DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-09346
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Erick V. Munoz, Attorney At Law
December 7, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on October 27, 2006.  (Government Exhibit 1).  On May 9, 2012, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as
amended), 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.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on July 23, 2012, and she requested a
hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on September 10, 2012.  A notice of hearing was issued on October 3,
2012, scheduling the hearing for October 17, 2012.  The matter was rescheduled for
November 7, 2012.  At the hearing the Government presented seven exhibits, referred
to Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which were admitted without objection.  The
Applicant called one witness and presented three exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s
  The essential feature of Schizoaffective Disorder is an uninterrupted period of illness during which, at some time1
there is a Major Depressive, Manic, or Mixed Episode concurrent with symptoms that meet Criterion A for
Schizophenia.  During the same period of illness, there are delusions, hallucinations for at least two weeks in the
absence of prominent mood symptoms.  Bi polar type applies if a Manic Episode or Mixed Episode is part of the
presentation.  Major Depressive Episodes may also occur.  Other Criteria for Schiozoffective Disorder with Bipolar
features can be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision,
American Psychiatric Association.    
2
Exhibits A through C, which were admitted without objection.  She also testified on her
own behalf.  The record remained open until close on business on November 27, 2012,
to allow the Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documentation.  The
Applicant did not submit anything additional.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on
November 14, 2012.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 33 years old and has a Bachelors Degree in Computer Science.
She is employed by a defense contractor as a Software Quality Engineer, and is
applying for a security clearance in connection with her employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph1 (Guideline I - Psychological Conditions).  The Government alleges in this
paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because her emotional, mental
and personality conditions can impair her judgment, reliability or trustworthiness and her
ability to properly protect classified information.  
The Applicant admits allegations 1.(b), 1.(e), 1.(f), and 1.(g) and denies
allegations 1.(a) and 1.(d).  She admits in part and denies in part allegation 1.(c),  as set
forth in the SOR under this guideline.  With respect to the allegations she denied, she
provided explanations.  The Applicant began working for her current employer, a major
defense contractor, in 2006.  
In 2005, prior to being hired by his current employer, the Applicant was
hospitalized for the first of at least six hospitalizations for a mental condition diagnosed
as Schizoaffective Disorder with a bipolar feature.   (Government Exhibit 3.)  It was1
about this time that she began working as a Software Engineer and living on her own.
She testified that the mental condition she suffers from means different things to
different people.  For her, it manifests in an overwhelming sense of fear.  (Tr. p. 53.)
She may also speak incoherently, have delusions and hear voices.  She believes that if
she is stays on her medication, she can continue to hold a job, live independently and
be high functioning.  The Applicant is genetically predisposed to mental illness as she
has a family history of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.  (Tr. p. 124.)
  
3
In the past, her psychotic episodes have been triggered by causal events in life.
In 2005, she thought that her cousins who were living with her were stealing from her.
After being hospitalized and stabilized by medication, she saw a psychiatrist for her
condition.  It was recommended at that time that she go home and stay with her mother
for the rest of her life.  (Tr. p. 58.)  The Applicant explained that she was sexually
abused as a child and the memories of that trigger some things for her.  She does not
remember each time she had an psychotic episode, but she does recall the last time in
2010.  She also remembers some complications in 2009.  (Tr. p. 59.)
  
Since 2005, she has had great difficulty stabilizing her condition on medication
and has gone through a litany of different anti-psychotic and mood regulating
psychotropic medications to find which works best for her.  Medical records reveal that
in 2005 the Applicant was taking Geodone and it did not work.  It was exhibiting
symptoms that she found hard to live with.  She complained of breast discharge, weight
gain, sleeping problems and her mental heath symptoms had not gone away.  She
subsequently stopped using it, as the side effects were too intense, and she was
prescribed another drug.   
  In 2009, the Applicant was hospitalized several times for psychosis.  Medical
records reveal that her medication was not working well, as she was not sleeping well
and it was hard for her to function.  (Tr. p. 60.)  She discontinued taking her prescribed
medications without the consent of her mental health professional.  She explained that
she missed her appointment with her psychiatrist.  (Government Exhibit 3.)  She
experienced auditory hallucinations, insomnia, psychosis and dysfunctional behavior.
