1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-03718
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr.,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On November 10, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline
I (Psychological Conditions). The action was taken under 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), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and elected to have his case decided on the
record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written
case on January 24, 2012. Applicant received the complete file of relevant material
(FORM) on February 2, 2012, and was provided an opportunity to file objections and
submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. The FORM
consisted of 12 documents. Applicant did not submit a response. The case was
assigned to me on March 30, 2012. Based on a review of the case file the eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b.
Applicant is 55 years old. He was divorced in 2008, and has two children. He received
his undergraduate degree in December 1979. He has held a security clearance since
2004. Applicant has been employed with his current employer since November 2002.
(Item 1)
The record notes that Applicant has a history of alcohol abuse and depression.
He has been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Dysthymic
Disorder, and Substance Dependence. (Items 7-9,11,12) His treating psychiatrist, Dr. H,
prescribed medications to treat Applicant’s depression and additional conditions.
Applicant’s diagnoses have changed over the years. As early as 1990, Applicant was
diagnosed with Dysthymia and possible Bipolar Disorder. (Item 11) Early reports from
1991 until 2002, noted a good prognosis. (Item 11-12)    
When Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) in February
2009, he disclosed that he received mental health treatment or counseling since July
2005. (Item 4) He also acknowledged in the SCA that he illegally used Hydrocodone
from October 2004 until January 2005 for his back pain. Applicant further noted that his
use of alcohol affected his marriage. In 2008, he voluntarily attended a program for
depression and alcohol treatment. As a result of the 2008 treatment, Applicant was
referred to outpatient counseling. He has been under the care of Dr. A, a psychologist,
from January 2008 until the present. (Item 4)
Dr. A’s January 2008, clinical report described Applicant as having a history of
major depression (recurrent and severe); general anxiety disorder; and alcohol
dependence. She noted no history of suicide attempts or suicidal ideation. According to
a February 6, 2008 clinical note, Applicant continued to be depressed. Dr. A reported
that Applicant was compliant and seemed to understand that more intense treatment
was needed. She told Applicant about an intensive outpatient treatment center. 
Applicant attended the intensive outpatient program for one month. When he was
discharged in March 2008, he was on the following medications: Abilify, Lamivctal,
Risperdal, Trazadone, Effexor, Vistaril, and Inderal. In October 2008, Dr. H, prescribed
Klonapin for anxiety. During this time, Applicant noted that he was counseled for poor
work performance; lateness; and absence from work. He also acknowledged that his
depression is probably related to his marital separation. His wife did not like his use of
Internet pornography. (Item 9)
As part of the security background investigation, Applicant was interviewed in
March 2009. He explained that he pulled a muscle in his lower back and his physician
prescribed a muscle relaxer. When his prescription expired, Applicant ordered an
additional 60 pills over the Internet (Item 6). He reported that he placed a second order
but decided not to use the drug after January 2005 because he feared that he might
become addicted to the medication.  
3
In March 2009, Applicant was diagnosed by Dr. H, as Bipolar. Dr. H modified
Applicant’s medications to include Alprazalam for its mood-altering ability. Applicant said
that he stopped drinking in January 2008. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). He
is also working on anger management. Applicant reported continued anxiety in June
2009. Dr. A’s note of August 2009, described Applicant as “stable at this time.” (Item 7) 
The treatment notes from July 2010 indicated that Applicant did not renew certain
medications that he was prescribed. He reported that he was overwhelmed and felt he
could not handle life anymore. (Item 8) Applicant was prescribed another medication,
but it is not clear if he took the prescribed medication as indicated. He took his other
medications on a sporadic basis. 
On June 14, 2011, a psychologist, Dr. F,  interviewed Applicant to assess his
suitability for a security clearance. She described Applicant as cooperative. He
appeared to be very tense and agitated but conversed in a clear manner. Applicant
admitted to being depressed and anxious. He described himself as moody and having
suicidal ideation. He acknowledged problems with alcoholism, and he attended AA three
times a week. Applicant described his treatment with his psychiatrist, Dr. H. He noted
that he takes medication for anxiety and depression.
