PSH-15-0083

*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: October 19, 2015 )
_________________________________________ ) Case No.: PSH-15-0083
Issued: January 29, 2016
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXX X. XXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart A, entitled, “Criteria and Procedures for Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.”1 For the reasons set
forth below, I conclude that the Individual’s security clearance should be restored.2
I. BACKGROUND
The Local Security Office (LSO) received information concerning the Individual alleging that
“he blows up at people and antagonizes others in the organization.” Ex. 3 at 1. In order to
address those concerns, the LSO conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the
Individual on June 6, 2015, and sponsored a forensic psychological examination of the
Individual which occurred on July 27, 2015. Because the PSI and forensic psychological
examination did not resolve these concerns, the LSO began the present administrative review
proceeding by issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was entitled
to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding
1
An access authorization is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified
matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as
a security clearance.
2 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) are available on the OHA website located at
http://www.doe.gov/OHA.
2
his eligibility for a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21. The Individual requested a
hearing and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the OHA. The Director of OHA
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter on October 20, 2015.
At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e) and (g), I took testimony from the
Individual, his treating therapist (the Treating Therapist), a psychologist serving as an expert
witness on behalf of the Individual (the Individual’s Expert), an Employee Assistance Program
Employee (the EAP Employee), and a DOE consultant psychologist (the DOE Psychologist).
See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-15-0083 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO
submitted seven exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 7, while the Individual submitted nine
exhibits, which are marked as Exhibits A through I.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE DOE’S SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to paragraph (h) of the criteria for eligibility for access to
classified matter or special nuclear material set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8.
Criterion H refers to information indicating that the Individual 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).
Specifically, the Notification Letter alleges that the Individual has been diagnosed by a
psychologist with “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” (PTSD). Ex. 1 at 1. These circumstances
adequately justify the DOE’s invocation of Criterion H, and raise significant security concerns.
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) state that an opinion by a duly
qualified mental health professional that an individual has a condition that may impair judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness, raises a security concern under Adjudicative Guideline I at ¶ ¶ 27
and 28(b).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The Administrative Judge's role in this proceeding is to evaluate the evidence presented by the
agency and the Individual, and to render a decision based on that evidence. See 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.27(a). The regulations state that “[t]he decision as to access authorization is a
comprehensive, common sense judgment, made after consideration of all the relevant
information, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting of 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). In rendering this opinion, I have considered the following
factors: the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the
conduct, including knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the
Individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the voluntariness of the Individual's
participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent
behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct, the potential for pressure, coercion,
3
exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence; and other relevant and
material factors. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.7(c), 710.27(a). The discussion below reflects my
application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual had experienced a number of traumatic events during his lifetime, including
sexual abuse as a child, and a serious motor vehicle accident in which he received a head injury.
In November 2012, he sought counseling after experiencing problems in interpersonal
relationships and coping with the stress of his work. Tr. at 27; Ex. 6 at 37-38. He originally
sought help from his employer’s EAP, at the suggestion of a Human Reliability Program
psychologist, who was concerned that he might be suffering from depression or PTSD. Tr. at
27-28; Ex. 6 at 38. The EAP Counselor suggested that he see a private counselor. The EAP
Counselor also expressed concerns that the Individual suffered from PTSD and depression. Tr.
at 27; Ex. 6 at 38. The Individual began seeing a private therapist recommended by the EAP
Counselor. Tr. at 30. When that therapist closed her private practice, he began seeing the
Treating Therapist. Tr. at 30. The Individual also began receiving drug therapy for his
depression from a psychiatrist. Exhibit 6 at 38.
At some time prior to June 11, 2015, someone reported to the LSO that the Individual was
blowing up at people and “antagonizing others in the organization.” Ex.3 at 1. The informant
also incorrectly reported that the Individual was “bipolar” to the LSO. Ex. 3 at 2.
The June 11, 2015, PSI
On June 11, 2015, the LSO conducted a PSI of the Individual. During this PSI, the Individual
reported that his workgroup has been under extreme stress. Ex. 6 at 7. The Individual reported
that his first line manager “has risen concerns about my conduct.” Ex. 6 at 8. He reported that
his first line supervisor “feels like I am not allowing the small things to go away [and that] my
application of the codes and procedure requirements are inflexible.” Ex. 6 at 8. He reported that
he had entered into an ombudsman process with his managers to resolve their differences. Ex. 6
at 9. The Individual further stated that his first line supervisor inaccurately reported to the
ombudsman that he had acted aggressively towards a coworker. Ex. 6 at 9. The Individual
further reported that he had tried to excuse himself from a meeting when a colleague began
raising her voice at him. Ex. 6 at 13. He denied raising his voice at this meeting. Ex. 6 at 14.
The Individual also reported that he had asked two coworkers to leave the office he shared with
one of the two coworkers, after the two other coworkers began a loud argument. Ex. 6 at 15.
They responded by yelling at him and he in turn raised his voice at them. Ex. 6 at 15. The
Individual recognized that raising his voice at these two coworkers was inappropriate. Ex. 6 at
16. When the interviewer asked the Individual if he had been “creating a lot of tension in the
office,” the Individual responded by stating that he believed that allegation to be “100 percent
inaccurate.” Ex. 6 at 16. The Individual attributed this allegation to the fact that he had reported
concerns about two employees, who were running personal businesses from their DOE offices,
to the Employee Concerns Hotline. Ex. 6 at 16. The Individual also asserted that he, in the line
of his assigned duties, had identified serious safety issues which resulted in delays to a
significantly behind schedule and over budget project of great importance. Ex. 6 at 16-18. The
4
Individual stated that his unwillingness to overlook these issues created friction between him and
his management.3 Ex. 6 at 16-19. The Individual admitted that some of the language he used in
an email he sent concerning these issues contributed to this friction. Ex. 6 at 19. The Individual
reported that his employer’s ombudsman had been called in to resolve the issues between him
and his management. Ex. 6 at 21. The interviewer also asked the Individual: “So some of the
information we received indicated that you tend to set coworkers up and then complain or make
allegations about them.” Ex. 6 at 22. The Individual denied this allegation. Ex. 6 at 22. The
Individual also denied antagonizing coworkers. Ex. 6 at 24. The Individual did admit, however,
that: “I used to get caught up in the moment with people and then being treated in a
confrontational way I would raise my voice, and not excuse myself from the situation, it was
typically in response, it was never, it was never, that I initiated, uh, these exchanges.” Ex. at 36.
The Individual admitted that he was seeing a psychiatrist, and a psychologist, but denied that he
was bipolar. Ex. 6 at 35. He indicated that he was being treated for anxiety, mild depression,
and mild PTSD. Ex. 6 at 36, 45, 49. The Individual reported that he had confided his mental
health treatment to his first line supervisor.4 Ex. 6 at 41.
The DOE Psychologist’s Evaluation
At the request of the LSO, the DOE Psychologist evaluated the Individual on July 27, 2015.
Exhibit 4 at 1. In addition to conducting a 3.5 hour interview of the Individual and conducting
psychological testing of the Individual, the DOE Psychologist reviewed portions of the
Individual’s personnel security file. Exhibit 4 at 2. After completing her evaluation of the
Individual, the DOE Psychologist issued a report (the DOE Psychologist’s Report) on July 31,
2015. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with PTSD under the American
Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Ex. 4 at 12.
The DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual “has been diagnosed with ‘mild depression
and/or PTSD’ . . . by three mental health professionals.” Ex. 4 at 4. She noted further that the
Individual’s Treating Therapist diagnosed him with major depressive disorder5 and PTSD. Ex. 4
at 5. The DOE Psychologist reported that the Treating Therapist found that the Individual’s
insight and willingness to take responsibility have “increased steadily” since he began treatment
with her. Ex. 4 at 6. She noted that the Individual has been monitored by a psychiatrist who has
prescribed him Bupropion and Vilazodone for his depression. Ex. 4 at 6. While the DOE
Psychologist opined that the Individual had made progress during his treatment, she further
found that:
That work is still in progress, and has not yet solidified or deepened in a way
which precludes his continuing to feel justified in his reactions when others find
3 The Individual stated: “The situation that I seemed to be routinely placed in is a situation where, my management
is not willing to comply with codes and standards and . . . procedures that govern the conduct of engineering . . .
when I express a concern about this it is identified as a conflict.” Ex. 6 at 21.
4 The Individual provided similar testimony at his hearing. Tr. at 41.
5 While several of the mental health professionals who have evaluated or treated the Individual have concluded that
has suffered from major (or less serious forms of) depressive disorder, the DOE Psychologist did not cite that
disorder as one that causes or may cause the Individual to exhibit a significant defect in judgment or reliability. Nor
is any mental disorder or condition other than PTSD cited in the Notification Letter.
5
them argumentative or unreasonable. His learning is cognitive, intellectual-and
still needs to become integrated with the emotional and interpersonal aspects. In
summary, [the Individual's] therapy with [the Treating Therapist] and medication
regimen monitored by [his psychiatrist] are high levels of care which have
benefitted him psychologically and emotionally with his PTSD and MDD. In
areas of anger management, mistrust, emotional regulation, and interactions with
others, [the Individual] continues to have significant problems which affect his
perception of people and events, and his judgments in responding.
Ex. 4 at 11. Therefore, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual’s PTSD was
continuing to cause a defect in his judgement and reliability. Ex. 4 at 12.
V. ANALYSIS
At the hearing, the Individual’s attorney presented convincing evidence showing that the
Individual’s treatment for his PTSD has been sufficiently effective to resolve the concerns that it
causes or may cause a defect in his judgment or reliability going forward. The Individual
submitted psychological evaluations conducted by his Expert Witness, Ex. D; and treating
psychiatrist, Ex. F, which supported this contention. In addition, the Individual’s Expert, the
Treating Therapist, and the EAP Employee testified on the Individual’s behalf at the hearing,
each of whom essentially concluded that the Individual’s treatment for his PTSD has been
sufficiently effective to resolve the concerns that it causes or may cause a defect in his judgment
or reliability going forward. The Individual also testified on his own behalf at the hearing. The
DOE Psychologist observed the testimony of the Individual and his witnesses and ultimately
joined in the conclusion that the Individual’s treatment for his PTSD has been sufficiently
effective to resolve the concerns that it causes or may cause a defect in his judgment or
reliability.
The Individual testified that he had sought treatment when he concluded that the stresses related
to his work were affecting his personal life. Tr. at 27. The Individual eventually began receiving
treatment from a psychiatrist, who monitors his medications, and the Treating Therapist. Tr. at
32. He believes he has met with the Treating Therapist for between 50 and 100 hours during the
past year and a half, and sees her on a weekly basis.6 Tr. at 32, 74. The Individual also meets
with the EAP Employee, who coaches him in navigating his difficult and stressful work
environment and assists him “in identifying alternate and effective methods in attempting to
communicate with [his first-line supervisor].” Tr. at 33-34, 46-47. The Individual testified that
the traumatic events which led to his PTSD have left him with a particular sensitivity to his
supervisor’s “woodshedding” management approach. Tr. at 40. The Individual provided
examples of his ability to use the coping therapies he had learned in treatment to constructively
manage difficult situations which have arisen at work and explained what he has learned from
his therapy. Tr. at 70-71, 83, 86-87, 91. Through his therapy, the Individual now accepts that he
has PTSD, and understands how it affects him and influences his emotions and perceptions. Tr.
at 76, 78-80. He testified that he has experienced improvement in his interpersonal relationships
and social life from his therapy. Tr. at 90-92.
6 This testimony was corroborated by the Treating Therapist’s testimony. Tr. at 167-168.
6
The EAP Employee, a counselor,7 testified on the Individual’s behalf at the hearing. The EAP
Employee testified that he has received specialized training in counseling individuals with
PTSD, and is an accredited member of the International association for Trauma Professionals.
Tr. at 96-97. He further testified that he has many years of experience in treating PTSD, and in
working for the Individual’s employer. Tr. at 99. He testified that he was not the Individual’s
counselor, and was not providing the Individual with counseling services, but rather, was
“coaching him around how to cope with and interface with what was a very hostile type of
management in a way that he wouldn't be hopefully set up to be labeled as insubordinate or a
disgruntled employee.” Tr. at 99. He met with the Individual from six to eight times. Tr. at 100.
He noted that the Individual’s managers would take the Individual “behind closed doors and
become very aggressive, very loud, and it's sort of an in-your-face style of managers,” even
though they were aware he had PTSD. Tr. at 100. The EAP Employee testified that he coached
the Individual to not respond to his managers’ provocations and to address them in a non-
adversarial manner. Tr. at 101. The EAP Employee testified that he never observed any
behavior by the Individual that would give him cause to suspect that he had PTSD, or was
bipolar. Tr. at 101. Rather, the EAP Employee felt that the Individual “was quite rational, he
was quite collected,” and was dealing with a difficult situation “very well.” Tr. at 101-102. The
EAP employee testified that the Individual responded well to his coaching, had done a good job
of applying what he learned, was coping well with a difficult situation, and has an excellent
support system. Tr. at 104-106. He testified that he has no concerns about the Individual. Tr. at
103, 106.
The Individual’s Expert, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified on his behalf at the
hearing. The Individual’s Expert testified that she conducted an evaluation of the Individual,
meeting with him on two occasions, administered three standardized psychological tests to him,
reviewed the report issued by the DOE Psychologist, and reviewed the results of two
psychological tests administered to the Individual by the DOE Psychologist. Tr. at 123, 136-137,
141. She concluded that his prior symptoms of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder were in
“mild remission.” Tr. at 120. She testified that the Individual still has some symptoms of PTSD,
but “they are kind of subdued, they are kind of settled down right now, they are not interfering
with his daily functioning.” Tr. at 123. The Individual’s Expert testified that that she believed
that the Individual’s PTSD would not likely affect his judgment or reliability. Tr. at 128. She
testified that his personality style was to “follow the rules and do things the right way.” Tr. at
129. She noted that the medication that has prescribed for the Individual’s depression would also
relieve some of the Individual’s PTSD symptoms. Tr. at 131. The Individual’s Expert testified
that she administered three standardized psychological tests to the Individual: The Cognitive
Linguistic Quick Test (CLQT), the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), and the Trauma
Symptom Inventory (TSI). Tr. at 141-142. The CLQT test results indicated that the Individual
has no impairment in brain functioning. Tr. at 142. The PAI test results were consistent with the
information gained from her interviews of the Individual (from which she determined that the
Individual has PTSD which is in mild remission). Tr. at 144-145. The TSI test results indicated
that the Individual has a PTSD coefficient of .352, which she characterized as “very low.” Tr. at
146, 156, 162. The Individual’s Expert testified that the TSI test result is “objective” evidence
7 The EAP Employee, while employed as a counselor by the EAP, is not the same EAP counselor who provided
counseling services to the Individual.
7
that indicates that the Individual’s PTSD symptoms are in remission. Tr. at 147-148, 156-157,
160. She further testified that while the Individual still has PTSD symptoms, they are now at a
much lower level, and he is now in remission. Tr. at 149. She testified that the Individual has
benefited from two years of treatment, and medication and that “he’s in pretty good shape
psychologically now.” Tr. at 149-150. She further testified that he is receiving the appropriate
treatment and the appropriate intensity of treatment. Tr. at 150-151. Finally she testified that
she saw nothing that would indicate that the Individual would not be reliable in the future, and
that his prognosis is good that his residual PTSD symptoms will not interfere with his judgment
in the future. Tr. at 154, 160.
The Treating Therapist testified at the hearing on the Individual’s behalf. She testified that she
has worked extensively with survivors of trauma, having treated hundreds of patients with
PTSD, since she received her license in 2002. Tr. at 164-165. She testified that, as a result of
his therapy, the Individual is now on the low end of the PTSD symptom spectrum. Tr. at 165-
166. She testified that she had been treating the Individual since June 19, 2014. Tr. at 171. She
testified that the Individual has learned emotional regulation techniques, coping techniques, and
has awareness of his symptoms and their triggers. Tr. at 166-167. She has seen the Individual
make significant and continuing progress. Tr. at 168-169. She described the Individual as a
model patient who is making excellent use of his therapy; he does his homework, does not miss
appointments, works hard at his therapy, thinks about it between sessions, and diligently
implements what he has learned on a daily basis. Tr. at 168-170, 172, 181. She testified that the
Individual’s prognosis is good, and indicates continuing improvement, and that the Individual
has an extremely low risk of becoming unreliable or exercising poor judgment. Tr. at 169-170,
190-191. She testified that she regularly communicates with the Individual’s Psychiatrist in
order to coordinate his care. Tr. at 173-174. She testified that she has great confidence that if
the Individual were to encounter a difficult situation, such as being subject to “woodshedding,”
he would be able to handle it effectively without escalating the situation. Tr. at 180. She
testified that the Individual has not been experiencing many symptoms recently, and that he is
getting better at handling his symptoms. Tr. at 180, 185. She testified that if he were to
experience symptoms again, she feels very strongly that he has new tools and skills that would
allow him to handle them appropriately. Tr. at 189.
The DOE Psychologist observed the other witnesses’ testimony prior to providing her own
testimony. She testified that the Individual’s progress in therapy has been substantial enough
that it is unlikely that the Individual would exhibit a defect in his judgment or reliability. Tr. at
196, 199. She further testified that the Individual has been receiving excellent care and has made
excellent progress. Tr. at 197-198.
Adjudicative Guideline I sets forth five conditions that could mitigate security concerns.
Adjudicative Guideline I at ¶ 29, which include:
(a) the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the
individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the
treatment plan;
8
(b) the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government that an individual's previous
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence
or exacerbation; … [and]
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guideline I at ¶ 29. As the discussion above elaborates, it is clear from the record
that four of these five mitigating conditions are unambiguously present in this case.
Accordingly, I find that the security concerns raised under Criterion H have been resolved.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Criterion H. After
considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a common sense manner, I find
that Individual has sufficiently mitigated the Criterion H security concerns. Accordingly, the
Individual has demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, the
Individual's security clearance should be restored. The LSO may seek review of this Decision by
an Appeal Panel under the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: January 29, 2016