1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-01132
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Adrienne Strzelczyk, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on April 27, 2011. He signed the e-QIP on May 2, 2011. The
Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on March 31, 2015, detailing security
concerns under Guideline I, psychological conditions, and Guideline E, personal
conduct. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6,
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information (AG), implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
Tr. 7-14.1
2
Applicant received the SOR on April 14, 2015, and he answered it on April 15,
2015. The Government, through Department Counsel, notified Applicant by letter dated
June 1, 2015 that it had requested a hearing before an administrative judge with the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). (Hearing Exhibit 1) Department
Counsel was prepared to proceed on July 2, 2015, and I received the case assignment
on August 25, 2015. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on September 3, 2015, and I
convened the hearing as scheduled on September 29, 2015. The Government offered
exhibits (GE) marked as GE 1 through GE 8, which were received and admitted into
evidence without objection. Applicant testified. He did not submit any exhibits. The
record closed on September 29, 2015. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on
October 7, 2015.
Procedural
Notice
Applicant is not sure when he received the hearing notice, and the record lacked
any information as to when he received notice of the date, time and place of the
hearing. I advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8. of the Directive to receive the
notice at least 15 days before the hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived this right under
the Directive. (Tr. 19.)
Due Process
At the beginning of the hearing, Applicant asked for an immediate decision on
whether he would have a security clearance or not. He also stated that he did not want
a security clearance, and that he did not want to handle classified information. Applicant
appeared not to understand the reason for the hearing or his rights after being sent the
Directive. To protect his due process rights, Department Counsel conducted a voir dire
of Applicant’s understanding of his rights. During the voir dire, Applicant advised that he
believed that his job required a public trust determination. He understood that such a
determination also required a process and that if he withdrew his application, he would
not be granted a public trust determination or a security clearance. He again indicated
that he did not want to handle classified information. He advised that he worked in an
area where classified information was located and that was the reason he needed a
security clearance or public trust determination. At the conclusion of the voir dire
questioning, I was satisfied Applicant had sufficient understanding of the issues and
process to proceed with the hearing. He agreed to proceed with the hearing.1
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the
SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following findings of fact.  
GE 1; Tr. 29-30.2
GE 1; GE 2; GE 5; Tr. 30-31.3
GE 1; GE 8; Tr. 31-32, 38-39.4
GE 4; GE 8.5
3
Applicant, who is 37 years old, works as a web developer for a DOD contractor.
He described his job as working with requirements then translating the requirements
into a computer application. He began working with his current employer in April 2011,
but he is in a different position than his initial job.2
Applicant was born in Vietnam. He immigrated to the United States in 1989 with
his family. He became a United States citizen in 1999. He is single. He currently lives
with his mother and brother. His mother does not work, but his brother does. Applicant
graduated from a major university in May 2004 with a bachelor’s degree in computer
science.3
Psychological Issues
When he completed his 2011 e-QIP, Applicant acknowledged that he had
received mental health treatment from September 2005 until October 2005. He signed a
release allowing the Government to obtain a copy of his mental health record. This
record indicated that Applicant was admitted to a local hospital on September 4, 2005
from the emergency room where he showed signs of disorientation, confusion, and
disorganization. He also experienced auditory hallucinations. His admission diagnosis
was acute psychotic disorder. The physicians treated him with anti-psychotic and anti-
depressant medications. He was released from the hospital on September 12, 2005
with medication and transferred to a partial hospital program for followup treatment. His
discharge diagnosis was adjustment disorder with behavior and mood disturbance, rule
out an acute psychotic reaction not otherwise specified.  4
Applicant was admitted for psychiatric treatment at a hospital on July 26, 2007 for
bipolar disorder after “a bout of manic episodes with extreme agitated energy filled
behavior” and auditory hallucinations. The hospital treating physician indicated an
awareness of Applicant’s previous admission and advised that Applicant had done well
with his follow-up care. During this admission, Applicant attempted to throw himself out
a window. The treating physician viewed this conduct as an attempted suicide. The
physician treated Applicant with medications, and the hospital released him when he
stabilized. His discharge diagnosis was major mood disorder, bipolar with mixed manic
and depressive state.5
In January 2011, Applicant sustained injuries in an automobile accident. When
the police arrived, Applicant became combative and tried to reach for a police officer’s
gun. The police subdued him with a taser. According to the hospital record, Applicant
was not coherent upon his arrival at the hospital emergency room because of his
GE 6; Tr. 38-39, 41.6
GE 3.7
GE 3; Tr. 34.8
4
psychosis. Tests performed showed no alcohol or illegal drugs in his system. His
diagnosis was psychosis, and he was transferred to another hospital for mental health
treatment. The records from the second hospital are not in evidence.6
Applicant was involved in another car accident in June 2014. He exhibited erratic
behavior, including getting into a woman’s car and touching her inappropriately. The
police arrested him, charged him with battery, and took him to the hospital. He recalled
spending time in a detention center. Neither the police report nor the hospital records
from this incident are in evidence. Applicant is a poor historian on the facts of the
accident.7
Applicant agreed to an independent mental health evaluation requested by the
DOD CAF, which took place on December 22, 2014. The evaluating psychiatrist
reviewed the 2005 and 2007 hospital admission and treatment records and the
emergency room records from the January 2011 automobile accident. Applicant
provided him the information about the 2014 automobile accident. The psychiatrist met
with Applicant. Applicant denied any anxiety or depression. The psychiatrist found
Applicant’s affect inappropriate for the conversation and noted that Applicant did not
exhibit any delusional statements nor auditory or visual hallucinations. Applicant’s
thought process was goal directed and logical. Applicant showed partial insight into his
bipolar disorder as he could talk about his manic behavior, but did not have any insight
into his depressive behavior nor did Applicant have an appreciation of the seriousness
of his inappropriate disruptive behavior. The psychiatrist indicated that Applicant
showed poor judgment during his evaluation because his responses to questions about
his manic behavior showed little insight and understanding of his behavior, and because
his responses suggest he may be giving unreliable information. The psychiatrist
diagnosed Applicant with bipolar I disorder, most recent episode manic, and opined that
Applicant’s disorder could impair his judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.
Applicant’s prognosis is guarded. Applicant’s medications include paxil, seroquel, and
clonazepam.8
At the hearing, Applicant acknowledged that he has been treated for bipolar
disorder and that he has been hospitalized at least three times for treatment of his
disorder since 2005. He advised that his psychiatrist prescribed one medication for
emotions, one for calm (anxiety), and one for psychosis. Applicant, however, takes his
medication when he thinks he needs it, rather than every day as his psychiatrist told
him. At the hearing, he stated that he had not taken his medication for three to four
months. Applicant does not feel his psychiatrist is helping him, so he is not receiving
regular therapy. He seeks medical attention when he wants his medication. He viewed
the independent evaluation as a medical appointment for medication. Applicant
understands that his bipolar disorder cannot be cured. He acknowledged that during
Tr. 32-33, 39-41, 44-46.9
Tr. 34-35.10
GE 1; GE 2; GE 5; Tr. 37, 48.11
GE 2; Tr. 37-38, 49, 51.12
5
episodes with his illness, he mixes up reality and dreaming. When what he describes as
“barriers” “goes down”, he is sedated at the hospital to allow him to sleep. He stated that
he recognizes when his bipolar “hits him” and states that during this time he cannot
distinguish between real and unreal.9
Personal Conduct
When Applicant completed his e-QIP in April 2011, he listed his hospitalization in
2005, but he did not list his subsequent hospitalizations for mental health treatment. He
explained that he transferred the information from his previous security clearance
application to the 2011 e-QIP. He did not review the questions or provide updated
information. In response to a question about why he did not list his January 2011
hospitalization, Applicant stated that he could not remember the dates so he did not list
this information.10
Applicant acknowledged on his 2011 e-QIP that he left a job in May 2009
following a work disagreement about a project development. When he met with the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator in December 2011, he
acknowledged that he was fired from this job because the project did not meet the
expectations of the client. Applicant felt the reason the project did not meet the
expectations of the client was because it was underfunded. When he met with another
OPM investigator in August 2013, Applicant again stated these facts as the reason for
being fired. Although the record lacks any specific evidence that Applicant’s firing in
May 2009 was for failing to follow supervisory instructions, he admitted these facts in his
response to the SOR.11
When he met with the OPM investigator in 2013, Applicant disclosed that he had
received negative evaluations at a job he worked between August 2009 and April 2011.
