KEYWORD: Guideline I
DIGEST: Applicant’s case involves not just “mental health counseling” but also includes a
mental health diagnosis that he has a condition that impacts his ability, reliability, judgment,
stability, and trustworthiness.  The Judge did not err in his application of the Guideline I
disqualifying conditions. Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 15-02352.a1
DATE: 04/02/2019
DATE: April 2, 2019
In Re:
-----------------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-02352
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
December 28, 2017, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for
that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Department Counsel requested
a hearing.  On January 4, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Wilford H. Ross denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. 
Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Consistent with the following, we affirm.
The Judge’s Findings of Fact and Analysis
Applicant is a 59-year-old employee of a defense contractor.  He retired from the military
in the early 2000s.   He admitted the SOR allegations with explanations.  In 2009, after attempting
suicide, he was committed to a hospital for observation and mental health treatment.  He was
discharged with the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, with Psychotic
Features.  
In 2017, Applicant underwent a psychological evaluation by a licensed psychologist/clinical 
neuropsychologist who diagnosed him with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, with
Psychotic Features; and Delusional Disorder, Prosecutory Type.  The psychologist concluded that
Applicant’s “current mental state and functioning impacts his ability, reliability, judgment, stability
and trustworthiness in handling or safeguarding classified information.”  Decision at 6, quoting from 
Government Exhibit 3.  The psychologist also noted that he agreed with Applicant’s treating
psychiatrist that Applicant “is able to perform his job, and does not have a history of aggression or
being fired from his place of employment.”  Id.  Applicant’s treating psychologist stated that
Applicant “is a very willing and cooperative client who has an excellent prognosis.”  Decision at 7,
quoting from Applicant Exhibit B.  
The Judge concluded that none of the mitigating conditions applied with enough force to
overcome the weight of the evidence.  Applicant is still subject to delusions.  The Judge noted that
the “excellent prognosis” came from the psychologist who is treating Applicant for anxiety issues
as opposed to depressive, psychotic, and delusional mental health concerns.  Decision at 11.
Discussion
Applicant contends the Judge erred in his application of the mitigating conditions.  He asserts
his anxiety issues are being treated, notes that his psychiatrist is working to resolve his
depression/delusion issues with new medication, and argues that his ability to function at work
mitigates the security concerns.  Such arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s
weighing of the evidence.  A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an
2
ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the
Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 8, 2016). 
As best we can discern, Applicant also is contending that the security clearance application
states “that mental issues alone should not be use for disallowing clearances.”  Appeal Brief at 1. 
Applicant may be referring to the provision in his security clearance application that states,
“[m]ental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny eligibility for access
to classified information or for a sensitive position . . . .”  Government Exhibit 1 at 24.  Applicant
is misinterpreting the language of the quoted provision.  Applicant’s case involves not just “mental
health counseling” but also includes a mental health diagnosis that he has a condition that impacts
his ability, reliability, judgment, stability, and trustworthiness.  The Judge did not err in his
application of the Guideline I disqualifying conditions.  
Applicant has not identified any harmful error likely to change the outcome of the case.  The
Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the
decision.“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with
the interests of the national security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
See also Directive, Encl. 2 , App. A¶ 2(b):  “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for
national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”  The decision is
sustainable on this record.
  
Order
The Decision is AFFIRMED.  
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan           
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
 
Signed: James F. Duffy                    
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Charles C. Hale                    
Charles C. Hale
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3