PSH-14-0060

*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 4, 2014 )
) Case No.: PSH-14-0060
__________________________________________)
Issued : October 03, 2014
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Wade M. Boswell, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (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 fully discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me in
light of the relevant regulations and Adjudicative Guidelines, I have determined that the
individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold
DOE access authorization. In October 2013, her employer received a warrant garnishing
the individual’s wages for unpaid state income taxes for 2007 and 2010. The individual
promptly paid the delinquent taxes and obtained a release of the tax lien on her wages.
See Exhibit 14. The potential garnishment caused the individual to realize that her
financial affairs were in disarray and, believing that this was inconsistent with the balance
of her personal and professional life, the individual sought counseling from her
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
employer’s employee assistance program (EAP). Transcript at 145 – 146. The EAP
counselor recommended that the individual consult an external counselor who specialized
in treatment of trauma. Exhibit 12.
Following receipt of information about the state tax warrant, the Local Security Office
(LSO) conducted a personnel security interview (PSI) with the individual on December 4,
2013. See Exhibit 15. During the 2013 PSI, the individual disclosed her meetings with the
EAP and her intent to meet with a trauma specialist, which was scheduled for the
following day. Id. at 19 – 20. The LSO referred the individual for an evaluation by a
DOE consulting psychologist, which occurred on February 25, 2014. See Exhibit 11. The
DOE psychologist diagnosed the individual with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
and opined that, for the individual, an area of judgment significantly affected by her
PTSD is finances. Id. at 7.
On April 23, 2014, the LSO advised the individual in a letter (Notification Letter) that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding her 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 two potentially disqualifying
criterion set forth in the security regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8, subsections (h) and (l)
(hereinafter referred to as Criterion H and Criterion L, respectively).2 See Exhibit 1.
Upon her receipt of the Notification Letter, the individual exercised her right under the
Part 710 regulations by requesting an administrative review hearing. See Exhibit 2. The
Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative
Judge in the case and, subsequently, I conducted an administrative hearing in the matter.
The LSO introduced 18 numbered exhibits into the record of the case and presented the
testimony of one witness, the DOE consulting psychologist. The individual introduced 11
lettered exhibits (Exhibits A – K) into the record and presented testimony of ten
witnesses, including that of herself and her financial counselor. The exhibits will be cited
in this Decision as “Ex.” followed by the appropriate numeric or alphabetic designation.
The hearing transcript in the case will be cited as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page
number.3
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
2
See Section III below.
3 OHA decisions are available on the OHA website at www.oha.doe.gov. A decision may be accessed by
entering the case number in the search engine at www.oha.gov/search.htm.
3
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).
An individual must come forward with evidence to convince the DOE that granting or
restoring his or her 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).
An individual is afforded a full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her
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). Thus, an
individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
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 cited two criteria as the basis for suspending the
individual’s security clearance, Criterion H and Criterion L. Criterion H concerns
information that a person has “an illness or 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). It is well established
that “certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness.” See Guideline I of the 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). Conduct influenced by such psychological conditions can
raise questions about an individual’s ability to protect classified information. With
respect to Criterion H, the LSO relied on the evaluation by a DOE consulting
psychologist which concluded that the individual met the Diagnostic Statistical Manual
of the American Psychiatric Association Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD and that
her PTSD is a mental illness which causes, or may cause, a significant defect in the
individual’s judgment and reliability. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 11 at 7.
Criterion L concerns information that an individual has engaged in conduct “which tends
to show that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy….” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l).
4
Conduct reflecting questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations raises questions about an “individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at
Guideline E. With respect to Criterion L, the LSO alleges, inter alia, that the individual:
(1) failed to make payments under a payment plan established with the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) for unpaid federal taxes in tax years 2007 and 2008, which aggregated
$6,842 at the time of the 2010 PSI4 with the individual; (2) owes federal income tax in
excess of $6,842, as the individual acknowledges owing taxes for additional years and is
uncertain as to which years she has filed her returns or paid her taxes; (3) has outstanding
state student loans aggregating $80,736, which are all delinquent and in collection status;
(4) has outstanding federal student loans aggregating $68,442, which are all delinquent
and in collection status; (5) has five additional collection accounts aggregating $2,787;
and (6) has five charged-off accounts aggregating $2,567. Ex. 1 at 1 – 2.
In light of the information available to the LSO, the LSO properly invoked Criterion H
and Criterion L.
IV. Findings of Fact
The individual does not contest the accuracy of the allegations set forth in the
Notification Letter at the time of its issuance. Ex. 2; Tr. at 178 – 179. During the hearing,
the individual focused on the treatment that she has received for PTSD, the progress that
she has made in resolving her financial delinquencies and her commitment to future
financial responsibility.
In October 2013, the individual received notice from her employer that the state tax
authorities had served her employer with a Warrant of Levy, garnishing the individual’s
wages for unpaid state income taxes for the tax years 2007 and 2010. Ex. 15 at 7 – 10;
Tr. at 151 – 152. Following notice of the impending garnishment, the individual satisfied
the state income tax debt and the levy was released prior to her wages being garnished.
Ex. 14; Ex. 15 at 7 – 10. Tr. at 151 – 152.
The individual recognized that her finances were in disarray and believed this contrasted
with her organization and the responsibility she demonstrated in other areas of her life.
Ex. 15 at 19 – 20. She met with a psychologist at her employer’s EAP, who provisionally
diagnosed her as having PTSD. Id.; Ex. 12 at 2. The EAP counselor associated the
individual’s financial issues with an abusive early environment and recommended she
seek counseling through an external trauma specialist. Id. at 2 – 3. The individual was
evaluated by the trauma specialist on December 5, 2013, who confirmed the PTSD
diagnostic impression and noted that the individual’s “PTSD symptoms have been
significantly, but not completely[,] ‘encapsulated’ to her financial behavior.” Ex. A at 3,
6. The individual has been in treatment with the trauma counselor on a weekly basis since
that time and expects to continue such treatment.5 Id. at 4; Tr. at 130, 193 – 194.
4 The LSO conducted a PSI with the individual on June 8, 2010. See Ex. 16.
5 The individual’s counselor, who was unable to testify at the hearing due to her employer’s guidelines
which prohibit counselors within its organization from providing testimony in administrative hearings,
5
On February 25, 2014, the DOE consulting psychologist evaluated the individual and
diagnosed her with PTSD. She further opined that the individual’s “financial problems
stem from her psychological condition of PTSD and appropriate treatment of that
condition could address her money management.” Ex. 11 at 7. The DOE consulting
psychologist opined that the individual’s PTSD is a mental illness which causes, or may
cause, a significant defect in the individual’s judgment and reliability and that the
individual’s finances was an area of judgment significantly affected by the individual’s
condition. Id. The sources of the individual’s underlying trauma are her childhood cancer
diagnosis and treatment; the contemporaneous death of a parent; and the subsequent
physical and emotional abuse by her surviving parent. Id. at 6.
Following receipt of the state tax notice of garnishment, the individual sought and
received assistance on managing her financial affairs (including tax and account
delinquencies) from a sibling, who is an accountant. Ex. 15 at 20, 24, 29.
In March 2014, the individual attended a financial management program offered by an
organization that she learned about through the counseling center where she is receiving
psychological treatment for her PTSD. Tr. at 149. After completing a one-day program,
she enrolled in a follow-up course, which met for two hours per evening for six weeks.
Id. at 26. Believing that the process taught by the program could assist her with her
financial management, the individual re-took the six-week course and enlisted members
of her inner circle of friends and family to take the course with her, in part so that she
would have a network to support her in a revised way of managing her finances. Id. at 27,
72 – 73, 150. She has continued to meet with the financial counselor who directs the
program on a weekly basis, in individual sessions, and both have committed to continue
their sessions for one year. Id. at 14, 34.
With respect to specific financial matters noted in the Notification Letter, I make the
following findings:
 Federal Income Taxes. At the time of the 2010 PSI, the individual acknowledged
outstanding tax debt of $6,842 for the tax years 2007 and 2010, for which the
individual had established a payment plan with the IRS. Ex. 16 at 22 – 23. She
failed to make the payments under that payment plan. Ex. 15 at 17. As of the 2013
PSI, the individual was unclear as to which years she had failed to file her federal
tax returns and which years she filed her returns but failed to pay her taxes. Id. at
22 – 26.
As of April 15, 2014, the individual had filed all of her federal tax returns through
the tax year 2013. Tr. at 137. Together with a tax specialist affiliated with her
financial management counselor, she has consulted with the IRS. She owes
$30,776 in delinquent taxes. Id. at 137 – 138. She has entered the IRS’s “Fresh
submitted a written report dated July 28, 2014. See Ex. A. Between December 5, 2013, and July 28, 2014,
the individual had participated in 26 individual therapy sessions with the counselor. Id. at 4.
6
Start” program and is scheduled to make her first monthly payment thereunder in
September 2014. Id. at 138, 143. She has authorized automatic, direct payments
from her checking account for payments under her new tax payment agreement to
comply with the requirements of the Fresh Start program and to assure on-going
compliance with the tax payment agreement. Id. at 141.
 Student Loans. At the time of the 2013 PSI, the LSO noted that the individual’s
credit report showed 17 student loans, aggregating approximately $150,000, all
delinquent and in collection account status.6 Ex. 1 at 2. She began automatic
monthly payments on both her federal and state student loans in November 2013
and her loans are currently classified as being in “rehabilitation.” Tr. at 131 – 134.
As of the date of the hearing, the individual had approximately $167,000
outstanding in federal and state student loans, all in “rehabilitation.” Id. at 134.
After 12 consecutive payments, the loans will be considered rehabilitated and a
new payment will be negotiated. The individual believes this will occur in
November 2014. Id. at 184 – 186.
 Collection Accounts. At the date of the 2013 PSI, the LSO noted on the
individual’s credit report six collection accounts aggregating $2,787. Ex. 1 at 2;
Ex. 13 at 1 – 2, 13. As of the hearing, the individual had researched those
accounts and believes that she has either paid in full or settled all of them. Tr. at
154 – 162. (The only uncertainty with respect to the six accounts enumerated in
the Notification Letter is that the individual was unable to verify whether two of
the accounts listed in the Notification Letter for an aggregate of $329
corresponded to the $429 that she paid to a factoring company on the assumption
that that amount represented those accounts with accrued interest and fees. Id. at
156 – 157, 159.) Additionally, the individual’s research revealed a seventh
collection account in the amount of $1,794; she settled that account as well. Id. at
163.
 Charged-Off Accounts. At the time of the 2013 PSI, the LSO noted that the
individual had three charged-off accounts aggregating $2,567. Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 13
at 2. The individual has made attempts to identify the current holders of these
accounts, with limited success. She acknowledges her liability for such accounts,
but on the advice of her financial counselor has made resolving those accounts a
lower priority. These accounts remain outstanding. Tr. at 44 – 45, 164 – 166, 172
– 174.
 Proceeds from Former Employer’s Benefit Plans. During the 2010 PSI, the
individual represented that she would use proceeds from her former employer’s
401(k) Plan and accrued leave to pay her then existing accounts. She failed to do
so. Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 15 at 41 – 42; Tr. at 186 – 187, 179.
6 Due to entries that seem duplicative on the credit report cited by the LSO in the Notification Letter, the
exact number of the individual’s student loans and the aggregate outstanding balance of such loans can be
definitively calculated without additional supporting documentation. See Ex. 13 at 2 – 10. The individual
does not dispute the accuracy of the numbers cited in the Notification Letter. Tr. at 178 – 179.
7
The DOE consulting psychologist was present at the hearing and testified as the final
witness, having heard the testimony of all of the other witnesses. She testified that she is
familiar with the individual’s trauma counselor and has the highest regard for her work.
Id. at 199. The DOE psychologist noted the counselor’s written report, which detailed the
individual’s treatment program and the counselor’s prognosis for the individual as being
very good, and her own evaluation of the testimony presented during the hearing. On that
basis, the DOE psychologist updated her diagnosis of the individual as of the date of the
hearing as follows: although the individual continues to meet some criteria for PTSD, she
has been without psychological symptoms for six months or more and no longer has an
illness or mental condition which causes or may cause a significant defect in her
judgment or reliability, including with respect to finances. Id. at 197 – 201.
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)7 and the Adjudicative
Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have determined that the individual’s access
authorization should be restored. The specific findings that I make in support of this
decision are discussed below.
A. Mitigating Evidence
The individual did not contest the accuracy of the information in the Notification Letter.
She acknowledged the correctness of the diagnosis of the DOE’s consulting psychologist
at the time it was made and the accuracy of the financial matters noted by the LSO. Ex. 2;
Tr. at 178 – 179. Further, she acknowledged that she has actively avoided her financial
affairs for many years without understanding her inability to address her finances and
welcomed the PTSD diagnosis as providing an explanation and a path forward. Id. at 170
– 171.
In mitigation of the security concerns raised by the LSO, the individual points to her
proactive approach in addressing her financial deficiencies, which commenced following
notification from her employer of the Warrant of Levy for state tax debt and prior to the
2013 PSI. See Ex. 14. She sought psychological counseling, initially through an EAP at
her place of employment, to try to explain her financial dysfunctions. See Ex. 12. With
the identification of untreated PTSD as affecting her financial affairs, she has followed all
treatment recommendations, including active participation in weekly individual
7 Those factors include the following: the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, the circumstances
surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation, the frequency and recency of the conduct,
the age and maturity at the time of the conduct, the voluntariness of his participation, the absence or
presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes, the motivation for the
conduct, the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress, the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence, and other relevant and material factors.
8
counseling sessions. Ex. A. She intends to continue her psychological counseling and
expects to follow the recommendations of her counselor with respect to future treatment.
Following any termination of treatment, she anticipates engaging in some form of “after-
care” with a counselor. Tr. at 130, 193 – 194. Her counselor has concluded that her
prognosis is very good. Ex. A at 6.
In further support of her mitigation of the security concerns, the individual points to her
recognition that she needed to seek specialized assistance to address her financial disarray
and that she needed to develop a new skill set in order to properly manage her finances in
the future. As a result, she has taken financial management training and, in order to
assure that she has support for her revised approach to her finances, she requested that a
sibling and a close friend (amongst others in her circle) attend the same training. Tr. at 26
– 27, 149. For several months preceding the hearing, she met weekly, on an individual
basis, with the financial counselor who directs the program from which she received
training; they have both committed to continue their work together on the individual’s
finances for one year. Id. at 14, 34. Both believe that she has learned new financial
management skills and she has integrated the financial management principles into her
daily life. Id. at 31 –33. She has discontinued certain prior activities (e.g., working with a
trainer) and only incurs discretionary expenses after consulting her budget to assure the
availability of funds. She actively engages a sibling and friends in discussions of her
financial decision making. Id. at 73 – 76, 100 – 101, 169.
The individual points to the progress she has made since first learning of the state tax
levy: she paid all delinquent state income taxes (Ex. 14; Tr. at 182 – 183); she filed all
past due federal tax returns and filed her 2013 federal tax return on a timely basis (id. at
137); she has entered the IRS’s Fresh Start program and has negotiated automatic,
monthly payments under a tax payment agreement commencing September 2014 (id. at
137 – 138); she has made monthly payments on her federal and state student loans and
expects that they will be deemed rehabilitate by November 2014 (id. at 131 – 134, 184 –
186); she had paid or settled all of her collection accounts (including one not identified
by the LSO) (id. at 154 – 163); and she is paying on a current basis unexpected medical
expenses which arose during the months prior to the hearing due to surgery (id. at 166 –
167).
The individual argues in support of mitigation that she has recognized the need for a
professional and personal network to support her with respect to her PTSD and the
associated financial problems that arose from it and she believes that she has effectively
developed that network. Since the mental health professionals believe that she has
successfully addressed her PTSD symptoms, she believes she has also addressed the
associated financial matters that triggered security concerns under Criterion L, has
reformed her financial behavior and now has the ability to maintain her financial affairs
in a responsible manner.
9
B. Administrative Judge Evaluation of Evidence
Criterion H Security Concerns. With respect to the Criterion H security concerns, the
LSO relies upon the diagnosis by the DOE consulting psychologist in February 2014 that
the individual has PTSD which causes or may cause a significant defect in her judgment
and reliability. Such an illness constitutes a disqualifying security concern under 10
C.F.R. § 710.8(h). Subsequent to the DOE psychologist’s February 2014 evaluation, the
individual has participated in psychological counseling and treatment with a trauma
specialist with whom she commenced working in December 2013. Ex. A at 3 – 4.
Additionally, the DOE psychologist had specifically noted in her evaluative report that an
area of defective judgment arising from the individual’s PTSD was financial, and the
individual has subsequently undertaken to develop financial management skills through
training and individual sessions with a financial counselor. Ex. 11 at 7; Tr. at 27, 72 – 73,
150. The individual demonstrated through the credible testimony of herself and others, as
well as through presentation of her financial planning and budgeting documents, that, in
addition to educating herself about financial management, she has been able to
implement those skills in her behavior. Id. at 73 – 76, 100 – 101, 169.
Based on the information presented at the hearing, the DOE psychologist provided an
updated diagnosis at the conclusion of the hearing. She concluded that while the
individual still meets some criteria of PTSD, she manifested no psychological symptoms
in the prior six months and no longer has an illness or mental condition which causes or
may cause a significant defect in her judgment or reliability. Id. at 197 – 201. This
conclusion is supported by the written report of the individual’s treating counselor that
the individual’s prognosis is very good. Ex. A at 6.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the individual has sufficiently mitigated the security
concerns arising under Criterion H. See Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline I ¶ 29(e)
(security concerns arising from psychological conditions may be mitigated when there is
no indication of a current problem).
Criterion L Security Concerns. With respect to the Criterion L security concerns, the
LSO points to the individual’s sustained pattern of financial irresponsibility: delinquent
tax returns; delinquent tax debt; delinquent student loans in collection; additional
collection accounts; charged-off accounts; and failure to maintain representations
previously made to the LSO. Absent mitigation, this pattern constitutes a disqualifying
security concern under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l).
To mitigate an established pattern of financial irresponsibility, an individual must
demonstrate reformation of the financially irresponsible behavior, which is ordinarily
accomplished through demonstrating a sustained pattern of financial responsibility. See
Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. PSH-13-0046 (2013); Personnel Security Hearing,
Case No. PSH-12-0103 (2012); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. PSH-11-0015
(2011); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-1078 (2011); Personnel Security
Hearing, Case No. TSO-1048 (2011); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0878
(2010); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0746 (2009).
10
While the individual has made laudable progress in resolving her financial affairs since
October 2013, she has yet to demonstrate a sustained pattern of financial responsibility.
Such absence, however, need not be singularly determinative of her eligibility for access
authorization. The Part 710 regulations recognize that a decision with respect to access
authorization should not be made by the automatic application of a single standard, but
require that any decision be reached only after a comprehensive, common-sense
evaluation of all relevant information. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Similarly, the Adjudicative
Guidelines counsel that evaluations thereunder need to be made in the context of the
whole person. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(c). In the context of the individual, any
comprehensive evaluation needs to recognize that the genesis of her financially
irresponsible behavior was her untreated PTSD, which originated during her childhood
with her cancer treatment and the contemporaneous loss of a parent. DOE’s own
consulting psychologist noted in her initial evaluation that the individual’s “financial
problems stem from her psychological condition of PTSD.” Ex. 11 at 7.
When the individual received notice of the Warrant to garnish her wages for state tax
debt, she recognized that she may have had psychological issues that prevented her from
addressing her finances and she initiated a psychological evaluation. She has been
diligent and aggressive in seeking psychological treatment, developing new skills
(including those relating to financial management), retaining a financial counselor, and
building a network to support her.
The treatment recommended by DOE’s consulting psychologist has been undertaken and,
at the hearing, she opined that the individual no longer has an illness or mental condition
that causes a defect in her judgment or reliability regarding financial matters. Tr. at 197 –
201. The individual has received and is continuing psychological counseling for the
problem underlying her financial irresponsibility (i.e., PTSD), and she has received and is
continuing to receive financial counseling with respect to resolving past financial matters
and managing her finances in the future. The Adjudicative Guidelines recognize the
appropriateness of mitigation of security concerns arising from financial considerations
under these circumstances. Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline F ¶ 20(c) (mitigation of
security concerns arising from financial considerations is possible where the person has
received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that
the problem is being resolved or is under control).
Similarly, the Adjudicative Guidelines additionally recognize the appropriateness of
mitigation where financially irresponsible behavior occurred under such circumstances
that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on an individual’s current reliability,
trustworthiness or good judgment. Id. at Guideline F ¶ 20(a). Here, the behavior occurred
due to untreated PTSD, which has now been treated in a manner that has allowed DOE’s
consulting psychologist to conclude that the PTSD no longer creates a defect in the
individual’s reliability or judgment. Cf. Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. PSH-14-
0067 (2014) (Criterion L security concerns arising from criminal conduct (misuse of
prescription medication) mitigated in partial reliance upon the conclusion of a DOE
consulting psychiatrist that the individual had evidenced adequate reformation of his
opioid dependence).
11
Based on the foregoing, I find that the individual has sufficiently mitigated the security
concerns arising under Criterion L.
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 and
Criterion L. 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 Criterion H and
Criterion L. Accordingly, I have determined that the individual’s access authorization
should be restored. The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel
under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Wade M. Boswell
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: October 03, 2014