PSH-12-0072

* The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure
under 5 U.S.C. 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: June 18, 2012 )
) Case No.: PSH-12-0072
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 25, 2012
_______________
Hearing Officer Decision
_______________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (“the Individual”) to
possess a Department of Energy (DOE) access authorization.1 For the reasons detailed below, I
find that the Individual’s suspended access authorization should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is a contractor employee at a DOE facility who has possessed a security clearance
since 2007. Exhibit (Ex.) 4 at 15. In February 2012, as part of a reinvestigation, the Individual
completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (2012 QNSP). Ex. 4. In the 2012
QNSP, the Individual admitted that he had previously used marijuana, a fact that he had not
revealed to the Local Security Office (LSO) in an earlier QNSP completed in 2007 (2007
QNSP). Ex. 4 at 13. Consequently, in April 2012, the LSO conducted a personnel security
interview (2012 PSI) with the Individual. Ex. 6.
The 2012 PSI did not resolve the concerns raised by the Individual’s prior use of marijuana or
his failure to report that use in the 2007 QNSP. Additionally, the 2012 PSI revealed the fact that,
in 2008, the Individual, while possessing a security clearance, had taken an anti-anxiety
medication prescribed for his mother. The Individual had not reported that fact on the 2012
QNSP. As a result, the LSO informed the Individual, in a May 2012 notification letter
1 Access authorization, also known as a security clearance, is an administrative determination that an individual is
eligible for access to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5.
- 2 -
(Notification Letter), that derogatory information existed under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8 that created a
substantial doubt as to his eligibility to retain a security clearance. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter
also informed the Individual that his security clearance was suspended and he was entitled to a
hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to resolve the security concerns. Id.
The Individual requested a hearing on this matter. At the hearing, the DOE counsel introduced
six exhibits into the record (Exs. 1-6). The Individual presented his own testimony, as well as the
testimony of his mother (Mother), his wife (Wife) a high school basketball coach (Coach), and
the Manager of the program where he is currently employed (Manager). See Transcript of
Hearing, Case No. PSH-12-0072 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual submitted three
exhibits (Exs. A-C).
II. REGULATORY STANDARD
The regulations governing the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization are set forth at
10 C.F.R. Part 710, “Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified
Matter or Special Nuclear Material.” The regulations identify certain types of derogatory
information that may raise a question concerning an individual’s access authorization eligibility.
10 C.F.R. § 710.10(a). Once a security concern is raised, the individual has the burden of
bringing forward sufficient evidence to resolve the concern.
In determining whether an individual has resolved a security concern, the Hearing Officer
considers relevant factors, including the nature of the conduct at issue, the frequency or recency
of the conduct, the absence or presence of reformation or rehabilitation, and the impact of the
foregoing on the relevant security concerns. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). In considering these factors,
the Hearing Officer also consults adjudicative guidelines that set forth a more comprehensive
listing of relevant factors. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information (issued on December 29, 2005 by the Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs, The White House) (Adjudicative Guidelines).
Ultimately, the decision concerning eligibility is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment
based on a consideration of all relevant information, favorable and unfavorable. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.7(a). In order to reach a favorable decision, the Hearing Officer must find that “the grant or
restoration of access authorization to the individual would not endanger the common defense and
security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). “Any
doubt as to an individual’s access authorization eligibility shall be resolved in favor of the
national security.” Id; see generally Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (Egan)
(the “clearly consistent with the interests of national security” test indicates that “security
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS
A. Factual Findings
The underlying facts are not disputed. During the period between December 2005 and May 2006,
the Individual, while attending college, smoked marijuana on approximately five to ten
occasions. Ex. 4 at 14; Ex. 6 at 14-17.
- 3 -
In June 2007, pursuant to his employment as a student intern at an DOE facility, his employer
requested that he be granted a security clearance. Ex. 4 at 15. In completing the 2007 QNSP, the
Individual reported that he had not used illegal drugs since the age of 16.2 Ex. 5 at 23.
During his 2012 reinvestigation, the Individual completed the 2012 QNSP, where he disclosed
that he had used marijuana on approximately five to ten occasions during a period from
December 2005 through May 2006. Ex. 4 at 13-14. The Individual answered “no” to the question
in the 2012 QNSP which asked if the Individual had either illegally used any “controlled
substances” or “intentionally engaged in the misuse of prescription drugs, regardless of whether
or not the drugs were prescribed for you or someone else.” Ex. 4 at 13-14.
The Individual, during the 2012 PSI, confirmed his reported marijuana usage and further stated
that he had used a half tablet of his Mother’s prescribed anti-anxiety medication on two
occasions during December 2007 or January 2008 while he was employed at the DOE facility
and possessed a security clearance. After the 2012 PSI interviewer explained the DOE’s
concerns and policy regarding non-prescribed prescription drug use, the Individual recognized
that his use of his Mother’s prescription medication violated DOE’s and his employer’s policies
regarding drug use. Ex. 6 at 44-45. With regard to his negative answer in the 2007 QNSP
regarding involvement with illegal drugs, the Individual disclosed that he was “probably fearful
of disclosing that fact” and admitted that he had falsified his answer regarding illegal drugs in the
2007 QNSP. Ex. 6 at 37.
1. The Associated Security Concerns
The Notification Letter stated that the LSO was in possession of derogatory information
regarding the Individual pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710(f), (k), and (l) (Criterion F, K and L,
respectively). Criterion F pertains to deliberate false statements or misrepresentations by an
individual during the course of an official inquiry regarding the individual’s eligibility for access
authorization, including responses during personnel security interviews or on security
questionnaires. Such statements raise serious doubts regarding an individual’s honesty,
reliability, and trustworthiness. 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f). The DOE security program is based on
trust, and when a security clearance holder breaches that trust, it is difficult to determine to what
extent that individual can be trusted again in the future. See Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline
E, ¶ 15; see also, e.g., Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0727 (2009).3 In light of the
fact that the Individual failed to reveal his use of marijuana in the 2007 QNSP and his improper
use of his Mother’s prescription anti-anxiety medication in the 2012 QNSP, I find that the LSO
had sufficient grounds to invoke Criterion F in this matter.
2 The Individual actually completed an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing, an electronic
version of the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP). In this Decision, I will refer to the e-QIP as a
QNSP.
3 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) after November 19, 1996, are available on the
OHA website located at http://www.oha.doe.gov. The text of a cited decision may be accessed by entering the case
number of the decision in the search engine located at http://www.oha.doe.gov/search.htm.
- 4 -
Criterion K relates to information indicating that an individual has used an illegal drug, such as
marijuana, or improperly used a prescription medication. The use of an illegal drug or a non-
prescribed prescription medication raises questions about an individual’s reliability and
trustworthiness, both because it may impair judgment and because it raises questions about a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. See e.g., Personnel
Security Decision, Case No. TSO-0658 (2008). Given the Individual’s admission in the 2012
PSI that he used marijuana and his Mother’s prescribed anti-anxiety medication, I find that the
LSO was justified to invoke Criterion K with regard to the Individual.
Criterion L refers to conduct tending to show that an individual was “not honest, reliable, or
trustworthy, or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual may be subject to pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best
interests of the national security.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l). Conduct involving questionable
judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can
raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information. See Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline E, ¶¶ 15, 16(a); see also, e.g., Personnel
Security Hearing, Case No. PSH-12-0053 (August 3, 2012). In light of the Individual’s
admission in the 2012 PSI that he had used his mother’s prescription anti-anxiety medication
while possessing a security clearance, I find that the LSO properly invoked Criterion L.
B. Whether the Individual has mitigated the Security Concerns
1. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual presented witnesses to establish that his youth and immaturity at
the time of the 2007 QNSP, the relatively isolated nature of his illegal and prescription drug use,
and the subsequent maturing of his character, mitigate the security concerns raised by the
derogatory information described above. The relevant testimony regarding mitigation is
summarized below.
The Individual testified that his use of marijuana occurred at age 18 during his freshman year in
college, 2005. Tr. at 77; see Ex. 5 at 26. The Individual did not enjoy his use of marijuana and
only used marijuana in social situations. Tr. at 77. The Individual believed his use was motivated
by peer pressure. Tr. at 77-78. When the Individual began to date his future wife and his circle of
acquaintances changed, he decided to stop using marijuana. Tr. at 78.4 In 2007, the Individual
was hired as a student intern by his current employer and submitted the 2007 QNSP. Tr. at 81. In
answering “no” to the question about illegal drug use, the Individual believed that he was
“affirming that [he] wasn’t a drug user.” Tr. at 81. Further, the Individual failed to realize the
“gravity” of providing an untruthful answer. Tr. at 82. However, the Individual was unable to
precisely remember why he answered “no” to the illegal drug question but he affirmed that he
took full responsibility for his actions regarding the failure to provide accurate answers in the
2007 QNSP. Tr. at 82-83.
4 The Individual has submitted a copy of the results of random drug tests he has been subject to while employed at
the facility. Ex. A. All these tests were negative for illegal drugs.
- 5 -
The Individual testified that, at the time he completed the 2012 QNSP, he had matured
considerably and now understood the importance of holding a security clearance and why DOE
asked individuals about past drug use. Tr. at 82-83. He realized that it was important that security
clearance holders were honest, reliable and trustworthy. Tr. at 83. Consequently, the Individual
was determined to provide an accurate answer in the 2012 QNSP regarding his past marijuana
usage. Tr. at 84.
As to his use of his Mother’s anti-anxiety medication, the Individual testified that his mother
gave him two prescription anti-anxiety tablets when he was suffering from a panic attack. Tr. at
88. He did not realize that his use of this medication was a violation of DOE policy until the
policy was explained to him during the 2012 PSI. Tr. at 85-86. To substantiate his account of the
panic attack, the Individual has submitted an contemporaneous assessment performed by a
psychologist at the facility. Ex. B. The assessment diagnosed the Individual as suffering from
“Adjustment Disorder With Anxiety, Rule Out Panic Disorder vs. Generalized Anxiety
Disorder.” Ex. B at 2. He also submitted medical records detailing his visits to a clinic to receive
treatment for his anxiety disorder. Ex. B at 4. The physician prescribed anti-anxiety medication
for the Individual. Ex. B at 5. The Individual also submitted an exhibit documenting his visits
with a psychologist to deal with his anxiety problems. Ex. C.
The Individual testified that he has been tremendously humbled by the administrative review
process. Tr. at 86. The Individual believes that he has matured greatly since the period of
marijuana use. Tr. at 87. Given the life changes he has experienced, including his marriage and
his greater responsibilities at work, the Individual believes that he is a different person than the
person who failed to report his illegal drug use in 2007. Tr. at 87.
The Individual’s Mother testified that sometime around 2006 she gave the Individual two of her
prescription anti-anxiety tablets after she received a call from her daughter informing her that the
Individual was having a panic attack in a local restaurant.5 Tr. at 52, 60. The Individual’s Mother
testified that the Individual experienced periods of high anxiety when he was growing up and,
given her own anxiety disorder, believed that the Individual was having a panic attack at the
restaurant. Tr. at 53. When she provided the tablets to the Individual, she did not believe that it
was against the law. Tr. at 54. Further, the Individual’s Mother testified that if she or the
Individual had known that providing or using the anti-anxiety drugs were illegal, neither would
have used or transferred the medication. Tr. at 54-55. During the time of the Individual’s panic
attack, the Individual’s Mother advised the Individual to seek professional help for his anxiety
disorder. Tr. at 54.
The Individual’s Mother testified that she was very proud of the Individual. Tr. at 57. She
believes that the Individual knows he made a poor choice in not disclosing his marijuana use. Tr.
at 57. She also testified as to her belief that the Individual is a responsible person and has been a
good man. Tr. at 57, 62.
The Individual’s Wife testified that she met the Individual in 2006. Tr. at 64. She testified that
she has a general dislike of marijuana and never had any indication that the Individual had ever
5 The contemporary medical records submitted by the Individual indicate that the panic attack occurred around the
first week of January 2008. Ex. B at 1.
- 6 -
used marijuana. Tr. at 64. She discovered later that the Individual had used marijuana before they
met. Tr. at 64. The Individual’s Wife and the Individual were both hired by the contractor at the
DOE facility as student interns in 2007 after high school. Tr. at 65. They both were given a great
deal of paperwork to complete when they were hired and the Individual’s Wife believes neither
of them had an appreciation of how their answers on the QNSP could affect them in the future.
Tr. at 66-67.
The Individual’s Wife also testified that she and the Individual, since 2007, have grown into
adults together and are now financially independent. Tr. at 67. The Individual’s Wife testified
that, overall, the Individual is very “strait edged” and always seeks to obey the rules. Tr. at 69.
She believes that Individual’s current maturity is demonstrated by his determination to reveal his
use of marijuana in the 2012 QNSP. Tr. at 67. She also testified that the Individual now is fully
aware of what it means to possess a security clearance and the absolute importance of answering
questions with absolute accuracy. Tr. at 67.
The Individual’s Wife was present during the Individual’s panic attack which led to his use of his
Mother’s prescription anti-anxiety medication. Tr. at 69. At that time, she and the Individual’s
Mother were very concerned about the Individual since he was physically affected by anxiety.
Tr. at 69-70. She only observed the Individual initially take one-half of a tablet of the anti-
anxiety medication because the Individual did not want to “over do” taking the medication. Tr. at
70. Neither she nor the Individual’s Mother realized that giving the Individual the medication
was illegal. Tr. at 70. Afterward, the Individual decided to seek professional help for his panic
attacks and to deal with his anxiety. Tr. at 70.
The Coach testified that he is the head coach at a local high school as well as a federal employee.
Tr. at 10, 21. Ten years ago, at age 15, the Individual played for the Coach when he was the high
school’s freshman coach and later when the Coach became the head coach at the high school. Tr.
at 10-11, 21. In 2007, the Coach hired the Individual to be the freshman assistant coach at the
high school and subsequently promoted him in 2010 to be the head freshman coach. Tr. at 11. In
2011, the Coach promoted the Individual to be the junior varsity head coach. Tr. at 11.
The Coach testified as to the Individual’s stellar record as a coach at the high school. Tr. at 14-
15. He trusts the Individual not just with the duties of the freshman coach but to perform certain
duties of the Coach’s position. Tr. 14-15.
The Coach testified that to the best of his knowledge, the Individual’s use of marijuana was
restricted to the Individual’s freshman year in college. Tr. at 14. The Individual has never
partaken of alcohol during any social events the coaching staff attended. Tr. at 15. The Coach
believes that the Individual is very trustworthy – trustworthy enough to be relied upon to develop
the high school’s freshman team numbering from 12 to 14 students. Tr. at 15. During the
Individual’s tenure as a coach, the Individual has developed a number of young men of whom
are now graduating from high school. Tr. at 15-16. The Coach testified that the Individual has
shown great integrity as a coach as demonstrated by the Individual basing his decisions regarding
playing time on player skills and attitudes towards practice. Tr. at 16-17. The Coach has never
had any complaints about the Individual “playing favorites.” Tr. at 17.
- 7 -
The Coach testified that the Individual’s integrity is demonstrated by the fact that he sought to
hire the Individual in 2006 but the Individual refused the job because, at the time, he was dating
a student attending the high school. Tr. 17-18. This was significant because both the Coach and
the Individual knew that a coach dating a student could cause problems. Tr. at 18-19.
When the Individual’s security clearance was suspended, the Individual confided to the Coach
the details surrounding his suspension. Tr. at 19. The Coach found the Individual to be upright
and honest regarding his description of the incidents leading to the suspension. Tr. at 19. During
this discussion, the Coach asked the Individual if he had used marijuana while he was a student
at the high school. Tr. at 19-20. The Individual answered “no” and the Coach believes that
answer. Tr. at 20. The Coach testified that, while the Individual made a bad decision, the
Individual has been forthright in admitting his poor judgment in not revealing his past marijuana
use. Tr. at 21. Overall, the Coach has no doubts regarding the Individual’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or reliability. Tr. at 21, 26.
The Manager testified that he first met the Individual when the Individual was assigned as a
student intern in his organization. Tr. at 28. The Individual continues to work for the Manager
and the Manager was “shocked” when he was informed about the Individual’s prior marijuana
use. Tr. at 29-30. The Manager, who has prior military security experience in enforcement of
illegal drug use prohibitions, believes that the Individual’s use of marijuana in his freshman year
of college was “experimental” and did not indicate any type of more serious involvement with
illegal drugs. Tr. at 30. The Manager further testified that, with regard to the Individual’s initial
failure to disclose that he had used marijuana in the past, he believed that the Individual may
have rationalized his prior use of marijuana by thinking, at the time, that he had not done
anything inappropriate. Tr. at 32-33. In testifying to a question whether the Individual could be
trusted to be open, aboveboard, and honest with the DOE, the Manager stated that the
Individual’s willingness to challenge assumptions at work and to provide direct, accurate, advice
is an indication as to the Individual’s ability, under pressure, to present the right decision based
upon trust and integrity. Tr. at 38. The Manager believes that the Individual, as he gains in
maturity and life experience, will demonstrate the highest level of integrity and trustworthiness.
Tr. at 38.
2. Mitigation of Criterion F Concerns
As noted above, the DOE security program is based on trust, and security concerns stemming
from an individual’s breach of that trust are difficult to resolve. Once such a concern arises, the
individual must demonstrate that he/she can now be trusted to be consistently honest and truthful
with the DOE. Under OHA precedent, relevant factors include whether the individual came
forward voluntarily to admit the falsifications, the length of time since the falsification, how long
the falsehood was maintained, whether a pattern of falsification is evident, and the length of time
since the individual revealed or corrected the falsification. See, e.g., Personnel Security
Hearing, Case No. TSO-0801 (2009); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0727 (2009).
Ultimately, an individual must convince the Hearing Officer that the individual will be truthful in
the future.
- 8 -
As to the Individual’s failure to report his two-time use of his Mother’s prescription medication,
I find the Individual’s lack of knowledge that his use of his Mother’s prescribed medication
constituted a violation of DOE policy indicates that the Individual did not seek to intentionally
mislead the LSO when he did not report his use on the 2012 QNSP. A review of the 2012 PSI is
consistent with the Individual’s hearing testimony that at the time he completed the 2012 QNSP
he did not know that his use of his Mother’s prescription medication constituted illegal drug use.
See Ex. 5 at 39-44 (Interviewer explaining to Individual that use of medication prescribed for
others violated DOE policy regarding drug use). Further, given the Individual’s admission in the
2012 QNSP regarding his prior marijuana use, it seems that the Individual would have little
expectation that misleading the LSO about his limited improper prescription drug use would
have affected his suitability to retain his security clearance. See Personnel Security Hearing,
Case No. PSH-12-0066 (September 12, 2012) (discrepancies in the Individual’s accounts of her
past marijuana usage were such that the Individual could not have reasonably believed that her
suitability to be granted a security clearance would have been materially increased by providing
a somewhat lower account of her marijuana usage). In light of the mitigating factors described
above, I find that the Individual has resolved the Criterion F security concerns raised by his
failure to report his use of his Mother’s prescription medication.
With regard to the remaining falsification, the failure to report his marijuana use in the 2007
QNSP, it is apparent from the evidence that the Individual intentionally provided a false answer
in the 2007 QNSP. Further, the Individual did not correct his falsification until nine months ago.
Although the length of time since an individual has disclosed the falsification is a relevant factor,
that factor is considered together with all relevant factors. Personnel Security Hearing, Case No.
TSO-1105, slip op. at 5. (December 21, 2011). Accordingly, the fact that the individual did not
correct his falsification until relatively recently does not, standing alone, automatically mandate
an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0987 (May 13,
2011) (individual falsified two DOE forms prior to 1991, voluntarily disclosed the falsifications
eight months prior to hearing, and demonstrated a pattern of honesty and responsible behavior
over twenty years indicating that the falsifications were lapses in otherwise good judgment that
are unlikely to recur in the future); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0628
(November 3, 2008) (individual’s voluntary disclosure during a security interview one year prior
to hearing that she falsified QNSP 13 years earlier resolved due to passage of time since the
falsification, the fact that it was an isolated incident, and the individual’s greater maturity and
proven honesty and candor). On the other hand, our precedent also makes clear that relatively
recent falsifications are difficult to resolve, especially when the individual did not voluntarily
disclose the falsification. See, e.g., Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0937
(December 3, 2010) (individual who falsified two QNSPs seven years and two years before the
hearing, respectively, and lied to an investigator during an official interview two years before the
hearing, did not resolve Criterion F concerns because he demonstrated a pattern of falsification
spanning seven years, only admitted the falsifications when confronted with the information, and
had shown a relatively short period of responsible behavior since the falsifications); Personnel
Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0688 (February 18, 2009) (Criterion F concerns not resolved
where individual’s voluntary disclosure of falsification on QNSP regarding past drug use was
outweighed by the recency of the falsification – three years prior to the hearing – and the short
period of time since the individual’s admission – eight months prior to the hearing).
- 9 -
My assessment of the evidence before me indicates that the Individual voluntarily disclosed the
2007 QNSP falsification to the LSO. This is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that the
Individual maintained the falsehood for approximately five years. Given the testimonial evidence
before me, I find that, other than in regard to the 2007 QNSP, the Individual has demonstrated a
five-year period of trustworthiness and reliability regarding his position at the facility and in his
guidance of high school students. Further, the falsification itself was an isolated event and not
part of a pattern of falsification. Significantly, I find the Individual’s youth at the time of the
falsification and during the period where he withheld the information to be a mitigating factor.
See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0442 (August 6, 2001) (youth and the
development of maturity found to be a mitigating factor regarding Criterion F security concerns).
With the increased maturity of the Individual, as established by the testimonial evidence and the
Individual’s increased realization that security clearance holders must be painfully honest in
responding security inquires, I find that the Individual will be reliable and trustworthy in the
future. After weighing all of these factors, I find that the Individual has resolved the Criterion F
concerns raised in the Notification Letter.
2. Mitigation of Criterion K Concerns
As to the Individual’s marijuana use, I find that the Criterion K concerns associated with that use
have been resolved. In this regard, I find that the Individual has demonstrated several of the
mitigation factors referenced in the Adjudicatory Guidelines in reference to illegal drug use.
Specifically, the Individual’s use of marijuana was limited and occurred some five years ago and
the Individual has no longer associates with the acquaintances and has changed the social
environment where his marijuana use occurred. Adjudicatory Guidelines, Guideline H, ¶ 26 (a),
(b)(1),(2). Given the Individual’s maturing into a person with full adult responsibilities and the
length of time since his prior usage, I find that the Individual is unlikely to use marijuana ever
again.
I also find that the Individual has resolved the Criterion K concerns regarding his use of his
Mother’s prescription medication. I find the testimony of the Individual, his Mother, and his
Wife, convincing as to the very limited nature of the Individual’s use of his Mother’s
prescription medication. I also find that at the time the Individual’s Mother provided him the
tablets, the Individual was under extreme distress because of a panic attack. Further, the
Individual has provided evidence as to his seeking professional help with regard to his anxiety
disorder. Ex. C (record of dates and times of visits to a psychologist). Given the amount of time
that has elapsed since this incident and the Individual’s treatment for his anxiety disorder, I find
the likelihood of the Individual experiencing a panic attack is low. More importantly, I find that
the Individual now knows that use of another’s prescription medication is illegal and against
DOE policy. In sum, I find that the Criterion K concerns have been resolved.
3. Mitigation of Criterion L Concerns
The Criterion L security concern centers on the Individual deliberate use of his Mother’s
prescription medication while he possessed a security clearance. As discussed above, I find that
the Individual did not know that use of his Mother’s prescription medication violated DOE
policy. See Ex. 5 at 39-44 (Interviewer explaining to Individual that use of medication prescribed
- 10 -
for others violated DOE policy regarding drug use). Further, I find that the circumstances which
led to the Individual’s use of his Mother’s prescription medication are so unique that it is
unlikely to be repeated, especially given the Individual’s subsequent treatment for his anxiety
disorder. See Adjudicatory Guidelines, Guideline E, ¶ 17(c) (mitigation factor relating to “the
offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or happened
under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur . . . .”). Consequently, I find that the
Individual has resolved the Criterion L concerns raised by his inappropriate use of prescription
medication.
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was sufficient evidence to
raise doubts regarding the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance under Criteria F, K, and
L of the Part 710 regulations. However, I find that the Individual has presented sufficient
evidence to resolve the concerns raised by the Criteria F, K and L derogatory information.
Therefore, I conclude that restoring the Individual’s access authorization “would not endanger
the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.”
10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should restore the Individual’s access
authorization.
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth
at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Richard A. Cronin, Jr.
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: October 25, 2012