PSH-17-0028

*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: April 20, 2017 ) Case No.: PSH-17-0028
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: August 23, 2017
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Wade M. Boswell, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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, entitled, “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 the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information, The White House (Adjudicative Guidelines) (December 29, 2005),
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 him to hold
DOE access authorization. One morning in July 2016, the individual called his supervisor
from home to report that he had been using cocaine and abusing alcohol and that he did not
believe he would be able to stop without assistance. The supervisor advised the individual
to come into work and he would accompany him to the on-site medical facility. That
afternoon the individual reported to the on-site medical facility and received
recommendations for treatment. A urine specimen collected from the individual that day
at the medical facility tested positive for cocaine metabolite, consistent with the
individual’s self-disclosure of cocaine use. See Exhibit 6. The day following his self-report,
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 -
the individual enrolled in an intensive outpatient program for the alcohol and drug
treatment (IOP). See Exhibit 7.
As a result of this information, the local security office (LSO) conducted a personnel
security interview (PSI) with the individual in August 2016. See Exhibit 13. The PSI did
not resolve the security concerns arising from the individual’s alcohol consumption and
drug use and, subsequently, the LSO referred the individual to a DOE consultant
psychiatrist (DOE psychiatrist) for an evaluation.
In November 2016, the individual was evaluated by the DOE psychiatrist. See Exhibit 4.
Since neither the PSI nor the psychiatric evaluation resolved the security concerns arising
with respect to the individual’s alcohol consumption and drug use, the LSO informed the
individual in a letter dated March 15, 2017 (Notification Letter), that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance. In the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information
fell within the purview of 50 U.S.C. § 435c (hereinafter referred to as the Bond
Amendment) and raised one or more security concerns under Guideline E (Personal
Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.2 See Exhibit 1.
Upon his receipt of the Notification Letter, the individual exercised his 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. At the
hearing, the LSO introduced 15 numbered exhibits into the record and presented the
testimony of one witness, the DOE psychiatrist. The individual introduced 14 lettered
exhibits (Exhibits A – N) into the record and presented the testimony of six witnesses,
including that of himself and his treatment 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 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
2 See Section III below.
3 OHA decisions are available on the OHA website at www.energy.gov/oha. A decision may be accessed by
entering the case number in the search engine at www.energy.gov/oha.
- 3 -
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).
The 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 the Bond Amendment and Guidelines E, G, H and J as
the bases for suspending the individual’s security clearance.
The Bond Amendment states that a security clearance may not be granted or renewed for
a “person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict . . .” 50 U.S.C. §
435c(b). Within the DOE, cleared incumbents determined to have used a controlled
substance within 12 months of the DOE becoming aware of such usage are considered
subject to the Bond Amendment and all such cases are immediately processed for
administrative review. See DOE Order 472.2, Appendix E at E-1. With respect to the Bond
Amendment, the LSO cited the individual having tested positive for cocaine metabolite on
the day that he self-reported his cocaine use to his supervisor and the individual’s
disclosures during the PSI of his cocaine use between 2014 and 2016. Ex. 1 at 3.
Guideline E relates to conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, which raises questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Any
failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process is of
particular concern. See Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline E ¶ 15. With respect to
Guideline E, the LSO cited, inter alia, the individual’s acknowledgment during the PSI
that he had used cocaine from the mid-1990’s through July 2016, which contradicted his
- 4 -
denials of illegal drug use on Questionnaires for National Security Positions (QNSPs) that
the individual certified as accurate in 2001, 2007, and 2012. Ex. 1 at 3-4.
Guideline G relates to security risks arising from alcohol consumption. Excessive alcohol
consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control
impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. See
Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline G ¶ 21. With respect to Guideline G, the LSO cited
the November 2016 written evaluation by the DOE psychiatrist which concluded that the
individual met the diagnostic criteria set forth in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the
American Psychiatric Association, IV Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), for Alcohol
Dependence, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and that such
disorder is an illness or mental condition which causes, or may cause, a significant defect
in his judgment or reliability. Ex. 1 at 5; Ex. 4 at 7-8. Additionally, the LSO cited, inter
alia, the individual’s arrest in 1988 for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol (DUI) and
his statements during the PSI with respect to his pattern of alcohol consumption and the
contributing role of alcohol consumption in his cocaine use. Ex. 1 at 5-6.
Guideline H relates to security risks arising as a result of an individual’s use of illegal
drugs. Illegal drug use raises concerns about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness
because such drug use may impair a person’s judgment and because using drugs illegally
raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations. See Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline H ¶ 24. With respect to Guideline
H, the LSO cited, inter alia, the individual having tested positive for cocaine metabolite in
July 2016 on the day that he self-reported his cocaine use to his supervisor, as well as his
disclosures during the PSI of his cocaine use between the mid-1990’s and July 2016. Ex. 1
at 6.