Once hospitalized she was eventually stabilized on medication.  It was on this occasion
that she was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder bipolar-type.  Her treatment plan
was to continue with individual and group therapy.  She was also placed on a new
medication that seemed to work better for a while.  (Government Exhibit 3.)  
In 2010, there was a triple-homicide in the Applicant’s apartment complex.  This
violent crime triggered another psychotic episode and again she was hospitalized and
eventually stabilized on medication.  Again, she experienced auditory hallucinations and
psychosis.  She had difficulty managing voices in her head.  She testified that she heard
her ex-boyfriend’s voice telling her to stay away from other men.  (Tr. p. 107.)  She also
believed that people were coming to kill her, and that she must drive to the state line.
(Government Exhibit 3.)  The medical records reveal that she was noncompliant with
her medication.  They also indicate that in regard to some of her medication, she ran
out.  At that time she was deemed a danger to herself.  (Tr. p. 69, and Government
Exhibits 4 and 5.)
Medical records of the Applicant dated February 2010, also indicate that she
attempted suicide by overdosing on medication about ten years earlier.  (Government
Exhibit 3.)  The Applicant disagrees with the medical records.  She stated that she was
going through a bad break up with her boyfriend at the time, but that she never
attempted suicide.  She does admit to having had a suicidal thought.  (Tr. p. 67.)
                          
4
The Applicant testified that her mental illness requires ongoing mental health
treatment with both a therapist and psychiatrist.  She normally sees her therapist once
or twice a month.  From June 2009 through February 2011, the Applicant saw her
therapist for her mental illness.  It was her therapist’s opinion that, “the Applicant had a
condition that could impair her judgment, reliability, or ability to properly safeguard
classified national security information.”  (Government Exhibit 4.)
From March 2010 through February 2011, the Applicant saw her psychiatrist for
her mental illness.  At some point, she told her psychiatrist that she believed that she
could telepathically communicate with a former co-worker whom she became obsessed
with.  The coworker filed harassment charges, and the Applicant left the company for
that reason.  (Tr. p. 108.)  In reference to the Applicant’s condition, her psychiatrist
stated that, “her condition is a chronic illness that can have episodic exacerbations and
can have breakthrough symptoms and there is significant potential for this illness to
impact her reliability and judgment.”  (Government Exhibit 5.)   
In April 11, 2012, the Applicant was evaluated by a clinical psychologist, at the
Government’s request.  It was the Government psychologist’s opinion that, “the
Applicant’s history was one of inconsistent compliance with treatment, in which the
result of her noncompliance has been consistently destabilizing with recurrent psychotic
thinking and paranoid delusions.”  (Government Exhibit 2.)  Based upon that history and
her statements during his evaluation, he further stated that he had, “identified multiple
factors making her unlikely to consistently comply with her prescribed medication in the
future.”  (Government Exhibit 2.)  
A treatment evaluation from the Applicant’s therapist dated June 28, 2012, states
that, “the Applicant is well aware that she must comply with medication.  Her increased
understanding of how to manage her condition will most likely prevent her from any
future hospitalizations.”  She further states that, “since her last hospitalization, the
Applicant has quit smoking, run a marathon, and is currently in a position for a
promotion at work.”  It is her therapist’s belief that the Applicant does not pose a threat
to national security, since her mental health is stable.  (Applicant’s Exhibit C.) 
The Applicant testified that her stability and mental health is dependent on taking
her medication.  (Tr. p. 98.)  Since 2010, she has been taking Geodone, a medication
she had tried a few years earlier, without success, and a sleeping aid, as needed, to
prevent her psychosis.  She is currently taking 100 miligrams of Geodone which seems
to be working.  (Tr. p. 127.)  She states that she does not like to take the sleeping pills
because it causes memory problems.  (Tr. p. 127.)  In the event that she runs out of
medicine or it stops working for some reason, she will experience psychotic episodes.  
