Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 39-year-old chemist, contested the Department of Defense's intent to deny her security clearance due to psychological conditions. The judge found that the applicant had a long history of compliance with her treatment and did not engage in behavior raising concerns about her judgment or reliability, leading to the granting of her security clearance.

Under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant has been receiving treatment for major depressive disorder, general anxiety disorder, and borderline personality disorder since at least 2012 (1.a). Applicant has struggled with depression since high school, during which she received inconsistent treatment (1.b). She began receiving regular treatment for her depression in October 2012 after she experienced post-partum depression after the birth of her first child (1.c). In 2014, after experiencing a miscarriage, the CRN-PMH recommended Applicant complete a 45-day out-patient treatment program (1.d). She participated in a second out-patient program in 2015 after the death of her father (1.e). In March 2018, she required intervention through voluntary hospitalization (1.f). Applicant took on all the childcare and household responsibilities while she continued to work fulltime (1.g). She reported to her CRNP-PMH that she was experiencing suicidal ideation with a plan (1.h). Although she completed the required treatment program, and weekly appointments with her care team. Her symptoms persisted, and she began to engage in non-suicidal self-harm (1.i). Applicant began seeing a certified licensed clinical social worker (LCSW-C) for individual counseling (1.j). During her sabbatical, Applicant participated in another intensive outpatient program from January 2019 to March 2019 (1.k). In January 2023, Applicant underwent a psychological evaluation by a DOD-appointed evaluator (1.l). The evaluator determined that Applicant has a psychological or psychiatric condition which could represent an increased risk for her ability/willingness to properly follow orders or perform sensitive duties (1.m). The evaluator ultimately concluded that Applicant’s judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness in safeguarding classified information were poor (1.n).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 28(b), AG ¶ 28(c). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 29(a), AG ¶ 29(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a long history of compliance with her treatment for psychological conditions; She did not engage in behavior that raised concerns about her judgment or reliability; Favorable assessments from her medical providers supported her case.

Why the applicant prevailed

• The applicant demonstrated a long history of compliance with her treatment for psychological conditions.
• She did not engage in behavior that raised concerns about her judgment or reliability.
• Favorable assessments from her medical providers supported her case.

Conditions referenced

Key rule quoted

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

Procedural posture

• SOR issuedMar 22, 2023
• Answer filed—
• Hearing heldAug 3, 2023
• Decision dateAug 26, 2024

Cite for

• Demonstrating Compliance with Treatment for Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I
• The Importance of Favorable Medical Evaluations in Security Clearance Cases
• The Application of Mitigating Conditions for Psychological Issues in Security Clearance Determinations.