Guideline J relates to security risks associated with criminal conduct. Criminal activity
creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability and trustworthiness because, by its very
nature, such conduct calls into question a person’s ability or willing to comply with laws,
rules, and regulations. See Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline J ¶ 30. With respect to
Guideline J, the LSO cited the individual’s illegal purchase and use of cocaine between the
mid-1990’s and July 2016, as well as his having been arrested in 1988 for DUI and in 1984
for Evading an Officer. Ex. 1 at 6-7.
In light of the information available to the LSO, the LSO properly invoked the Bond
Amendment and Guidelines E, G, H and J.
IV. Findings of Fact and 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)4 and the Adjudicative
4 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,
- 5 -
Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have determined that the individual’s access
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.
A. Mitigating Evidence
The individual disputes neither the facts alleged by the LSO in the Notification nor the
diagnosis by the DOE psychiatrist. Tr. at 138. Instead, he argues that he has sufficiently
mitigated the security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter. With respect to the
security concerns arising from his alcohol consumption and drug involvement, the
individual argues that he has mitigated such concerns based upon his completion of an IOP
for both alcohol and drug use, his continuing participation in a 12-step program, and his
abstinence from alcohol and drugs for eleven and one-half months as of the date of the
hearing. Ex. 2. With respect to the security concerns arising from his misrepresentations or
omissions during the access authorization process, the individual argues that those
concerns are mitigated by his having self-disclosed those misrepresentations and omissions
and by his having completed treatment addressing the underlying circumstances of those
misrepresentations and omissions. Id.
B. Administrative Judge Evaluation of Evidence and Findings of Facts:
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), Guideline H (Drug Involvement)
and Bond Amendment
The LSO became aware of the individual’s excessive consumption of alcohol and his drug
use as a result of the individual self-reporting these matters to his supervisor in July 2016.
Tr. at 50. He acknowledges that in the preceding two years he consumed alcohol to the
point of intoxication at least once monthly and as frequently as twice weekly. His use of
cocaine began as occasional use at social gatherings in 1998 and occurred infrequently
(once every three to six years) until 2014. In 2014, his use of cocaine increased and he used
cocaine on six or seven occasions in the period from 2014 to August 2015. From August
2015 until July 2016, when he self-reported his drug use and commenced treatment, the
individual used cocaine once or twice per month. In all instances, his use of cocaine was
preceded by excessive consumption of alcohol. Ex. 1; Tr. at 138.
On the day that the individual self-reported to his supervisor, his supervisor accompanied
him to the on-site medical facility where the individual tested positive for cocaine
metabolite. Ex. 6. The individual also received referrals that day for treatment programs
and, the next day, he commenced treatment in an IOP. Ex. 7.
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.
- 6 -
The individual has been abstinent from both alcohol and cocaine since the evening prior to
his self-reporting to his supervisor. Tr. at 139. The individual’s testimony with respect to
his abstinence is corroborated by the testimony of a former girlfriend, as well as negative
laboratory results from frequent drug and alcohol tests conducted by his employer. Ex. J;
Tr. at 25.
The IOP, which the individual attended, requires participation in 36 sessions over a 12-
week period. After completing the initial 36 sessions, the individual requested to continue
treatment and voluntarily completed an additional 26 sessions. Id. at 76. His treatment
counselor testified that the individual was highly open to the treatment process and engaged
in the treatment program. Id. at 84-89. The IOP addressed both alcohol and drug use. Id. at
96-97. Although the IOP has no aftercare program or requirements, his treatment counselor
suggested that the individual participate in a 12-step recovery program (which uses a
different treatment model than that which is used by this particular IOP) to supplement his
treatment following completion of the IOP. Id. at 92, 98. The individual has been attending
a 12-step program meetings once or twice per week since completion of the IOP; he is
engaged with a sponsor at the 12-step program, who testified at the hearing as to the
individual’s involvement and earnestness. Ex. 2; Tr. at 34-47. The individual is also
working with a counselor at his employer’s employee assistance program (EAP) and
continues to have occasional individual sessions with the treatment counselor from his IOP.
Id. at 57-60, 96.
The LSO referred the individual to a DOE psychiatrist for a psychiatric evaluation, which
was conducted in November 2016. See Ex. 4. At that time the individual was completing
his IOP and had been abstinent from alcohol and drugs for over three months. The DOE
psychiatrist concluded that the individual met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alcohol
Dependence, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and that this is a
condition that causes, or may cause, a significant defect in the individual’s judgment or
reliability. He opined that the individual would need to maintain his abstinence from
alcohol for a total of nine months to adequately evidence rehabilitation and reformation.
The DOE psychiatrist stated in his written evaluation that the individual did not meet the
diagnostic criteria for substance abuse or dependence; he made no other substance
diagnosis.5 Ex. 4 at 8.
At the hearing, expert testimony was received from the individual’s treatment counselor,
his EAP counselor and the DOE psychiatrist. The EAP counselor and the treatment
counselor testified that a source of the individual’s misuse of alcohol and drugs was the
traumatic death of his sibling, which occurred in 1988 under horrific circumstances. Tr. at
60, 62, 79. The DOE psychiatrist opined that the individual exhibited symptoms of Post-
5 At the hearing, the DOE psychiatrist testified that the LSO’s referral for the psychiatric evaluation only
used terminology from the DSM-IV-TR. However, had the LSO’s referral included terminology from the
Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, 5th Edition (DSM-5), the DOE
psychiatrist testified that he would have concluded that the individual met the DSM-5 criteria for Substance
Use Disorder, Mild to Moderate, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Tr. at 156. While
such diagnosis was not set forth in the Notification Letter and, therefore, is not an issue before me, I note that
the DOE psychiatrist opined at the hearing that, as of the date of the hearing, the individual had evidenced
adequate rehabilitation and reformation of such Substance Use Disorder and had a good prognosis. Id. at 157.
- 7 -
Traumatic Stress Disorder, which likely originated with his sibling’s death. Ex. 4 at 7;
Tr. at 153-154. The individual’s treatment counselor identified that event, with no
subsequent treatment to address it, as the largest factor of the individual’s alcohol and drug
misuse. Id. at 78-79. During his IOP and subsequent treatment, the individual addressed
the unresolved psychological issues related to his sibling’s death. Id. at 76-91.
The individual’s treatment counselor and the DOE psychiatrist both testified at the hearing
that, as of the date of the hearing, the individual had adequately evidenced rehabilitation
and reformation with respect to his alcohol dependence and drug use, had a good prognosis
and low probability of relapse. Id. at 84, 89, 91, 97, 99, 152, 155-157. The DOE psychiatrist
further opined that as of the date of the hearing the individual had no other mental
conditions or illnesses that cause, or may cause, a significant defect in his judgment or
reliability. Id. at 158.
The record establishes the individual has acknowledged his alcohol and drug issues, has
taken actions to address these problems, has established a pattern of abstinence with respect
to both alcohol and drugs, and has no history of previous treatment and relapse. Cf.
Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline G ¶ 23 (b) and (c), and Guideline H ¶ 26 (b)(3) and
(d). Further, he has successfully completed an IOP, complied with aftercare
recommendations and received favorable prognoses from three duly qualified mental
health professionals. Cf. Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline G ¶ 23 (d), and Guideline H
¶ 26 (d). For the reasons set forth above, I find that the individual has resolved the security
concerns associated with Guideline G arising from his alcohol consumption and with
Guideline H arising from his drug involvement.
As noted above, the Bond Amendment precludes a security clearance for a “person who is
an unlawful user of the controlled substance or an addict....” Under the Bond Amendment,
an “addict” is understood to be a person who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to
endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or is so far addicted to the use of
narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his or her
addiction. While it is unclear if the individual has ever been diagnosed as having a
“substance dependence” (which is the clinical term closest to the concept of “addiction”),
both the individual’s treatment counselor and the DOE psychiatrist opined at the hearing
that the individual had evidenced adequate reformation and rehabilitation with respect to
his prior cocaine use and had a good prognosis. Tr. at 84, 89, 91, 97, 99, 152, 155-157. The
Bond Amendment does not define “an unlawful user of a controlled substance.” While the
individual’s use of cocaine was clearly an unlawful use of a controlled substance, that use
has now ceased and the record reflects that the individual has not illegally used any drugs
since prior to commencing his IOP in July 2016. As discussed above, I have concluded
that such use is unlikely to recur. In the past, where administrative judges have found
mitigation of drug involvement under Guideline H, they have concluded that the related
security issues under the Bond Amendment are resolved. See Personnel Security Hearing,
Case No. PSH-17-0018 (2017); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. PSH-13-0036
(2013); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. PSH-12-0031 (2012); Personal Security
Hearing, Case No. TSO-1059 (2011); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0926
- 8 -
(2010). For these reasons, I find that the individual has resolved the security concerns
associated with the Bond Amendment.
