Summary
This case concerns a 49-year-old electronics field engineer and military veteran whose security clearance eligibility was reviewed under Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant deliberately falsified his June 2, 2005, e-QIP by failing to disclose spring 2005 consultations with two healthcare providers for a mental health-related issue. It was also alleged that he falsified material facts to an investigator in January 2006 by stating he had been evaluated by a counselor in August 2005 after a spousal complaint, but had not sought mental health counseling.
The judge applied Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 16(a) and AG ¶ 16(b), but ultimately found that the applicant's failure to disclose the counseling was not willful or intentional. The counseling sessions were determined to be related to marital issues, rather than a mental health condition requiring disclosure.
Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 17(a), AG ¶ 17(c), and AG ¶ 17(d) were applied. A recent psychiatric evaluation further supported the applicant's case, indicating good judgment and reliability. Based on these findings, the applicant was GRANTED eligibility for a security clearance.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's failure to disclose counseling was not found to be willful or intentional.
- The counseling sessions were related to marital issues and not indicative of a mental health condition requiring disclosure.
- A recent psychiatric evaluation indicated the applicant's judgment and reliability were good.
Conditions Referenced
- AG ¶ 16(a)rejectedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant FactsThe judge did not find evidence of willful intent to conceal information.
- AG ¶ 16(b)rejectedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading InformationThe applicant's statements were not shown to be false as he did not seek counseling for a perceived mental health issue.
- AG ¶ 17(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent and Was Related to Marital Issues
- AG ¶ 17(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Demonstrated a Willingness to Cooperate with the Security Process
- AG ¶ 17(d)appliedThe Applicant Has Received a Favorable Psychiatric Evaluation
Key Rule Quoted
“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedFeb 12, 2008
- Answer filedMar 5, 2008Requested decision without a hearing.
- Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written submissions.
- Decision dateJul 3, 2008
Cite For
- Evaluation of Personal Conduct Under Guideline E
- Consideration of Marital Counseling in Security Clearance Decisions
- Importance of Psychiatric Evaluations in Determining Eligibility for Security Clearance