CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-01226.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-01226.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-01226.a1

Aug 1, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A mid-30s defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). The applicant's history of Bipolar Disorder and related mental health issues were determined to negatively affect his judgment and trustworthiness.

Additionally, the applicant had approximately $26,000 in unresolved delinquent debts, which raised significant financial security concerns. These issues were cited as disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 19 and 20.

The appeal board upheld the denial, concluding that the applicant's mental health conditions and outstanding debts presented unmitigated security risks.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedPsychological Conditions
AG ¶ 20raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“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)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 26, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 28, 2019
Decision dateAug 1, 2019

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I
Financial Issues Impacting Security Clearance Under Guideline F
Standards for Evaluating National Security Interests in Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on psychological conditions and financial considerations. The Applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline FGuideline I

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate any harmful error in the Judge's weighing of the evidence.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline I DIGEST: In late 2017, DoD requested a psychological evaluation of Applicant. The psychologist determined that Applicant met the criteria for Bipolar Disorder, most recent episode depression, in partial remission; Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in remission; Cannabis Use Disorder, Mild; and Social Anxiety Disorder (with associated panic attacks). The psychologist noted Applicant was evasive in reporting his past use of alcohol and marijuana. Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. His arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in an manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 18-01226.a1 DATE: 08/01/2019 DATE: August 1, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ) --------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01226 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

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 September 26, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On May 28, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson 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, who is in his mid-30s, has worked for a defense contractor for over the past four years. Starting in 1999, he was hospitalized multiple times for suicidal ideation and manic behavior. He contends that his parents forced him into the hospital against his will, which caused him emotional distress. In the mid-2000s, he was treated for Bipolar Disorder, General Anxiety Disorder, and Severe Psychotic Tendencies. Soon thereafter, he stopped all medications and counseling and sought “alternative treatments.” Decision at 3-4. In 2010, he was contemplating suicide and sought assistance. He was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder; Psychotic Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified; Generalized Anxiety Disorder; Social Phobia; Alcohol Dependence; Cannabis Dependence; and Polysubstance Dependence. In late 2017, DoD requested a psychological evaluation of Applicant. The psychologist determined that Applicant met the criteria for Bipolar Disorder, most recent episode depression, in partial remission; Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in remission; Cannabis Use Disorder, Mild; and Social Anxiety Disorder (with associated panic attacks). The psychologist noted Applicant was evasive in reporting his past use of alcohol and marijuana. Applicant’s treatment records noted a history of paranoia, visual hallucinations, and delusional and disorganized thinking. The psychologist concluded that Applicant’s mental health status appears to negatively impact his judgment and trustworthiness and, if his mental health symptoms were to reemerge, his stability and reliability would also be negatively impacted. He has not received professional treatment or prescribed medications for his diagnosed mental health conditions since about 2011. None of the mitigating conditions fully apply to the Guideline I allegations. The SOR also alleged that Applicant had defaulted on four student loans totaling about $23,000 and had five other delinquent debts totaling about $3,000. Applicant attributed his financial problems to being a single parent, medical expenses arising from a back injury, and the absence of financial aid during his last semester of college. He made a few payments on the student loans, but admitted he has not recently made any payment toward them. The alleged debts remain unresolved. None of the mitigating conditions fully apply to the Guideline F allegations.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that the Judge’s decision is flawed. He argues that his brief periods of instability were due to extenuating circumstances beyond his control, that his guardians forced him into psychiatric treatment against his will, and that, since his last hospitalization about 15 years ago, he has proven his stability and his ability to make intuitive and reasonable decisions. He contends that he terminated his treatment because he no longer needed it and that he is being discriminated against because of his previous psychiatric history. He further argues that it is a mistake to use his student loans as a reason for denying his security clearance because he is not the only employee of a defense contractor with such debt. We do not find his arguments persuasive. Applicant has not challenged any of the Judge’s specific findings of fact. His arguments amount to a disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence and are not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence in an manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR 15-08684 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 22, 2017). His argument that other defense contractor employees have delinquent student loans warrants no remedial action because each security clearance adjudication must be judged on its own merits. Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b). In short, Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “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.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board