Dr. F administered two clinical assessments. The Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory-2 revealed that Applicant is experiencing a great deal of emotional
turmoil, feels tense, nervous, and fearful, and has problems with maintaining attention
and concentrating. Dr. F noted that Applicant is unstable, despondent, hopeless, and
often ruminates about suicide. (Item 5) According to the FIRO-B awareness scale,
Applicant allows other people to control his actions. He feels most comfortable when
other people decide what he should do. Applicant’s checked responses to the
awareness scale indicated that he feels hopeless about the future, feels unable to
control thoughts or activities, and is not able to participate in regular social activities.
(Item 5)
Dr. F concluded that based on the clinical interview, assessment instruments,
and self-report, Applicant is functioning in a seriously impaired manner. She noted that
he appears to have a debilitating anxiety disorder that causes him to have severe doubt
about making decisions. She noted that Applicant may show extremely poor judgment.
Although she reviewed his past treatment and his current medication, she concludes
that he is still functioning at an impaired level. (Item 5) Her diagnosis is Social Anxiety
Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder. Dr. F noted in her report that Applicant was open and
forthright about his emotional problems. Applicant also admitted to being very stressed
about his job. 
The record does not contain any treatment notes for 2011 from Applicant’s
treating psychiatrist, Dr. H or his psychologist, Dr. A. Applicant did not submit any
documentation in response to the FORM.
      1 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).
      2 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).
      3 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).
      4 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
4
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
The U.S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven
by Department Counsel. . . .”1 The burden of proof is something less than a
preponderance of evidence.2 The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.3 
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 protect classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
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 as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.”4 “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance
      5 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).
      6 Id.
5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”5 Any reasonable doubt
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.6 The decision to deny an individual a
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline I, Psychological Conditions
AG ¶ 27 expresses the security concern pertaining to psychological conditions:
Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions 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 health counseling.
AG ¶ 28 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(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 emotionally 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; and 
(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.
Applicant’s record shows that he has a history of depression. He has been
diagnosed throughout the years with Depression, Dysthymic Disorder, Anxiety, and
Bipolar Disorder. In the early 1990s until 2002, Applicant had some counseling and
treatment. He has received consistent psychiatric treatment from approximately 2005
6
until 2010. Applicant has had various prescribed medications, but at times has failed to
consistently take a particular recommended medication. AG ¶ ¶ 28(a), (b), and (c)
apply.
AG ¶ 29 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(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 remission, and has a
low probability of recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) the past emotional instability was a temporary condition (e.g., one
caused by death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional
instability; and
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Applicant has received continuous mental-health treatment since 1991 and
intensive treatment from 2005 until the present. Applicant admitted that he has been
diagnosed with the above-referenced conditions. He has attended treatment programs
for many years. Early reports describe his history of alcohol abuse. He has a 2011
mental health evaluation that notes his depression and suicidal ideation that was not
present in earlier reports. Dr. F, the psychologist, concluded from her 2011 clinical
assessments that Applicant is functioning in a seriously impaired manner. She noted
that he may show extremely poor judgment. She recognized that he has been seeking
help, but he is still not receiving a favorable prognosis. Applicant has been on various
medications. At one point, he was not in compliance with his prescribed medications.
Applicant did not provide a rebuttal to the 2011 mental health evaluation. His treating
psychiatrist did not provide a current, clear prognosis. It does appear from the record
that his condition has deteriorated. Applicant has not submitted evidence that would
mitigate the concerns under this guideline. None of the mitigating conditions apply. I find
that he has not mitigated the security concerns under the guideline.  
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 an applicant’s
7
conduct and all the 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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 55 years old. He obtained his undergraduate degree in 1979. He has held a
security clearance since 2004. He is divorced and has two children. He has been
employed with his current employer since 2002.
Applicant admitted that he has had a history of depression and other mental
health disorders. He obtained some counseling as early as 1990. He received treatment
in 2005 and completed an intensive outpatient treatment program in 2008. He continued
to see a therapist. He has been on various medications. He has not always been
compliant with his physician’s recommendations for taking medications. In June 2011,
Applicant received a diagnosis of social anxiety and dysthymic disorder. Dr. F  detailed
that Applicant described himself as having suicidal ideation. His judgment is poor. The
psychologist noted that despite his previous treatment, he was functioning in a seriously
impaired manner. 
 
Applicant did not present any documentation from his treating physician or
therapist to refute or update the 2011 clinical report.  Applicant has not  met his burden
in this case. The record evidence in the FORM supports a finding that Applicant be
denied a security clearance.  Clearance is denied.
 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, Guideline I: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: Against Applicant
8
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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge