CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02569 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case ISCR Case No. 23-02569

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

Case Profile
Decision Date7/3/2025
Statusdenied
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 23-02569) →
Participants
Judge: Catherine M. Engstrom, Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie
Government Counsel: Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a defense contractor in his late thirties, who had previously served in the U.S. military and held security clearance eligibility for 17 years. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) due to the applicant's history of mental health issues, including multiple suicide attempts and noncompliance with prescribed medication. The SOR detailed ten concerns, primarily focusing on the applicant's diagnosed depressive disorder, involuntary hospitalization following a suicide attempt, and his inconsistent adherence to treatment plans.
The administrative judge found that the applicant had attempted suicide on four occasions and had been diagnosed with various mental health conditions, including depressive disorder and anxiety. The applicant admitted to his mental health struggles and provided evidence of his military service and community involvement, including running a suicide awareness program. However, he also acknowledged his history of noncompliance with medication and treatment recommendations, which the judge deemed significant in assessing his current mental health status.
Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the government had established disqualifying conditions related to his psychological issues. The judge determined that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his mental health conditions were under control or that there was a low probability of recurrence. Despite recognizing the applicant's positive character evidence and service to the community, the judge found that the applicant's long history of suicidal ideation and attempts did not support a favorable outcome for security clearance eligibility at that time.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline IPsychological Conditions · Against 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. 23-02569

Jul 3, 2025· Hon. Catherine M. Engstrom· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor in his late thirties, with prior military service, was denied a security clearance under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). The denial stemmed from serious mental health issues, including multiple suicide attempts and a history of inconsistent treatment for diagnosed psychological conditions.

The judge identified several disqualifying conditions, noting the applicant's failure to adhere to a prescribed treatment plan, which undermined claims of improvement. Furthermore, insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate that the applicant's psychological issues were under control or that there was a low probability of recurrence.

The appeal board upheld the denial, emphasizing the applicant's inability to show effective management of his psychological conditions and consistent adherence to treatment plans. These factors raised significant concerns regarding his judgment and reliability, leading to the final denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 28(a)appliedBehavior That Casts Doubt on an Individual’s Judgment, Stability, Reliability, or Trustworthiness
AG ¶ 28(b)appliedAn Opinion by a Duly Qualified Mental Health Professional That the Individual Has a Condition That May Impair Judgment, Stability, Reliability, or Trustworthiness
AG ¶ 28(c)appliedVoluntary or Involuntary Inpatient Hospitalization
AG ¶ 28(d)appliedFailure to Follow a Prescribed Treatment Plan Related to a Diagnosed Psychological/psychiatric Condition

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 issuedMar 19, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 16, 2025
Decision dateJul 3, 2025Appeal decision affirmed.

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Mitigation for Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I
Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment Plans as a Disqualifying Condition
Affirmation of Denial Based on National Security Interests

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 security clearance based on psychological conditions. The applicant argued that the Judge misapplied mitigating conditions regarding his treatment and prognosis. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the analysis of the applicant's mental health history and treatment compliance.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowJennifer I. Goldstein — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline I

What the Board reviewed

Mitigation wrongly applied / not applied — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge erred in her application of the mitigating conditions, specifically regarding the treatment plan and prognosis.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
The Judge's conclusions were arbitrary and capricious.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant did not demonstrate a favorable prognosis or consistent treatment compliance.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Moira Modzelewski — Chair
Allison Marie
Catherine M. Engstrom

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.