1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02960
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 8, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:
Applicant suffered from emotional, mental, and personality conditions. Resulting
security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits,
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (e-QIP) on January 25,
2013. (Item 2.) On January 3, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated
Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant,
detailing security concerns 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 Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines that came into effect in the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
2
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR, dated January 24, 2015
(Answer), and requested that her case be decided by an administrative judge on the
written record without a hearing. (Item 1.) Department Counsel submitted the
Government’s written case on December 2, 2015, containing eight Items. A complete
copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, and she was
afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation,
or mitigation within 30 days of her receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of her copy of the FORM
on December 17, 2015. She failed to submit any additional material in response to the
FORM. I received the case assignment on March 28, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 43 years old, and has worked for a defense contractor since January
2013. She has never married and has no children. (Item 2.)
The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because she
has been diagnosed as bipolar, a condition that could impair her judgment, reliability or
ability to properly safeguard classified national security information. Her mental health
status has been a contributing factor in her 1992 “other than honorable” discharge from
the Marine Corps; her 2010 arrest for vandalism; and her manic state in 2011. Applicant
admitted all of the allegations, and included an explanation in her Answer. (Item 1.)
Applicant served in the Marine Corps from June 1991 to December 1992. She
indicated on her e-QIP that she was discharged in December 1992 “under other than
honorable conditions” for “misconduct-minor disciplinary infractions.” (Item 2.) During
her subject interview conducted April 19, 2013, she indicated that she has difficulties
serving in the military due to onset of bipolar disorder. She was “seen in the Marine
psych ward after an emotional breakdown,” and reportedly was diagnosed as bipolar at
that time. She was subsequently discharged, after denying she had bipolar disorder and
refusing medication. (Item 6.) 
Federal Bureau of Investigations Records indicate that Applicant was arrested on
August 10, 2010, and charged with vandalism. On this occasion, Applicant reported she
was “in a manic state” and was not thinking clearly. She intentionally scratched a
garage door with a key, during a domestic disturbance. She was given a suspended
sentence, fined and placed on probation for three years. (Item 3; Item 6.)
In 2011 Applicant continued to experience manic states and pressured thoughts.
She was diagnosed as bipolar, and provided medications to manage her condition. The
record contains medical records from July 2011 through December 2013. Those
records reflect racing thoughts, paranoia, distractability, and anger issues. (Item 7; Item
8.) She was medicine compliant and stable between August 2013 and May 2014, but
her medical provider from August 2013 through at least May 2014 opined that she had a
condition that could impair her judgment, reliability or ability to properly safeguard
3
classified national security information. (Item 5.) Applicant failed to produce more recent
records showing her current level of medicine compliance.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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. 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant 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.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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 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.
4
Analysis
Guideline I, Psychological Conditions
The security concern for the Psychological Conditions guideline is set out in AG ¶
27 as follows:
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 standards in the 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. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable:
(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.
Appellant has been suffering with bipolar disorder since at least 1992. It caused
her other than honorable discharge from the Marine Corps in 1992 after she refused
medical treatment with prescription medication, and caused her arrest in 2010. She was
diagnosed with bipolar disorder and she has been receiving psychological treatment
since at least 2011. She has been utilizing prescribed medications to control this
condition, and was documented as medicine compliant from August 2013 to May 2014.
However, the treating doctor, a duly qualified mental health professional, opined that
Appellant has a condition that may impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.
Further, no recent assessment of her compliance with her treatment regime had been
provided. Her long history of psychological treatment, as documented in her records of
medical care by duly qualified mental health professionals, casts doubt on her
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. AG ¶¶ 28(a), 28(b), and 28(c) apply.
5
The conditions that could mitigate Psychological Conditions security concerns,
as set out in AG ¶ 29, include:
(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.
The evidence does not sufficiently establish any of above mitigating conditions.
Applicant has not demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance. The current status
of her medicine compliance is unknown. Further, she has not been given a favorable
prognosis by her treating physician or provided evidence that her condition is under
control or in remission, and/or has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation. Her
condition is not temporary and has caused her difficulties for over 20 years.
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. 
6
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
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for her voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the
security concerns expressed in the SOR. While she has successfully held her job for
over two years, she has not yet demonstrated a sufficient period of medicine
compliance. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to
Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. She did not meet
her burden to mitigate the security concerns arising from her psychological condition.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline I: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d Against 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 access to classified information is denied.
                                              
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Administrative Judge