) She believed the unknown persons may have been from her 
work. In December 2005, she went to the local police because she was being stalked. 
(Ex. 2) In her police affidavit, she listed events at a local discount store, at her 
apartment, and being following to church, to work, and to her mother’s home in another 
town. She stated she noticed two men sitting in front of a discount department store 
 
3 
 
when she entered. (Tr. 29) They followed her into the store and followed her when she 
left the store. The two then returned to the store. (Tr. 30). A couple of weeks later, she 
went to a different store of the same store chain in another city when a car followed her 
for approximately a mile after leaving the store before that car drove a in different 
direction. (Tr. 32) She did not recognize the individuals in the vehicle that followed her 
and never saw them again. (Tr. 32) 
 
 Applicant was driving to her mother’s place, when a car that had been behind 
her, pulled up beside her, then in front of her, and applied the brakes. (Tr. 37) When 
Applicant changed lanes, the other car would speed up. When she tried to get back into 
the slow lane, the other car would hit their brakes. This happened four times before the 
other car drove off. (Tr. 37) The people in the other car were in their twenties. (Tr. 38)  
 
 In later 2005 or in 2006, Applicant retuned to her apartment from grocery 
shopping when she heard someone come up the stairs at her apartment, knocked on 
her door, and then jiggled the door knob before departing. (Tr. 34) In 2006 or 2007, she 
noticed a truck followed her from the highway to her apartment complex. She later 
noticed the vehicle was still there with its engine running. 
 
 Neither company officials nor the police department told Applicant they were 
unable to substantiate her concerns. (Tr. 74, 135) She never talked with company 
officials after relating her initial concerns about being followed 24/7. The company told 
her the findings related to her hostile work complaint discussed below. After initially 
making her complaint, she has not returned to the police. (Tr. 144) 
 
 In 2007, Applicant filed a hostile environment complaint with her company’s 
ethics office. (Ex. 2) She reported three men made inappropriate comments to her at 
work. While walking down the hall, one of the men lunged at her. (Tr. 82). She believed 
a hostile environment was created when another of the three said to her, “good to see 
you; you’re here.” (Tr. 84) Another individual said, “It’s about time you got here; or, Oh, 
you’re here; or, you know, Where you been.” An investigation determined there was no 
problem with any of the men. The investigator interviewed the men who stated they had 
no problem with Applicant. (Tr. 81) She never received a report after the ethics office 
told her their findings. (Tr. 88)  
 
 During the summer of 2007, a vehicle swerved into her lane for no reason. In 
August or September 2008, Applicant’s neighbor told her a young man between 19 and 
22 in her complex had pointed his hand at her door and motioned as if he was shooting 
the door with a gun. (Tr. 44, 72) Three weeks later, she called 911 and related the 
incident. The police talked to the young man who said he had not meant to offend 
Applicant. (Ex. 2) In January 2009, she stated she did not feel she was being taken 
seriously and wanted someone to talk with her about any investigation that had been 
conducted. Applicant did not think anyone believed her suspicions. (Ex. 2) 
 
 
4 
 
                                                          
 In June 2010, Applicant was again driving to her mother’s home and had pulled 
on to the interstate highway when an incident occurred with three cars. (Tr. 40) The 
three vehicles appeared to be traveling together. When she sped up, they sped up. 
When she slowed down they did too. This continued for approximately five miles. Later 
she noticed the police had pulled the cars over. The police then stopped Applicant and 
asked her if she knew the individuals in the three cars. (Tr. 41) She did not. She has not 
followed up with the police about this incident. (Tr. 42) Also in 2010, Applicant and her 
sister were driving to her mother’s place, when a vehicle came up behind her and the 
driver started blowing his horn and flashing his lights. (Tr. 95) She drove to the city 
square, where the driver from the other car asked her if she was alright or if she needed 
help. (Tr. 95) Applicant stated the other driver appeared angry. (Tr. 112) The other 
driver stated she was going slow, 20 m.p.h. (Tr. 97) Although a number of the incidents 
involve Applicant driving her car, she never thought the other individuals might be upset 
with her due to the way she was driving. (Tr. 113)  
 
 In June 2010, Applicant was evaluated by a clinical psychologist. During the first 
two visits, Applicant was given a series of tests.2 During the third visit, she talked with 
the clinical psychologist. (Tr. 120) The psychological evaluation states: 
 
. . . she showed a generally even and positive attitude and denied any 
unusual thinking except feeling that she was being followed. A long 
discussion about this ensued with [Applicant] presenting details about 
various individuals following her for a number of years, in a number of 
situations. She could not be dissuaded by any logical arguments to the 
contrary. (Ex. A)  
 
 The diagnostic impression listed in Axis I3 was “294.9 Cognitive Disorder Not 
Otherwise specified” and “297.1 Delusional Disorder NOS.” (H. Ex. I, Ex. 3) Additionally, 
Applicant was extensively interviewed and her file carefully reviewed. (Ex. 3, Ex. A, Tr. 
110) Axis V4 gave a GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) as 50, which indicates 
serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning. 
 
 The Report of Psychological Evaluations recommendations stated: 
 
[Applicant’s] neuropsychological status appears impaired at this time. 
These moderate to moderately severe spatial and conceptual problems 
2 The tests included: the Beck Depression Inventory, the Beck Sheehan Anxiety Inventory, the Minnesota 
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the 16 PF Personality Factor profile, a Thematic Apperception 
Test, Rorschach tests, Incomplete Sentence Blank, Life Script, Wechsler Memory scale test, the Raven’s 
Progressive matrices, the Shipley Institute of Living test, conceptual tests, the Halstead Reitan test, and 
the Hooper Visual Organization test. (Ex. 3) 
 
3 Axis I is “Primary Diagnostic Impression,” which lists clinical disorders or other conditions that may be a 
focus of clinical attention.  
 
4 Axis V is Global Assessment of Functioning Diagnostic Impression Stage. 
 
5 
 
                                                          
could possibly account for her episodes of psychotic thinking. Her 
delusions are quite specific but appear episodic, as she is quite certain at 
times that she is being followed but these are discrete episodes rather 
than daily events. . . Later testing showed some neuropsychological 
deficits as noted above. It is possible that theses events are episodic and 
possibly related to some un-diagnosed medical condition which causes 
some neuropsychological deficits . . . These can be quite severe at times 
and appear to account for some flaws in her thinking and interaction with 
others . . . Unfortunately it is not known at this time whether her judgment 
and reliability in the future can be ascertained or fully be determined 
without further medical and neuropsychological evaluation. (Ex. 3, Ex. A)  
 
 Once the evaluation was completed, the clinical psychologist called Applicant to 
discuss her findings. In discussing the material, it was noticed that minor changes to the 
evaluation were necessary. (Tr. 47) A second Report of Psychological Evaluation was 
made two days after the first. (Ex. A) The changes in that second evaluation appear 
here in quotations. The diagnostic impression in Axis I remained the same. To Axis III5 
was added “History of sleep apnea.” To the Recommendations section was added the 
sentence ”It is noted that she has a history of sleep apnea since 2004.” In the 
Intellectual and Neuropsychological test result section was added to the non verbal 
intelligence test, Raven’s Progressive matrices she scored in the “lowest” twenty 
percentile. The results of the Shipley Institute of Living scale show overall intelligence 
“in the low average range.” The degree of conceptual loss is difficult to determine “but 
does appear to be significant.” Applicant received copies of both letters. (Tr. 49) 
 
 The evaluation recommended Applicant see a neurologist because of her 
memory loss, which she did in November 2010. (Tr. 52) She had an MRI, which 
revealed no problems. (Tr. 54) She told the neurologist her physician had 
recommended she see a neurologist. She never gave the neurologist a copy of the 
psychologist’s findings and recommendations. (Tr. 125) The neurologist did not 
prescribe any medicine. (Tr. 58) She saw the neurologist again the day before the 
hearing. Applicant stated the neurologist could give a full report. (Tr. 101) Applicant was 
given two weeks to provide any additional information to include a report of the 
neurologist’s findings. (Tr. 102, 124) No information was received.  
 
 When Applicant asked the clinical psychologist why she thought Applicant was 
delusional, the psychologist stated because of the test results and Applicant’s spotty 
memory. (Tr. 115) Applicant never considered obtaining a second opinion as to her 
mental state. (Tr. 121) Although concerned about the psychologist’s letter, Applicant did 
not have a problem with the recommendation. (Tr. 121)  
 
 Applicant asserts she has great interpersonal relationships with people. (Tr. 137) 
Except for the underlying factors of the ethics report, she asserts she never had a 
5 Axis III: General Medical Diagnostic Impression. 
 
