A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 25-01336
GrantedDecided Sep 15, 2026 · Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a pro se individual, sought a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions). Despite a history of mental health issues and personal conduct concerns, the applicant successfully mitigated these issues through sufficient evidence demonstrating her current stability and reliability. The judge granted the security clearance, concluding it was consistent with national interest.
Why the applicant prevailed
- Applicant presented sufficient evidence to establish AG ¶ 29(a) and 29(b) mitigating psychological conditions.
- Applicant provided evidence to mitigate personal conduct concerns under AG ¶ 17(c).
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- AG ¶ 28(a) Psychological Conditionsraised
- AG ¶ 16(a) Personal Conductraised
Mitigating
- AG ¶ 29(a) Psychological Conditionsapplied
- AG ¶ 29(b) Psychological Conditionsapplied
- AG ¶ 17(c) Personal Conductapplied
Key rule quoted
“The applicant has met her burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 05/05/2026
- Answer filed
- 05/18/2026
- Hearing held
- 09/03/2026 hearing convened as scheduled
- Decision date
- 09/15/2026
Cite for
- Mitigation of Psychological Conditions Under Guideline I
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
- Burden of Persuasion in Security Clearance Cases
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Allegations under Guideline E
Reading the 1 per allegation row needs a free account.
1 row in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline I
Reading the 2 per allegation rows needs a free account.
2 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
______________ ______________ DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 25-01336 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Brittany White, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/15/2026 Decision GOLDSTEIN, J., Administrative Judge: Applicant submitted a security clearance application on July 3, 2023. On May 5, 2026, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sent her a statement of reasons (SOR), alleging security concerns under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) and E (Personal Conduct). The DCSA acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016). Applicant answered the SOR on May 18, 2026, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on July 27, 2026, and the hearing was scheduled for September 3, 2026. I convened the hearing as scheduled. On September 3, 2026, I notified Department Counsel that I intended to issue a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor and she did not object. Applicant’s mental health history from 2013 through present is sufficient to raise the disqualifying conditions in AG 28(a) and 28(b). However, I conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to establish AG ¶¶ 29(a) and 29(b) and mitigate any security concerns under Guideline I. Additionally, the Government established concerns about her
personal conduct under Guideline E, AG ¶ 16(a). However, she presented sufficient evidence to establish mitigation under AG ¶ 17(c). I conclude that Applicant has met her burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is granted. Jennifer Goldstein Administrative Judge 2