Presently, the Applicant has taken a break from therapy which is not uncommon
for her.  (Tr. pp. 90-91.)  She stopped seeing her psychiatrist and therapist about two
months ago.  She plans to start treatment again and see a psychiatrist and therapist on
a regular basis.  However, at this time she is not sure if she will stick with her most
recent psychiatrist or seek out another.
5
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges in this
paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because she engaged
in conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty or an
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations that can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.  
The Applicant completed a security clearance application dated October 27,
2006.  The Government alleges that the Applicant falsified material facts in response to
Question 21 of the application.  Question 21 asked the Applicant if in the last seven
years, had she consulted with a mental heath professional (psychiatrist, psychologist,
counselor, etc) or had she consulted with another health care provider about a mental
health related condition.  The Applicant answered, “YES”, but failed to provide any of
the mental health professionals or providers, including the hospitals that provided her
treatment, beginning in 2000.  (See, SOR.)
The Applicant submitted responses to interrogatories from DOHA signed on
February 21, 2011.  The Government alleges that the Applicant falsified material facts in
response to questions in the interrogatories.  Specifically she was asked to identify any
counselors, medical professionals or institutions from whom she had received mental
status, mental health, or psychiatric evaluation, treatment or counseling.  The Applicant
identified only one hospital.  In fact she had treatment in at least three hospitals. 
The Applicant submitted responses to interrogatories from DOHA signed on
August 11, 2011.  The Government alleges that the Applicant falsified material facts in
response to questions in the interrogatories. Specifically, she was asked to identify any
counselors, medical professionals or institutions from whom she had received mental
status, mental health, or psychiatric evaluation, treatment or counseling.  The Applicant
identified only one and no others.  In fact she has had several mental health providers. 
The Applicant testified that she thought that she had listed all of her mental
health treatment, although she does not remember all of it.  She signed the medical
release forms and thought the Government would have access to all of her records.
She did not intend to hide anything from the Government.  (Tr. pp. 73-86.)
The Applicant’s second cousin testified.  She is a registered nurse, who has
known the Applicant  from the age of twelve to sixteen years old, and then reconnected
with her after college.  She is very close to the Applicant and considers her to be
trustworthy and responsible.  She would have no problem allowing the Applicant to
babysit her children.  She is aware of the Applicant’s illness and understands that once
she stabilizes on her medication she has no problems.  (Tr. pp. 23-40.)    
The Applicant testified that to help her illness, she tries to stay healthy and fit.
She exercises and takes vitamins.  She also ran a marathon.  She has had no problems
at work related to her mental condition.  In fact, she had been doing well on the job and
is up for a promotion.  When she had a psychotic episode in the past, she went to the
hospital.  She tells her employer that she is not feeling well and that she needs to take
time off.  She takes either sick leave or vacation time and has never had a problem with
6
that.  (Tr. p. 65.)  She further states that she would never jeopardize the national
security for her own benefit.  (Tr. p. 66.)
The Applicant’s work performance appraisal for the period from January 2011
through December 2011 is favorable.  It reflects that she either “meets” or “exceeds
expectations” in every category, except one.  In the remaining category she received a
rating of “far exceeds expectations.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  She received an award for
her outstanding work performance in October 2012.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.)  She has
never been reprimanded or disciplined for any reason.  (Tr. p. 44.)
POLICIES
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  Accordingly, the
Department of Defense, in Enclosure 2 of the 1992 Directive sets forth policy factors
and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern, which must be given
binding consideration in making security clearance determinations.  These factors
should be followed in every case according to the pertinent guidelines.  However, the
conditions are neither automatically determinative of the decision in any case, nor can
they supersede the Administrative Judge’s reliance on her own common sense.
Because each security clearance case presents its own unique facts and
circumstances, it cannot be assumed that these factors exhaust the realm of human
experience, or apply equally in every case.  Based on the Findings of Fact set forth
above, the factors most applicable to the evaluation of this case are:
Guideline I - (Psychological Conditions)
27. The Concern.  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 raise solely on the basis of seeking
mental health counseling.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
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
emotionally unstable, irresponsible, dysfunctional, violent, paranoid, or bizarre behavior;
28.(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;
7
29.(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.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information.  Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers
during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security
clearance process.
Condition that could raise a security concern:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
 c. The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d. The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e. The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g. The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
8
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicted
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.”  The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have 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.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order
. . .  shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a
determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
The Government must make out a case under Guideline I (Psychological
Conditions) and under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) that establishes doubt about a
person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.  While a rational connection, or
nexus, must be shown between Applicant's adverse conduct and her 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.  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.
CONCLUSION
Having considered the evidence in light of the appropriate legal standards and
factors, and having assessed the Applicant's credibility based on the record, this
Administrative Judge concludes that the Government has established its case as to all
allegations in the SOR, and that Applicant's questionable psychological conditions has a
direct and negative impact on her suitability for access to classified information.  
The Applicant obviously failed to provide all of the names of the mental health
professionals and providers that have treated her for her mental health condition on her
security clearance application and in response to interrogatories.  I do not believe,
however, that she intended to conceal this information form the Government for any
sinister reason.  From her testimony, I glean that she thought that by signing the
medical release forms, which she did, the Government would have access to all of her
medical records and would identify all of the mental health professionals, providers and
hospitals she received treatment from.  She now realizes that it was her responsibility to
provide this information in response to the Government’s questions.  She was careless
9
in answering the questions, but not intentionally deceitful.  I find that the Applicant did
not deliberately conceal material information from the Government on her security
clearance application or in her responses to interrogatories in regard to questions about
her mental health treatment. Accordingly, Guideline E (Personal Conduct) is found for
the Applicant.    
The Applicant has a heavy burden to meet in order to be eligible for access to
classified information when she suffers from a chronic psychological illness.  Over the
past seven years, a number of competent mental health professionals have evaluated,
diagnosed and treated the Applicant’s mental condition, known as Schizoaffective
Disorder with bipolar features.  Now, the question to be addressed is whether the
Applicant has emotional, mental or a personality disorders, which can cause a
significant defect in her psychological, social, and occupational functioning that may
adversely affect her ability to properly safeguard classified information. Clearly the
Applicant’s mental condition poses a security risk.  The medical professionals that have
evaluated the Applicant, including therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists, have
indicated in various ways that the Applicant’s psychological problems could cause a
significant defect in functioning, which indicates a defect in judgment, reliability, and
stability.  
Applicant’s mental illness is only stabilized by medication.  Her illness is not in
remission, but is full blown, and can be brought on by causal events if she misses her
medication.  The nature of the illness is chronic and continuing.  Applicant is taking her
medication at this time, and has been adjusting the medication to find its best results.
Presently, she believes that she has her condition under control.  However, her own
therapist and treating psychiatrist, as well as the Government psychologist after
evaluation, have a different opinion.  Although they arrive at their conclusions differently,
each of them believe that her condition could impair her judgment, reliability or ability to
properly safeguard classified information.  The possibility exists that she could stop
taking her medication for whatever reason, as she has done in the past.  To reiterate
the opinion of her psychiatrist, given her history, “multiple factors were identified making
her unlikely to consistently comply with her prescribed medication in the future.”
Furthermore, “episodic exacerbations can have breakthrough symptoms and there is
significant potential for her illness to impact her reliability and judgment.”  Considering
this evidence in totality, the Applicant’s mental condition demonstrates an emotional,
mental, and personality condition that can impair judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness and can adversely affect her ability to protect classified information.  
Under Guideline I, Psychological Conditions, Disqualifying Conditions 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 emotionally
unstable, irresponsible, dysfunctional, violent, paranoid, or bizarre behavior, 28(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 29(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 apply.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.
10
There has been no evidence presented in mitigation significant to override the
Applicant’s heavy burden in this case.  Applicant has not met her burden of
demonstrating that her psychological condition does not raise a security concern, and
Guideline I is found against the Applicant.
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a
whole person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability, an
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other characteristics
indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.
  
Considering all of the evidence presented, it does not come close to mitigating
the negative effects of her psychological condition and the impact that it can have on
her ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the
Applicant has failed to overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a
security clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant
as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.
Paragraph 2 is found for the Applicant.   
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: Against the Applicant
Paragraph 2: For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.a.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For the Applicant
11
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interests to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge