Psychological Concerns and Security Clearance Cases
Typically, a very personal subject, mental health can be an issue in security clearance cases. Our security clearance lawyers represent individuals with these types of issues in security clearances cases. Untreated psychological concerns can become a major issue in security clearance cases for government contractors and federal employees. This article discusses the issue of Guideline I, Psychological Concerns, which involves security concerns associated with psychological concerns which can lead an individual to run into security clearance concerns. Guideline I is one of the security concerns listed in Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4). 
How do Psychological Concerns Come Up?
Psychological concerns can come up in many different ways in the context of a security clearance. They can be disclosed on security clearance forms or during investigations. As noted, it is a very sensitive subject for many individuals and we do our best in our law firm to treat the issue with empathy and the confidentiality it requires. Many federal employees and government contractors retain their security clearances even if they have been alleged to have psychological issues. Additionally, it is important to note that the government has become far more accepting of psychological conditions over the past 10 years. The key, when psychological concerns impact a security clearance is to make sure that the security concern is being treated successfully or is in remission. Documentation can also be critical. Psychological concerns under review by a security clearance adjudicator can be mitigating in a number of ways.
Adjudicative Guideline I – Psychological Concerns
Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines contained within SEAD 4 governs security clearance issues involving psychological conditions. Specifically, Guideline I establishes the following security concerns about individuals with psychological conditions in Paragraph 27:
The Concern. Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information under this guideline and an opinion, including prognosis, should be sought. No negative inference concerning the standards in this guideline may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling.
While there are too many different types of psychological issues that could subject an individual to scrutiny to list them all here, they can include severe untreated mental health disorders, addictions, involuntary hospitalizations and unexplained mental health issues. When we advise clients on these sensitive issues we do so with compassion and understanding.
How to Potentially Mitigate Psychological Concerns
In our security clearance practice, we often represent and advise individuals regarding their psychological concerns which arise in the course and scope of holding or seeking to obtain a security clearance. Usually, if a serious psychological condition is under review, mitigation can require the individual to demonstrate that the condition does not remain a significant security concern to holding a security clearance. For instance, if the issue involves an a serious mental health disorder, like schizophrenia or major depression, evidence of ongoing and stable treatment can significant mitigate the concern. There are many different types of mitigation.
Specific Mitigating Factors for Psychological Concerns
Under SEAD 4, there are a number of potential mitigating factors for psychological conditions. These are listed in Paragraph 29 of SEAD 4:
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
- the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
- the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional;
- recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation;
- the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
- there is no indication of a current problem.
Examples of Mitigation for Psychological Concerns
The following are examples of some of the potential mitigation arguments that can be made in security clearance cases involving psychological concerns, depending on the specific facts at issue.
1. Evidence which shows that the individual’s mental health condition has been stabilized through ongoing mental health treatment;
2. Evidence that shows that the individual has successfully placed a mental health condition in remission and that there is no current mental health problems;
3. Medically-based expert opinions issued by qualified mental health professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors) which show that the alleged psychological concerns are no longer an issue or is a matter under control;
4. Other evidence, such as letters from family, friends and others that support that the individual’s mental health concerns have been resolved or are being treated successfully; or
5. Medical records supporting that the individual’s mental health conditions are no longer an issue.
Case Examples of Psychological Conditions Affecting Security Clearances
The following are a few case summaries of security clearance matters involving Guideline I, Psychological Conditions, before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). These few examples provide a sample of the types of cases that are involved under Guideline I:
1. ISCR Case No. 20-02097 (In case involving Personality Disorder, Mixed Personality, Applicant was denied a security clearance because he did not present expert witness evidence to show that he did not have a current mental health problem);
2. ISCR Case No. 22-01055 (In case involving prior hospitalization and Major Depression Applicant was granted security clearance where he had sought continuing help for mental health issues and followed the advice of his therapists. In addition, it was shown that he had not had a major depressive episode recently);
3. ISCR Case No. 23-00571 (In case involving individual diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prior hospitalization his comprehensive counseling and therapy mitigated his security concerns and he was granted a security clearance); and
4. ISCR Case No. 21-00867 (In case involving alcohol, social anxiety and hospitalization individual was denied a security clearance for failing to engage in treatment and not providing a medical expert opinion).
Each case involving Guideline I is different, but we have found that many cases can potentially be mitigated with the proper attention to treatment and the preparation of documentation showing that the psychological conditions are no longer an issue. If an individual is seeking a security clearance, the more time that a lawyer has to assist them in establishing that their mental health concerns have been mitigated, the better.
Contact Us
When a government contractor or federal employee is in need of a security clearance lawyer for issues involving psychological concerns it is important to do so early in the process. Our law firm advises individuals in the security clearance process. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. Read more about us here.
