CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-02097 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 20-02097

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

Case Profile
Decision Date3/22/2024
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionsSee the appeal decision (Case 20-02097) →See the appeal decision (Case 20-02097) →
Participants
Judge: Richard A. Cefola
Government Counsel: Adrienne M. Driskill
Applicant's Counsel: Christopher Snowden
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 58-year-old individual who had worked for a defense contractor since October 2018 and had previously served in the U.S. Navy. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons citing security concerns under Guidelines I (Psychological Conditions) and E (Personal Conduct). The core allegations included a diagnosis of a personality disorder that could impair judgment and issues related to the applicant's employment termination, which he initially denied understanding as a firing.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to having been evaluated by a mental health professional who diagnosed him with Other Specified Personality Disorder, Mixed Personality Features. The psychologist noted the applicant's defensiveness and lack of candor during the evaluation, which raised concerns about his judgment. The applicant denied willfully falsifying information on his security clearance application, asserting that he believed he left his previous job by mutual agreement and had forgotten about a past DUI incident that was ultimately dismissed.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that the evidence supported the concerns raised under Guideline I, particularly the psychologist's opinion regarding the applicant's mental health condition and its potential impact on his reliability and trustworthiness. The judge found that the applicant's explanations did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns, leading to the denial of his eligibility for access to classified information.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- 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. 20-02097

deniedMar 22, 2024· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 58-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). The applicant was diagnosed with an Other Specified Personality Disorder, Mixed Personality Features, by a qualified mental health professional, which was determined to potentially impair his judgment.

While the applicant successfully rebutted allegations of personal conduct, including claims of willfully falsifying information on his October 2018 e-QIP regarding prior employment termination and a past alcohol-related incident, and misrepresenting facts during a January 2019 OPM interview and a June 2022 psychological evaluation, these rebuttals were not sufficient to overcome the psychological concerns.

The judge found the conclusions of the psychological evaluation compelling, specifically noting the applicant's diagnosed personality disorder. The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate these psychological concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance eligibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder that may impair judgment, as determined by a qualified mental health professional.
The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the psychological concerns raised against him.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 28(b)appliedDisqualifying ConditionThe applicant was evaluated by a qualified mental health professional who opined that he has a condition that may impair judgment.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 29(e)rejectedMitigating ConditionThe applicant did not demonstrate that there is no indication of a current problem despite evidence of good workplace performance.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 22, 2023
Answer filedMay 24, 2023
Hearing heldSep 26, 2023
Decision dateMar 22, 2024Decision upon remand.

Cite For

Evaluation of Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I
Rebuttal of Personal Conduct Allegations Under Guideline E
Importance of Mental Health Evaluations in Security Clearance Determinations

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found in favor of the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, concluding that the applicant did not willfully falsify information regarding his employment history or any related incidents. Despite the applicant's denials, the judge determined that the evidence did not support claims of deliberate falsification.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant denies that he knew he was 'fired' from his employment in May of 2018 for conduct identified as 'Poor Judgment/Policy Violation.'	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to Disclose	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant did not willfully falsify his October 2018 e-QIP when he answered, 'No,' to Section 13A – Employment Activities, as to his being 'fired' in the last seven years.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant did not willfully falsify his October 2018 e-QIP when he answered, 'No,' to Section 22 – Police Record (EVER) which asked whether he had 'EVER been charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs.'	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant did not willfully falsify material facts at his January 2019 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) interview regarding him being pulled over on a Naval Base for a possible DUI.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant did not willfully falsify material facts at his January 2019 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) interview regarding the circumstances surrounding him leaving his employment in May of 2018.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.f	Applicant did not willfully falsify material facts at his June 2022 psychological evaluation regarding the circumstances surrounding him leaving his employment in May of 2018.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.g	Applicant did not willfully falsify material facts at his June 2022 psychological evaluation regarding him being pulled over on a Naval Base in January of 1993, for a possible DUI.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant regarding the psychological condition of Other Specified Personality Disorder, Mixed Personality Features, as evaluated by a qualified mental health professional. The judge noted the applicant's lack of candor and defensiveness during the evaluation process, which contributed to the decision to deny the application for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶28)	Mitigating applied (¶29)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was evaluated by a duly qualified mental health professional and determined to have Other Specified Personality Disorder, Mixed Personality Features.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Psychological Condition	Unknown	(b) an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment/stability/reliability/trustwort…	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline I). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

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