Guideline I - Security Clearance Attorney

Mental illness is at the forefront of America’s hot topic issues.  For military, federal employees and federal contractors prior bouts with mental health can create hurdles during the security clearance process.  While it is not the federal government’s goal to deny security clearance applicants that suffer from psychological conditions, safeguards have been put in place in order to evaluate security clearance applicants appropriately.

DoD Directive 5220.6 and Security Executive Agency Directive  4 (SEAD 4) Guideline I govern psychological conditions that could prevent an applicant from obtaining a clearance.

Below is an excerpt from DoD Directive 5220.6:

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. No negative inference concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of seeking mental health counseling.

The federal government has put these regulations in place because certain psychological conditions could impair an applicant’s “judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.”  Throughout the security clearance process there are factors that can raise concerns and there are factors that can mitigate concerns as well.

Issues that can raise concerns and potentially disqualify a candidate from obtaining clearance include:

·      behavior that casts doubt on an individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness that is not covered under any other guideline, including but not limited to emotionally unstable, irresponsible, dysfunctional, violent, paranoid, or bizarre behavior;

·      an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition not covered under any other guideline that may impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness;  

·      the individual has failed to follow treatment advice related to a diagnosed emotional, mental, or personality condition, e.g., failure to take prescribed medication.

As mentioned above, however, there are mitigating circumstances that can alleviate any concerns that were raised.  They 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 emotional instability was a temporary condition (e.g., one caused by death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;

·      there is no indication of a current problem.

If you have been issued a Statement of Reasons for Guideline I issues or you’re concerned that past mental health or psychological conditions will flag your SF-86, we recommend consulting Matthew Thomas Law, PLLC to determine your next steps. Contact us today and schedule a free consultation.