 
6 
 
problem with coworkers. (Tr. 135) She has never had a clearance violation. (Tr. 137) 
She asserts her employer never advised her to seek additional counseling. (Tr. 136) 
Applicant believes there was never a totally independent investigation into her 
allegations. (Tr. 139)  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered in 
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as 
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based 
on the evidence contained in the record.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
  
 
7 
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of 
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination of the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline I, Psychological Conditions 
 
 Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 27 articulates the security concerns relating to 
psychological problems: 
 
Certain emotional, mental, and personality disorders can impair judgment, 
reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not 
required for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified 
mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist), 
employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, 
should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and 
mitigating information under this guideline. No negative inference 
concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the 
basis of seeking mental healthy counseling.  
 
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include (AG 28):  
 
(a) behavior that casts doubt on an individual=s judgment, reliability, or 
trustworthiness that is not covered under any other guideline, including but 
not limited to emotional unstable, irresponsible, dysfunctional, violent, 
paranoid, or bizarre behavior;  
 
(b) An opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the 
individual has a condition not covered under any other guideline that may 
impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness; 
 
(c) the individual has failed to follow treatment advice related to a 
diagnosed emotional, mental, or personality condition, e.g. failure to take 
prescribed medication.  
 
 Since at least 2005, Applicant believes she has been stalked 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week by persons unknown. She believed the unknown persons may be 
from her work. In 2005, she reported her concerns to her employer and to the local 
police department. In June 2010, Applicant was evaluated by a clinical psychologist. 
During her first two visits, Applicant was given a series of tests and during the third visit 
had a long discussion in which she presented details about various individuals following 
her for a number of years and in a number of situations. Applicant could not be 
dissuaded by any logical arguments to the contrary. 
 
8 
 
 
 The diagnostic impression was that Applicant suffered from “294.9 Cognitive 
Disorder Not Otherwise specified” and “297.1 Delusional Disorder NOS.” Applicant’s 
GAF score was 50, which indicates serious impairment in social, occupational, or school 
functioning. The clinical psychologist found Applicant’s neuropsychological status was 
impaired and it is unknown whether Applicant’s future judgment and reliability could be 
ascertained or fully be determined without further medical and neuropsychological 
evaluation. Even though Applicant was aware the clinical psychologist believed she was 
delusional, she never considered obtaining a second opinion as to her mental state. I 
find AG 28(a) and 28(b) apply. 
 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include (AG 29):  
 
(a) the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the 
individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the 
treatment plan; 
 
(b) the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment 
program for a condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is 
currently receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a 
duly qualified mental health professional;   
 
(c) recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed 
by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government that an 
individual's previous condition is under control or in emotional, mental, or 
personality disorder is cured, under control or in remission, and has a low 
probability of recurrence or exacerbation;  
 
(d) the past emotional instability was a temporary condition (e.g., one 
caused by a death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has been 
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotionally 
instability; or  
 
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.  
 
 Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors. AG 29(a) and 29(b) require 
compliance with a treatment plan or enrollment in a counseling program. Since being 
notified of the diagnosis and findings, she has not sought additional counseling or 
obtained a second opinion related to her mental status. There is no favorable prognosis. 
Neither AG 29(a) nor 29 (b) apply. AG 29(c) does not apply because there is no recent 
opinion that the condition is under control, is cured, in remission, or has a low probability 
of recurrence. AG 29(d) does not apply because there is no indication the condition was 
temporary and that it has been resolved. There is nothing in the record indicating there 
is no current problem. AG 29(e) does not apply.  
 
 
9 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. For at least the last five and a half 
years, Applicant believes she is being followed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a 
week. A number of the incidents relate to Applicant’s driving and it does not appear she 
is being followed. Her coworkers’ comments, as she related them, fail to establish a 
hostile work environment and the company found such. A qualified clinical psychologist 
determined Applicant had a delusional disorder and a cognitive disorder. There is 
nothing in the record indicating any changes to these diagnoses. These disorders raise 
concerns about her fitness to hold a security clearance. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant not mitigated the security concerns arising from her psychological 
conditions.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Psychological Conditions: AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1. d:  Against Applicant 
 
 
 
10 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
 
 
 
______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge