CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00396 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 22-00396

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date10/17/2024
Statusunknown
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 22-00396) →See the hearing decision (Case 22-00396) →See the hearing decision (Case 22-00396) →
Participants
Judge: James B. Norman, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales, Troy L. Nussbaum
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a woman in her early fifties who had been employed since November 2020. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). The core allegations included a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, discontinuation of treatment against medical advice, and a poor prognosis from a DoD-contracted psychologist who noted potential impairments in judgment and reliability.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had a history of mental health treatment but had not been hospitalized or exhibited erratic behavior. She admitted to having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and anxiety but denied any current issues, asserting that her condition was under control. The applicant provided evidence from a psychologist and a physician who evaluated her and concluded that she did not have bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder. The judge noted that the applicant had proactively sought care and had a stable support system.
Ultimately, the administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, granting her security clearance eligibility. The judge determined that the evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant's past psychological conditions were temporary and resolved, with no current indications of instability. The judge found the reports from the applicant's evaluators to be credible and well-reasoned, while giving little weight to the DoD-contracted psychologist's report due to its inaccuracies and lack of thoroughness. The government appealed the decision, arguing that the judge misapplied the relevant guidelines, but the judge's findings were upheld based on the evidence presented.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline GAlcohol Consumption · For Applicant
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · For Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. ISCR Case No. 22-00396

unknownOct 17, 2024· Hon. James B. Norman· hearing

Summary

This case involves a woman in her early fifties whose security clearance was reviewed under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), I (Psychological Conditions), and J (Criminal Conduct). Concerns arose due to a past diagnosis of bipolar disorder and a period where she discontinued treatment.

The appeal board remanded the case for further review, finding the judge's decision lacked clarity regarding conflicting psychological evaluations. However, the board also noted that recent assessments indicated the applicant was stable and currently free of psychological issues.

The board did not issue a final outcome, instead sending the case back for a more thorough evaluation of the psychological evidence.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated stability and no current psychological issues as per recent evaluations.
The judge found that the applicant's past psychological conditions were temporary and resolved.
The applicant provided credible testimony and supporting evaluations from mental health professionals.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 28(a)raisedBehavior That Casts Doubt on Judgment, Stability, Reliability, or Trustworthiness
AG ¶ 28(b)raisedOpinion by a Qualified Mental Health Professional Indicating a Condition That May Impair Judgment
AG ¶ 28(d)rejectedFailure to Follow a Prescribed Treatment PlanInsufficient evidence of a treatment plan from the applicant's former psychiatrist.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 29(a)appliedCondition Is Readily Controllable with Treatment and Individual Has Demonstrated Compliance
AG ¶ 29(b)appliedIndividual Has Voluntarily Entered a Counseling or Treatment Program
AG ¶ 29(d)appliedPast Psychological Condition Was Temporary and Resolved
AG ¶ 29(e)appliedNo Indication of a Current Problem

Key Rule Quoted

“A judge’s decision can be found to be arbitrary or capricious if it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”
— ISCR Case No. 97-0184 at 5, n.3 (App. Bd. Jun. 6, 1998)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 21, 2022
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateOct 17, 2024Appeal remanded for further review.

Cite For

Remand for Clarity on Conflicting Psychological Evaluations
Weight of Expert Testimony in Psychological Evaluations
Temporary Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I

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

Full decision

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