Introduction: Why Mental Health History Matters in Clearance Cases

Few questions cause more anxiety in the clearance world than this:

“I suffered from mental health issues when I was much younger — will they use that against me?”

It’s a fair fear. Many cleared professionals assume that simply admitting to past counseling, treatment, or hospitalization will end their career. Others try to hide their history on the SF-86, hoping the government won’t notice — and end up making things worse.

Here’s the truth: the government doesn’t punish you for seeking help. What they care about is whether your past creates current risk to judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. For many applicants, old struggles — if disclosed honestly and backed up with documentation — can be fully mitigated.

At the National Security Law Firm (NSLF), we’ve handled hundreds of Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) cases. We know exactly what adjudicators look for, what mistakes sink applicants, and how to build a strategy that wins.

The Rules That Actually Control Mental Health Cases

Mental health concerns fall under Guideline I: Psychological Conditions of the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information.

Adjudicators look at a few key factors:

  • Recency — Did this happen in your teenage years, or are you still dealing with it now?

  • Severity — Was it mild counseling for stress, or repeated hospitalizations for serious conditions?

  • Treatment and Compliance — Did you seek professional help? Did you follow through with the treatment plan?

  • Current Stability — Do medical records or a professional evaluation show you’re healthy and functioning today?

  • Whole-Person Concept — When viewed in the context of your entire life, do your past struggles raise real security concerns?

👉 In plain terms: an old issue is not an automatic disqualifier. What matters is whether you’re stable and reliable now.

Elements, Evidence, and Burden

Clearance cases work on a burden-shifting system:

  • Government’s burden: Raise evidence that your past condition could affect your judgment or reliability.

  • Your burden: Provide mitigation — evidence that you’re stable, compliant with treatment, and not a current risk.

Strong evidence includes:

  • A letter from a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist confirming stability and treatment compliance.

  • Documentation of completed counseling or therapy.

  • Employment records showing years of stable performance.

  • Character statements from supervisors and colleagues.

Common mistakes:

  • Omitting history on the SF-86. Dishonesty is worse than the condition itself.

  • Being vague. “That was years ago” won’t cut it without documentation.

  • Over-explaining with excuses. Stick to facts backed by proof.

Mitigation Strategy: Exactly How to Improve Your Odds

At NSLF, we build mental-health clearance defenses like a mission plan. Here’s how we recommend approaching it:

  1. Gather Medical Documentation

    • Ask your past providers for records or a summary letter.

    • Make sure the letter includes: diagnosis, treatment dates, prognosis, and confirmation of stability.

  2. Show Treatment Compliance

    • Provide records of medication adherence or discharge paperwork from therapy.

    • If you’re still in treatment, show attendance logs or doctor’s notes confirming compliance.

  3. Demonstrate Long-Term Stability

    • Collect performance reviews, awards, and proof of promotions.

    • Emphasize consistent employment and reliability over the years.

  4. Add Character Statements

    • Supervisors, coworkers, or mentors can vouch for your judgment and trustworthiness.

    • These should be specific — not “John is great,” but “John has never missed a deadline in 5 years and is trusted with sensitive work.”

  5. Be Honest on the SF-86

    • Always disclose treatment that meets reporting thresholds.

    • Lying can be fatal. Candor builds trust.

  6. Consider a Fresh Psychological Evaluation

    • A recent evaluation from a trusted professional can confirm current stability.

    • Judges and adjudicators value up-to-date, independent opinions.

👉 The theme is simple: own your past, prove your stability, and show you’re low-risk today.

Hypotheticals: Bad vs. Good Responses

Case 1: College Depression

  • Facts: Emily was treated for depression at 19 after a difficult breakup. She took medication for 6 months and hasn’t had issues since.

  • Bad Response: “It was just college stress. I didn’t mention it because it doesn’t matter anymore.”

  • Good Response: Disclosure on SF-86, letter from counselor confirming treatment and resolution, 10 years of strong work performance.

  • Result: Clearance granted.

Case 2: Anxiety Hospitalization

  • Facts: Mark was hospitalized for anxiety at age 20. He’s now 35, married with kids, and working in defense contracting for 12 years.

  • Bad Response: Omitted hospitalization from SF-86 out of embarrassment. Government discovered it.

  • Good Response: Disclosed hospitalization, psychiatrist letter confirming stability, supervisor statement about reliability.

  • Result: Clearance granted after LOI response.

Timeline & Decision Points

  • SF-86: Past issues disclosed.

  • Investigation: Investigators may ask for additional records.

  • LOI (Letter of Interrogatory): Agency requests detailed answers.

  • SOR (Statement of Reasons): If concerns remain, government issues formal notice.

  • Hearing: Final opportunity to present your defense.

👉 The earlier you address the issue, the better. Waiting until the SOR stage means higher stakes, more stress, and higher cost.

FAQs: Mental Health and Clearance

Will they deny me just for seeing a therapist years ago?
No. What matters is current stability. Therapy is often seen as a positive step.

Do I have to disclose all therapy?
Only if it meets the thresholds on the SF-86. Read the questions carefully — but when in doubt, disclose.

Should I stop treatment before applying?
No. Quitting treatment early looks worse. Ongoing compliance is usually favorable.

What about medications?
Being on medication isn’t disqualifying. Non-compliance is.

Can I fight an SOR alone?
Technically yes, but the government’s lawyers have one job: to deny you. A security clearance lawyer levels the playing field.

Case Study Snapshot (De-identified)

One client came to us after receiving an SOR citing multiple past hospitalizations for depression. He omitted one hospitalization out of embarrassment. The government alleged dishonesty.

We gathered full medical records, secured a psychiatrist’s letter confirming long-term stability, and presented supervisor statements from his federal contractor job. At the hearing, we reframed the omission as a corrected error, not a deliberate lie.

Result: Clearance granted. Career saved.

The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher

Every day without your clearance is a day of lost income — often $10,000–$20,000 per month. Don’t let fear or mistakes cost you your career. The sooner you act, the stronger your defense.

NSLF’s Security Clearance Defense Package

When you retain NSLF, here’s what you get:

  • ✅ Free Consultation ($500 value) — No charge, no pressure

  • ✅ Government Insiders — Former adjudicators, JAGs, prosecutors

  • ✅ Attorney Review Board Guarantee — Multiple attorneys pressure-test your case

  • ✅ Flat-Fee Pricing, No Surprises

  • ✅ Flexible Legal Financing — Pay Later by Affirm (spread payments 3–24 months, start with $0 down)

  • ✅ Security Clearance Resource Hub — Strategies, insider tips, trusted by thousands

What Does It Cost to Fight Clearance Loss?

  • SF-86 Review: $950

  • LOI Response: $3,500

  • SOR Response: $5,000 (includes $3,000 credit if you previously hired us for the LOI)

  • Hearing Representation (includes travel): $7,500

Learn more in our Security Clearance Resource Hub or explore Pay Later by Affirm to spread payments over time.

Why Choose National Security Law Firm?

Your clearance isn’t just paperwork — it’s your livelihood. At NSLF, we’re not just clearance lawyers; we’re an elite unit of insiders who know the system from every angle.

  • 4.9-star Google rating with real client stories

  • Decades of experience in military law, federal employment, DOHA litigation

  • Insider advantage: former adjudicators, judges, prosecutors, investigators

  • Washington, D.C. headquarters — the hub of clearance decision-making

  • Disabled-veteran founded; nationwide representation

  • Attorney Review Board — multiple attorneys review every serious case

Meet our attorneys:

  • Brett O’Brien — DOHA insider, Navy classified litigation + Army trial advocacy trained

  • Luke Rose — 16-year U.S. Army National Security Law attorney

  • Katie Quintana — Former DOE Administrative Judge

  • Sean Rogers — Retired Army JAG Lt. Colonel, career litigator

Additional Resources

Explore our Security Clearance Resource Hub for strategies, insider tips, and guides, including:

  • Avoiding SF-86 mistakes

  • Strategies for LOIs and SORs

  • How to defend Guideline F (finances), Guideline B (foreign influence), and more

Book a Free Consultation — Take Back Control

Don’t wait. This may be the most important step you take today.

👉 Book your free consultation — quick, easy, and confidential.

The National Security Law Firm: It’s Our Turn to Fight for You.