He indicated that his supervisor found that he was not performing up to standards
because he failed to complete the work in a specific program. Applicant disagreed with
the supervisor’s evaluation because the client did not require the work to be performed
in this program. Applicant eventually resigned the position. The record lacks any
evidence that he was asked to resign or resigned before he was fired. Applicant did not
list this information on his e-QIP because he used the information on his previous
security clearance application without updating the information.  12
Applicant acknowledged that he played video games on his work computer in the
past. He no longer plays video games on his work computer. Instead, he uses his
phone when he has free time. Applicant explained that he accessed gaming websites
Tr. 36, 52.13
6
when he lacked work with the intent to do “research as gaming sites were more
innovative” and as a way to take his mind off of work-related problems. Playing games
helped him to think clearer. He acknowledged that his employer did not approve of his
actions.  13
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 are used 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, 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. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining 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 an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to 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 as to 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
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 admitted that he suffers from bipolar disorder and that when his illness
“hits him”, he cannot distinguish between real and fantasy. In the last 10 years,
Applicant has been hospitalized at least three times for mental health treatment. Less
than a year ago, he was evaluated by a mental health professional, who diagnosed a
bipolar I disorder and opined that Applicant’s condition could impair his judgment,
reliability and trustworthiness. By his own admission, Applicant has declined to take his
medication as required and had not done so for three or four months prior to the
hearing. The Government has established a security concern under AG ¶¶ 28(a), 28(b),
and 28(c). 
8
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.
I have reviewed the above mitigating conditions, and I conclude that none apply
because while Applicant’s mental health condition is treatable and managable, he is not
in treatment, and his condition is not under control as he is refusing to take his
medications and to participate in treatment. Because of his mental health problems, he
lacks sufficient insight and self-awareness to decide when medication is necessary
without ongoing therapy.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
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.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
9
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of:
(1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of
client confidentiality, release of proprietary information,
unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other
government protected information:
(2) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the
workplace; 
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and,
(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other
employer's time or resources; and
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct,
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's
personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence
service or other group. 
For AG ¶ 16(a) to apply, Applicant’s omission must be deliberate. The
Government established that Applicant omitted material facts from his April 2011 e-QIP,
when he failed to list his 2007 and 2011 hospitalizations for treatment of a mental health
condition, and he failed to acknowledge that he left a job in 2009 under adverse
circumstances. In his response to the SOR, he admitted the facts of allegations 2.a and
2.d. At the hearing, he explained how he completed his e-QIP. In reviewing his
testimony, it is unclear if he understood that his admissions included intentional
falsification. Because his understanding is unclear, I will review the allegation as a
denial. When the allegation of falsification is controverted, the Government has the
burden of proving it. Proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove
an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred. An administrative
judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004) (explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313314
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
10
direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an applicant’s intent or state of mind at the
time the omission occurred.14
Applicant acknowledged at the hearing that he did not list the 2011 hospital
admission because he did not know the dates. Applicant understands that he was
treated at the hospital three times for his bipolar disorder, but he could not remember
dates. He chose not to indicate that he had been hospitalized after 2005. Even though
he is a poor historian, he knew he had been in the hospital after 2005 and intentionally
chose not to list this information. A security concern has been established by SOR
allegation 2.a.
Applicant’s failure to treat his departure from his job in 2011 as adverse
circumstances does not rise to the level of intentional conduct. He considers his
departure to be the result of a disagreement over his evaluation and as a decision by
him to seek other employment which treated him more favorably. He did not express a
view that he left because of his performance. The evidence is insufficient to establish a
security concern under SOR allegation 2.d as to SOR allegations 2.b and 2.c.
Applicant violated company rules by playing video games at work. Applicant
acknowledged that he lost his job in 2009 for failing to follow his supervisor’s directions
on a work project. A security concern has been established under AG ¶¶ 16(d)(2) and
16(d)(3) and 16(e).
  
The personal conduct guideline also includes examples of conditions that can
mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 17(a) through ¶
17(g), and the following are potentially applicable:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
Applicant did not make a prompt, good-faith effort to correct his intentional
omission of his history of medical treatment after 2005. He has not mitigated his
falsification of his 2011 e-QIP. Applicant acknowledged that he had a bipolar disorder,
but he is not compliant with his medication or any treatment plan. His medical condition
impacts his ability to understand his conduct at work and elsewhere as shown by the
11
loss of jobs in 2009 and 2011. He stopped using his work computers to visit gaming
websites, but he continues to use his phone to access these websites when he is at
work. His overall conduct and attitude about his work shows little understanding of his
problems and indicates a lack of interest in changing his conduct. He has not mitigated
the security concerns about his personal conduct.   
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
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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
has a bachelor’s degree in computer science and has worked for more than 10 years as
a web designer. He has been diagnosed with bipolar I disorder, which impacts his ability
to make good decisions and change his conduct and attitude. He has decided not to
take his medications, a poor decision which will most likely result in additional
hospitalizations in the future. Applicant lacks the insight and judgment necessary to
comply with the rules and regulations for holding a security clearance and managing
classified or sensitive information. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security and trustworthiness concerns arising
from his psychological condition and personal conduct under Guidelines I and E..
12
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d: For Applicant
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 a security clearance is denied.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge