PSH-14-0033

*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: July 23, 2013 )
) Case No.: PSH-14-0033
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 3, 2014
_________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
_________________________
William M. Schwartz, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as
“the individual”) to hold an access authorization1 under the Department of Energy’s
(DOE) regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart A, entitled, “General Criteria
and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special
Nuclear Material.” As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the Adjudicative Guidelines, I have determined
that the individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The individual works for a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to maintain a
DOE security clearance. On September 26, 2013, he attempted to commit suicide.
During a Personnel Security Interview on November 20, 2013, the individual explained
the circumstances that led to his suicide attempt, including a diagnosis of and treatment
for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a stressful workplace environment, and a
belief that strangers were invading his privacy in various ways. A DOE consultant
psychiatrist evaluated the individual on January 14, 2014, and diagnosed him with PTSD
and Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type. This diagnosis raised security concerns in
the opinion of the Local Security Office (LSO), and the LSO suspended the individual’s
1 Access authorization is defined as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for
access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.5(a). Such authorization will be referred to variously in this Decision as access authorization or
security clearance.
2
security clearance. On March 11, 2014, the LSO sent a letter (Notification Letter) to the
individual advising him that it had reliable information that created a substantial doubt
regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification
Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information fell within the purview of one
potentially disqualifying criterion set forth in the security regulations at 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.8, subsection (h) (hereinafter referred to as Criterion H).2
Upon his receipt of the Notification Letter, the individual exercised his right under the
Part 710 regulations to request an administrative review hearing, and I was appointed the
Administrative Judge in the case. At the hearing that I conducted, the individual
presented his own testimony and that of his treating counselor, and the LSO presented the
testimony of one witness, a DOE consultant psychiatrist. In addition to the testimonial
evidence, the LSO submitted seven numbered exhibits into the record and the individual
tendered four exhibits, which I have identified as Exhibits A through D. The hearing
transcript in the case will be cited as “Tr.”
II. Regulatory Standard
A. Individual’s Burden
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 is not a criminal matter, where
the government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Rather, the standard in this proceeding places the burden on the individual because
it is designed to protect national security interests. This is not an easy burden for the
individual to sustain. The regulatory standard implies that there is a presumption against
granting or restoring a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard for granting
security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they must, on the
side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that
restoring his access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security
and will be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The
individual is afforded a full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for
an access authorization. The Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the
introduction of a very broad range of evidence at personnel security hearings. Even
appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R. § 710.26(h). An individual is
thereby afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
2 Criterion H concerns information that a person suffers from “[a]n illness of mental condition of a nature
which, in the opinion of a psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist, causes or may cause a significant
defect in judgment or reliability.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h
3
B. Basis for the Administrative Judge’s Decision
In personnel security cases arising under Part 710, it is my role as the Administrative
Judge to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made
after consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether
the granting or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the
common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest.
10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I am instructed by the regulations to resolve any doubt as to a
person’s access authorization eligibility in favor of the national security. Id.
III. The Notification Letter and the Security Concerns at Issue
As previously noted, the LSO cites one criterion as the basis for suspending the
individual’s security clearance, Criterion H. The LSO relies on the opinion of a DOE
consultant psychiatrist who determined that the individual meets the criteria for PTSD
and Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type, as set forth in the American Psychiatric
Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition
(DSM-5). He further determined that each of those conditions is an illness or mental
condition that causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability.
I find that there is ample information in the Notification Letter to support the LSO’s
reliance on Criterion H. Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions may raise
security concerns where those conditions, in the opinion of a duly qualified mental health
professional, impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. 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) at Guideline I. The DOE psychiatrist’s
conclusion that the individual’s PTSD and Delusional Disorder cause, or may cause, a
significant defect in judgment or reliability supports my finding in this regard.
IV. Findings of Fact
In 2011, the individual engaged in conversations with strangers on a number of Internet
websites and chat rooms. Ex. 7 (Transcript of Personnel Security Interview,
November 20, 2013) at 27-31. After divulging some personal information about himself
on those sites, the individual perceived that others were collecting information about him,
leaving messages on his cell phone and e-mail account, spying on his activities, breaking
into his residence and, ultimately, poisoning his food. Id. at 31-55. He duly reported
these perceived invasions of his privacy to his local counterintelligence (CI) office, as his
company’s training had encouraged him to do. Id. at 51, 63, 66. At the same time, he
felt that a number of his co-workers were creating a hostile work environment for him
and others. Id. at 12-3, 16. He reported several occurrences of such hostile behavior to
his supervisor. Id. at 17-18, 20. In his opinion, neither the CI office nor his supervisor
responded appropriately to his reports, and CI staff moreover frequently discounted his
claims, arguing that they were merely coincidences. Id. at 69-70. In June 2012, the CI
office recommended that the individual undergo a psychiatric evaluation, to which the
individual consented. Id. at 70. A DOE consultant psychiatrist found that the individual
4
suffered from Delusional Disorder after concluding that at least some of the privacy
invasions the individual claimed to have endured had not in fact occurred. Id. at 71, 78.
As a result of that evaluation, the local Employee Assistance Program arranged for the
individual to embark upon a treatment program. Id. at 85. He met with a counselor
weekly for a period of three months, during which time they focused on his paranoia. Id.
at 86, 88. After several sessions, the counselor came to the opinion that the individual
suffered from PSTD and was prescribed Lorazepam in June 2012 for his anxiety. Id. at
89-90, 104. Although the treatment provided some relief, the problems persisted, and by
September 26, 2013, the individual felt hopeless and responded to his feelings by
attempting suicide, taking 20 to 30 Lorazepam in conjunction with consuming about a
quarter of a bottle of vodka. Id. at 148, 150. He telephoned his sister immediately, and
she arranged for his rescue. Id. at 149. Following an emergency room visit, he was
released and resumed treatment with his counselor. Id. at 153; Tr. at 94-95. When he
returned to work in November 2013 from his medical leave, the LSO interviewed him
and referred him for a second psychiatric evaluation, in light of the concerns raised by his
suicide attempt. A different DOE consultant psychiatrist (DOE psychiatrist) evaluated
him in January 2014 and determined that he met the DSM-5 criteria for both PTSD and
Delusional Disorder, Persecutory Type. Ex. 4 (DOE Psychiatrist’s Psychiatric
Assessment, January 28, 2014) at 11. He recommended that the individual show at least
six months of control of the symptoms of each condition such “that they do not interfere
with his functioning” and absence of any suicidal ideation, before being re-assessed to
determine whether either condition no longer causes or may cause a significant defect in
judgment or reliability. Id. at 10.
At the hearing, the individual testified about his progress since seeing the DOE
psychiatrist. He meets with his counselor weekly. They focus mainly on cognitive
behavioral therapy, which helps him realign his thought processes. Whereas he formerly
faced stressful situations by perceiving only their negative aspects and jumping to
conclusions, he now is better able to see them objectively and respond more
appropriately. Tr. at 18-20, 24-25. He no longer believes that others are willfully
invading his privacy, and dates his last perceived stalking to January or February 2014.
Id. at 11. He maintains that he has had no suicidal ideations since September 26, 2013,
the day on which he attempted suicide. Id. at 43, 60. Although he has faced stressful
circumstances since then, in particular, the suspension of his security clearance in
February 2014, he felt hopeless but not suicidal, and he is not overwhelmed by those
feelings. Id. at 25-26, 43-44, 61. Moreover, though he continues to suffer PTSD-induced
flashbacks on a daily basis, his treatment now allows him to “take charge” of them,
limiting their intensity and their effect on him. Id. at 62-64. He stated that he has a
system available to support him as stresses and crises arise, which includes his counselor,
his doctor of Oriental Medicine, his siblings, a good friend who lives nearby, and a long-
time friend who is a therapist. Id. at 35-36, 70-71. Finally, the individual testified that
prior to therapy he distrusted people; he is now more open and trustful, which allows his
support system to help him when he needs the help. Id. at 17, 36.
The individual’s counselor testified that she has been counseling him regarding his PTSD
since September 2012. Id. at 93. Although the individual was initially sent to her by the
Employee Assistance Program for treatment, he elected to continue meeting with her
after those required sessions were completed. Id. at 89. She testified that, in addition to
5
the PTSD that has been the focus of the individual’s treatment, the individual’s meets the
diagnostic criteria for Delusional Disorder. Id. at 95. Nevertheless, she stated her
opinion that the individual has made significant progress since his September 2013
suicide attempt, that he now possesses sufficient good judgment to return to work, and
that his prognosis is moderate to good. Id. at 92-93. Responding to the DOE
psychiatrist’s questions, the counselor offered her opinion that the individual is not
currently suicidal, and that he has no defects in judgment or reliability; moreover, he has
the good judgment to know when he needs extra help and reaches out for it appropriately.
Id. at 97. She found the individual to be free from PTSD symptoms of impaired
judgment for at least six months. Id. at 100. Noting that he had not mentioned stalkers in
at least eight weeks, she stated that, while the individual was not yet free of symptoms of
Delusional Disorder for six months, he was “still working on it.” Id. at 101.
After the testimony of the other witnesses, the DOE psychiatrist testified that, in his
opinion, the individual had demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his
PTSD and Delusional Disorder. He stated his opinion that cognitive behavioral therapy,
which the individual was engaged in with his counselor, is the preferred form of
treatment not only for his PTSD but also for his Delusional Disorder, because the
delusions arise from faulty thinking and not from hallucinations. Id. at 84. He found that
the individual’s condition was greatly improved from when he evaluated him in
January 2014. Id. at 106. In support of his position, he stated that the individual has
learned some adaptive skills for coping with stress and how to reach out for and accept
help from an improved support system. Id. at 107, 110. He specifically stated that the
individual’s risk of future suicide attempts was low. Id. at 109. He also stated that the
individual was intelligent and knows how to use his therapy, and has made good use of
his therapy, to change his behavior. Id. at 108. The DOE psychiatrist stressed that PTSD
is not a condition that resolves itself, but that, at best, the sufferer accepts it as a part of
his or her person and the symptoms either disappear or “become so infrequent that they
don’t interfere with anyone’s functioning.” Id. at 111. He stated that he believed the
individual’s Delusional Disorder stems from his PTSD. Id. at 108. He agreed with the
counselor’s opinion that the individual’s prognosis was moderate to good. Id. Finally,
the DOE psychiatrist reassessed the individual on the basis of the testimony and found
that the individual had substantially met the conditions he laid out in his evaluative
report. He concluded that the individual had maintained control of the symptoms
regarding his PTSD and suicidality for at least six months. Id. at 114. With respect to the
Delusional Disorder, the DOE psychiatrist placed the individual’s last perception of being
stalked in mid-January, about four-and-a-half months before the hearing. Id. at 107.
Although the individual’s symptom-free period fell somewhat short of the six months’
duration he had recommended in his report, the DOE psychiatrist agreed with the
counselor that the individual was “well on his way,” and found that the condition did not
cause a defect in judgment or reliability at the time of the hearing. Id. at 114-15.
V. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions
tendered in this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. In
resolving the question of the individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been
guided by the applicable factors prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative
Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have determined that the individual’s access
6
authorization should be restored. I find that restoring the individual’s DOE security
clearance will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent
with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The specific findings that I make in
support of this decision are discussed below.
I find that the individual was properly diagnosed as suffering from PTSD and Delusional
Disorder. Nevertheless, the record, in particular, the testimony of the individual and his
counselor, establishes six months of control of PTSD symptoms and suicidal ideation,
and a period of control of Delusional Disorder symptoms sufficient to satisfy the DOE
psychiatrist that the disorder no longer raises concerns about his judgment or reliability.
The concurrence of the mental health experts regarding his current status demonstrates to
me the confidence they have in the individual’s progress through treatment and his
freedom from significant defects in judgment. Furthermore, I am convinced that, through
his counseling, the individual has learned to trust others and to become more receptive to
the help and support of others, both of which are very important in the treatment of
PTSD, according to the DOE psychiatrist. Tr. at 110. I have taken into consideration a
number of mitigating factors in his favor, specifically, that the identified mental health
conditions are readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has demonstrated
ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan; that he has voluntarily
entered a counseling and treatment program for conditions that are amenable to
treatment; that a duly qualified mental health professional is providing treatment and has
rendered a favorable prognosis; and that the DOE psychiatrist has provided a recent
opinion that the conditions are under control. Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline I,
¶ 29. After considering all the testimony and written evidence in the record, I am
convinced that the individual has resolved the LSO’s security concerns that arise from his
PTSD and Delusional Disorder.
VI. Conclusion
In the above analysis, I have found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the
possession of the DOE that raises serious security concerns under Criterion H. After
considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing, I have found that the individual has brought forth sufficient
evidence to mitigate the security concerns associated with this criterion. I therefore find
that restoring the individual’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense
and is clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I have determined that
the individual’s access authorization should be restored.
William M. Schwartz
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: July 3, 2014