1 
 
 
 
                                                                      
                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
        DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 15-02352 
) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government:  
Andrew Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel 
 
For Applicant:  
Pro se 
 
 
January 4, 2019 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge: 
 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted his most recent Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations 
Processing (e-QIP) on August 7, 2014. (Government Exhibit 1.) On December 28, 2017, 
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 National 
Security Adjudication Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position, effective within the Department of 
Defense after June 8, 2017. 
  
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on January 22, 2018, and 
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared 
to proceed on March 1, 2018. The case was assigned to me on March 7, 2018. The 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on March 
15, 2018. I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 25, 2018. The Government 
offered Government Exhibits 1 through 10, which were admitted without objection. 
Applicant offered Applicant Exhibits A through C, which were admitted without objection, 
and testified on his own behalf. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on May 3, 
2018.  
  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is 59 years old and employed by a defense contractor. He is married, 
with no children. Applicant was honorably retired from the Air Force as a technical 
sergeant (E-6) in 2001, and has an Associate of Arts degree. He is seeking to retain 
national security eligibility for a security clearance in connection with his employment. 
(Government Exhibit 1 at Sections 12, 13C, 15, 17.)  
 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline I, Psychological Conditions) 
 
 The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance 
because he suffers from an emotional, mental or personality condition that can impair his 
judgment, reliability or trustworthiness. Applicant admitted all the allegations in the SOR 
with explanations. He also submitted additional documentation to support a finding of 
national security eligibility. 
 
 Applicant’s mental health issues were first identified when he attempted to commit 
suicide on November 14, 2009. He changed his mind, called the police, and was 
committed to a hospital for observation and mental health treatment. (Government 
Exhibits 6, 7; Tr. 31.) 
 
 Applicant was discharged from the hospital on November 25, 2009, with a 
diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, With Psychotic Features. 
Progress notes from his hospitalization are found in Government Exhibit 8. The notes are 
replete with statements by Applicant that he felt he was being covertly observed, even 
while he was in the hospital. (See Tr. 33.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 
 Pertinent excerpts from his Discharge Summary (Government Exhibit 9) are as 
follows: 
 
HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: This is a 50-year-old Caucasian male 
with no past psychiatric diagnosis. He was brought in by police on a 5150 
for danger to self after patient [Applicant] cut both of his wrists superficially 
and was observed to be sitting in warm water in a bathtub. The patient 
stated, “I cut a little more initially, but it didn’t work. I got scared and called 
the police.” The patient stated that he had been feeling that people were 
following him for the last year and a half. The patient believed they were 
military personnel. The patient was unsure why they were following him, but 
they were looking at him in the home as well as following him around 
wherever he went. The patient stated he believed he was being monitored, 
“Because I stare at children too long.” . . . The patient denied auditory or 
visual hallucinations. The patient however was preoccupied with his 
delusions to the point of feeling that people were following him even in the 
hospital. The patient reported history of recurrent episodes of depression, 
but no psychosis in the past. . . The patient stated that he felt that he needed 
to kill himself to save his wife.  
 
 The hospital records further state, under “COURSE OF HOSPITALIZATION”: 
 
The patient demonstrated gradual improvement to his symptoms with 
treatment. . . The patient reported significant decrease in the intensity and 
frequency of his paranoid delusions. The patient states that he was no 
longer bothered by them. The patient initially had thoughts of ending his life 
to save his wife. The patient, however, reported resolution of any suicidal or 
homicidal ideations.  
 
 Applicant was prescribed drugs, and also advised to obtain counseling. He 
continues on a drug regimen, as well as counseling, as further described below. 
(Applicant Exhibits A and B.) 
 
 Applicant was interviewed by an investigator for the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) on September 11, 2014. The investigator prepared a Report of 
Investigation (ROI), which stated as follows concerning Applicant’s 
“PSYCHOLOGICAL/EMOTIONAL HEALTH”: 
 
The subject’s anxiety stems from the constant feeling that people are 
watching him, at work, going to the bathroom, at home, when he is driving, 
to “suggest he is doing things he isn’t supposed to do” in order to get rid of 
him. The subject could not elaborate on what he meant by “things he isn’t 
supposed to do.” These feelings first started in about 2003 date not recalled, 
at home, then in about 2005, date not recalled, at work. The subject has 
spoken with his supervisor about his belief that people are watching him to 
 
 
4 
 
 
get him on something. The subject’s supervisor has told the subject that no 
one is trying to watch him or get things on him. The subject thinks that his 
supervisor thinks he is “a bit off.” The subject has not had any disciplinary 
actions or confrontations. (See Tr. 26-27.) 
 
The subject’s counseling and medication have helped him to understand 
that people are not out to get him, but he still can’t help getting the feeling 
that people are watching him. (Government Exhibit 2 at 2.)  
 
 Based in part on this interview a staff psychologist at the DoD CAF recommended 
that Applicant receive a medical evaluation. The psychologist stated, “Even in the face of 
the very limited favorable medical testimony, a concern exists about the subject’s 
judgment and reliability based upon his intrusive thoughts/anxieties he expressed to the 
OPM investigator during his 11 SEP 14 PSI [Personal Subject Interview].” (Government 
Exhibit 4.) 
 
 Applicant received a psychological evaluation from a licensed psychologist/clinical 
neuropsychologist (Evaluator) on November 3 and 10, 2017. (See Tr. 36.) The 
Evaluator’s report is Government Exhibit 3. Pertinent excerpts from this document are as 
follows: 
 
COLLATERAL INTERVIEWS (CONDUCTED BY PHONE): 
 
[Applicant] provided a signed authorization for this evaluator to speak with 
his treating psychiatrist Dr. [A]. On November 8, 2017, Dr. [A] reported that 
[Applicant] is being treated for Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, 
severe, with psychotic features and Delusional Disorder. He has been 
treating [Applicant] since December 2009. Dr. [A] first began providing 
treatment on a monthly basis and reduced it to one time every two months. 
[Applicant] is reported to be consistent with is appointments. The current 
prescribed psychotropic medications are as follows: Risperdal .5 mg, 
Wellbutrin 150 mg, Lexapro 20 mg, and Klonopin .5 mg. Dr. [A] is aware of 
[Applicant’s] persecutory/paranoid delusions, and reports Risperdal .5 mg 
is a low dose, but he has been unable to increase the dose due to reported 
side-effects. Dr. [A], reports Risperdal is about the only antipsychotic 
medication that [Applicant] will tolerate. Some of the paranoid delusions that 
Dr. [A] is aware of are as follows: Co-workers are talking about him, playing 
games with him, his work is trying to fire him, he is being monitored by his 
computer and his telephone. Dr. [A] reports that [Applicant] is guarded and 
does not go into detail about the paranoid delusions. Dr. [A] reports that he 
does not believe that there would be a problem in [Applicant’s] judgment or 
reliability in safeguarding secret/confidential information because of the 
following: He has known [Applicant] for so long, he is able to perform his 
job, has been relatively free of disciplinary actions, has not been fired from 
his job, and [Applicant] is at baseline/not deteriorating. 
 
 
5 
 
 
BRIEF HISTORY OF RELEVENT ISSUES:   
 
    . . . . 
 
 Although he continues to work as a . . . Assistant Site Manager, and 
has been with the same company for many years, [Applicant] reports having 
the following complaints (persecutory/paranoid delusions): His work is 
trying to fire him because he stares at women too long; co-workers are 
talking about him, playing games with him; he is being monitored by his 
computer and his telephone, “People are working on getting me fired; they 
track how many times I look at women; security guards on the base can 
read my mind or put things in my mind.” [Applicant] reports ongoing 
treatment with Dr. [A], psychiatrist, for medication management, and [Dr. B], 
PhD, MFCC, for individual therapy. [Applicant] reports ongoing discussions, 
on the above ideations, with both treatment providers. Dr. [A] reports he is 
aware of the above delusions.  
 
 PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION/TESTING RESULTS:  
 
Mental Status Exam: . . . [Applicant] reported suffering stress due to people 
at his work trying to get him fired . . . No obvious or unusual anxiety 
symptoms were noticed, beyond closing his eyes when reporting paranoid 
ideations. [Applicant’s] thought process was linear; his thought content was 
irrational when discussing paranoid delusions; thought content was relevant 
to the topic being discussed. . . . 
 
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): This evaluator administered the 
PAI to [Applicant], which resulted in a valid profile, validity indices were well 
within the normal range, suggesting that he answered in a consistent 
manner, attended appropriately to the item content, and had an ability to 
identify positive and negative qualities/attributes about himself. 
 
[Applicant] elevated several of the clinical scales, indicating that he suffers 
from significant anxiety, depression, and psychotic symptoms. The most 
significantly elevated clinical scales suggest that [Applicant] is hypervigilant 
and overly suspicious; he spends much time monitoring his environment for 
evidence that others are trying to harm or discredit him. He also has 
persecutory beliefs that people are plotting against him in some sort of 
conspiracy (e.g., “People want to fire me”). People may view him as odd 
and eccentric, due to his hypervigilance and unconventional ideas. As a 
result of his paranoid ideations (e.g., “Security guards on base can read my 
mind and put things in my mind”) and related anxiety, he socially isolates 
and detaches, which may serve to decrease his social discomfort. 
 
    . . . . 
 
 
6 
 
 
Although he is not aware that many of his thoughts are delusional in nature, 
he acknowledges that he has major emotional difficulties and believes he 
needs help.  
 
 Based on the foregoing, under the section “DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS,” the 
Evaluator found the following diagnoses, which are consistent with those of Dr. A, set 
forth above: Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe, with psychotic features; and, 
Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type.  
 
 The report concludes: 
 
IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM PROGNOSIS 
 
Long-term prognosis is fair if [Applicant] is willing/able to tolerate an 
increase in Risperdal (or another antipsychotic medication as 
recommended by Dr. [A]). In the past, [Applicant] adhered to a higher dose 
of Risperdal, resulting in an improved mental state and stability. However, 
at this time, [Applicant’s] immediate prognosis is poor. He continues to have 
significant paranoid delusions, depressed mood, anxiety, and periodic 
suicide ideation. Insight into his delusions is currently poor. There is 
currently significant interpersonal functional impairment in [Applicant’s] life. 
He also has a history of occupational difficulties (e.g., Unable to work as a 
result of psychiatric hospitalization in 2009, security clearance was revoked 
in 2009) without mental health treatment. Without an increase in Risperdal 
(or another antipsychotic), his prognosis is likely to remain poor. 
 
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
At this time, [Applicant’s] current mental state and functioning impacts his 
ability, reliability, judgment, stability and trustworthiness in handling or 
safeguarding classified information. I agree with Dr. [A] that [Applicant] is 
able to perform his job, and does not have a history of aggression or being 
fired from his place of employment. However, [Applicant] is not in touch with 
reality, at this time, due to his continued paranoid delusions; furthermore, 
he continues to experience depression and anxiety, and periodic suicide 
ideation; this dysregulation of neurotransmitters could affect the frontal 
lobes, and areas involved in decision making and metacognition. As a result 
of his current mental state, and poor insight, there is significant concern that 
[Applicant] could pose a risk of unauthorized disclosure or mishandling of 
classified information.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
 Applicant’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. A, provided a written statement dated April 23, 
2018. It is Applicant Exhibit A and reads as follows: 
 
Please be advised that [Applicant] has been under my psychiatric care since 
12/15/2009 for the medication management of major depression with 
psychotic features and the delusional disorder, persecutory type. He is seen 
every one to two months for medication management and his current 
medications are Lexapro 20 mg at bedtime, Zyprexa 2.5 mg at bedtime and 
Klonopin 0.5 mg as needed.2 [Applicant] attends his sessions regularly and 
has been compliant with the recommendations for medication 
management.  
 
 Applicant testified that his psychiatrist had changed his prescription from Risperdal 
to Zyprexa because of some suicidal thoughts he was having. He also thought that Dr. A 
put him on Zyprexa because of the recommendation from the Evaluator that Applicant’s 
medication either be changed or increased. (Tr. 37-38.) 
 
 Applicant also has a treating psychologist, Dr. B, who also submitted a written 
statement, dated March 22, 2018. He has been seeing Applicant since approximately 
2005. (Tr. 25, 38-39.) The statement is Applicant Exhibit B and reads as follows: 
 
I am writing this letter to confirm that [Applicant] has been in individual 
counseling with me. [Applicant] has been showing good progress in dealing 
with his anxiety issues. We have been utilizing Cognitive Behavioral 
Therapy and Solution Focused Therapy as the basis for affecting change in 
his life. [Applicant] reports improvement in dealing with the stressors of his 
life. He is a very willing and cooperative client who has an excellent 
prognosis. 
 
 Applicant testified concerning his issues at some length. He confirmed that his 
issues began in 2004 or 2005 with a constant feeling that people were watching him at 
work, while going to the bathroom, at home, while he was driving, and suggesting that he 
was doing things he wasn’t supposed to be doing. Applicant testified that he continued to 
have these feelings today about his fellow workers. He also believed at the time of the 
hearing that such observation was being done covertly by his management and 
investigators, though not as much as during earlier days. (Tr. 24-32.)  
 
 
 
                                                 
2 I take administrative notice of the following facts concerning the drugs that are currently prescribed for 
Applicant. Lexapro is an anti-depressant. (WebMD, Lexapro, https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-
63990/lexapro-oral/details (accessed December 28, 2018).) Zyprexa is an anti-psychotic. (WebMD, 
Zyprexa, https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1699/zyprexa-oral/details (accessed December 28, 
2018).)  Klonopin is used to treat panic disorder and anxiety. (WebMD, Klonopin, https://www.webmd.com/ 
drugs/2/drug-920-6006/klonopin-oral/clonazepam-oral/details (accessed December 28, 2018).) 
 
 
8 
 
 
 Applicant testified that he did not believe the security guards at work were reading 
his mind and putting thoughts in his head. He further testified: 
 
There’s this one Security outfit that has some kind of device or something, 
if you’ve seen on the news and whatnot. They’ve had ways where they can 
go, where people can go and use hearing – brain-connecting hearing aids 
– to brain waves so deaf people can hear and whatnot. So, it’s not really a 
stretch for those same waves to be – if they have the right frequency – could 
go and listen and understand them. (Tr. 46.) 
 
 He was asked by me, “And you believe this is happening with you?” Applicant 
responded, “It happened yes.” I also asked him, “Is it currently happening, or in the past?” 
Applicant stated, “In the past, yes, Your Honor.” (Ibid.) 
  
 Applicant provided a letter of recommendation from a retired member of the Air 
Force who knows Applicant well. The writer met Applicant at church, believes Applicant 
to be a trustworthy person, and recommends him to receive national security eligibility. 
(Applicant Exhibit C; Tr. 39-40.) 
 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in 
evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. 
 
 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. 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, “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security 
eligibility 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or 
conjecture.  
 
 
 
9 
 
 
 Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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 national 
security eligibility. 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 or sensitive information. 
Finally, as emphasized in § 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any 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.” 
See also Executive Order 12968, § 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to 
classified or sensitive information.) 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline I, Psychological Conditions) 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Psychological Conditions is set 
out in AG ¶ 27: 
 
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 and an opinion, including prognosis, should be sought. No 
negative inference concerning the standards in this guideline may be raised 
solely on the basis of mental health counseling. 
 
The guideline at AG ¶ 28 contains five conditions that could raise a security 
concern and may be disqualifying. Three conditions are established: 
 
(a) behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment, stability, reliability, 
or trustworthiness, not covered under any other guideline and that may 
indicate an emotional, mental, or personality condition, including, but not 
 
 
10 
 
 
limited to, irresponsible, violent, self-harm, suicidal, paranoid, manipulative, 
impulsive, chronic lying, deceitful, exploitative, or bizarre behaviors;  
 
(b) an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the 
individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability or 
trustworthiness; and 
 
(c) voluntary or involuntary inpatient hospitalization. 
 
 Applicant has been suffering from several diagnosed, severe, mental health 
conditions since at least 2009. He was psychiatrically hospitalized at that time because 
of a suicide attempt. His diagnosed conditions include major depression with psychotic 
features, and a delusional disorder, persecutory type. These delusions are specifically 
related to his work, where he believes he is being covertly watched, that his management 
is conspiring against him, and that a security outfit has been able to use a device to read 
his mind and put ideas into his head. Applicant testified about his delusions, which he 
continues to believe. In addition, Government Exhibit 3 is an extensive report from a DoD-
approved mental health consultant who opined that Applicant’s conditions are not under 
control and may impair his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. 
 
The guideline at AG ¶ 29 contains four 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; and 
 
(e) there is no indication of a current problem. 
 
 After evaluating all the available evidence, I find that none of these mitigating 
conditions apply with force enough to overcome the weight of evidence. First, it must be 
understood that there is no allegation that Applicant has ever mishandled classified 
information. However, that is not the determining factor in this case. 
 
 
 
11 
 
 
 Mitigating condition ¶ 29(a) does not apply because there is little to no evidence 
that Applicant’s condition is controllable with treatment. He is compliant with the treatment 
plan, but the evidence shows that he is still subject to delusions. 
 
 Mitigating condition ¶ 29(b) does not supply sufficient mitigation because there is 
little evidence that the counseling Applicant is receiving has resulted in a relevant 
favorable prognosis by either of his mental health professionals. The Government is 
concerned with Applicant’s diagnosed delusions and depressive psychosis. The letter 
from Dr. A merely stated that Applicant is medication compliant. Dr. B’s letter stated that 
Applicant has an “excellent prognosis.” However, it is noted that the letter also stated that 
Applicant is being treated by Dr. B for “anxiety issues,” which are distinct from the 
depressive, psychotic, and delusional mental health concerns diagnosed by the 
psychiatrist.  
 
 Mitigating conditions ¶ 29(c) does not apply because the Evaluator had specific 
concerns about Applicant, set forth in Government Exhibit 3, which have not been 
answered. He found that Applicant’s condition is not under control or remission, and that 
there was a high probability of exacerbation. 
 
 Finally, mitigating condition ¶ 29(e) does not apply. Based on the report of the 
Evaluator, and Applicant’s testimony, there is more than sufficient evidence of a current 
problem. 
 
 The simple fact is that Applicant does not currently meet the conditions for a 
granting of national security eligibility. There is always the possibility that his condition will 
stabilize, and that he will receive a favorable prognosis specifically concerning his 
diagnoses of major depression with psychotic features, and delusional disorder, 
persecutory type. Until that happens, he is not eligible. Paragraph 1 is found against 
Applicant.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant=s eligibility for a national security eligibility 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(d):  
 
(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.  
 
 
12 
 
 
 Under AG & 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant national security 
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 has not mitigated the 
concerns regarding his psychological conditions, which are involuntary but serious and 
likely to continue. Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant=s 
present suitability for national security eligibility, and a security clearance. 
 
 
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 or continue Applicant=s national 
security eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is 
denied. 
                                                  
 
 
WILFORD H. ROSS 
Administrative Judge