C. Administrative Judge Evaluation of Evidence and Findings of Facts:
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
The individual first used cocaine at a social gathering in 1998 and continued to periodically
use cocaine until July 2016, as noted above. Ex. 1 at 3; Tr. at 138. Notwithstanding such
use, on each of the QNSPs that the individual certified in 2001, 2007 and 2012, he denied
illegal use of any drugs during the seven years prior to such certification or during any
period while he possessed a security clearance. See Ex. 9, Ex. 10, Ex. 11. He also denied
use of cocaine during a PSI conducted in 2002. See Ex. 14. The individual acknowledges
that these denials were false. Tr. at 138.
Deliberating providing false information during the access authorization process raises
legitimate and significant security concerns under Guideline E. Adjudicative Guidelines at
Guideline E ¶ 15, 16 (a) and (b). However, even with respect to security concerns arising
under Guideline E, the Adjudicative Guidelines recognize the appropriateness of
considering mitigating conditions in assessing the likelihood of a recurrence of the
disqualifying behavior and in determining whether a person is presently an acceptable
security risk. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2 (a).
In this situation, the individual managed to avoid detection of his illegal drug use for nearly
20 years. His former girlfriend, who is a long term participant in a 12-step program,
testified that, while she was aware the individual was consuming alcohol, she was unaware
he was using cocaine until he self-reported his use to his employer. Tr. at 18.
The LSO only became aware of the individual’s drug usage (and prior falsifications) as a
result of the individual’s disclosures to his supervisor and request for assistance in
receiving treatment. The individual’s self-report was not motivated by fear or concern that
his prior denials of drug use had been discovered or were about to be disclosed, but
reflected his decision to “finally [get] honest with somebody.” Id. 113. This is not a
situation of an employee suddenly becoming forthright after failing a random drug test or
otherwise being confronting with adverse information. Voluntarily correcting one’s
omissions, concealments or falsifications supports mitigation of security concerns under
Guideline E. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2 (e)(2) and at Guideline E ¶ 17 (a).
All of the individual’s concealments were related to his illegal use of cocaine. He has
acknowledged the underlying drug use, as well as his falsifications. The EAP counselor
and the DOE psychiatrist both opined that such denials (as well as rationalizations, as
discussed in the following paragraph) are all part of the substance use disorder for which
the individual has received treatment and now evidences adequate reformation and
rehabilitation. Tr. at 60, 61, 64, 101-102, 153, 154.
During a PSI which was conducted one month after the individual had commenced
treatment, the personnel security specialist asked the individual about his denials of illegal
- 9 -
drug use on his QNSPs. The individual responded that he believed he misunderstood the
questions and thought that the questions were about whether he was an “active user” and
that he had answered “no” because he did not believe his episodic use constituted being a
“user.” Ex. 13 at 139-141. During the hearing, I specifically asked the individual if his PSI
responses accurately explained his QNSP responses. To the individual’s credit, he
immediately disavowed the explanation he had provided during the PSI. He explained that
the PSI and the DOE psychiatric evaluation both occurred early in his treatment and, at
those times, he was just beginning to understand his drug addiction and was experiencing
denial around his substance use. He now views his QNSP answers and PSI explanation as
part of the dishonesty associated with his substance use. Tr. at 144-147. The DOE
psychiatrist commented during his testimony that the explanation the individual gave
during the PSI is an example of the rationalization that is common in substance use
disorders and that the individual’s present disavowal of that explanation reflects the
progress he has made during his treatment. Id. at 155.
The three mental health experts also testified that underlying the individual’s alcohol and
cocaine misuse was untreated trauma and grief related to his sibling’s death, for which the
individual has now received treatment. Id. at 60, 62, 79, 153-154. Therefore, the individual
has taken positive steps to alleviate the stressors, conditions and factors causing his
dishonest behavior and, in light of his alcohol and drug treatment and the favorable
prognoses from the mental health professionals, such dishonest behavior is unlikely to
recur. Cf. Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline E ¶ 17 (d). The individual also introduced
into the record a copy of his most recent QNSP, which he completed following completion
of his IOP, on which he “honestly and candidly” answered the questions about his drug use
and treatment. See. Ex. K; Ex. 2.
For the reasons set forth above, I find that the individual has resolved the security concerns
associated with Guideline E.
D. Administrative Judge Evaluation of Evidence and Findings of Facts:
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)
The LSO noted in the Notification Letter that the individual had purchased and used
cocaine, aware that it was illegal, from the mid-1990’s until July 2016 and that the
individual had been arrested and charges for vehicular offenses in 1984 and 1988. Ex. 1 at
6-7. The individual acknowledges this illegal conduct. Tr. at 138.
With respect to the individual’s drug activities, he has evidenced adequate rehabilitation
and reformation of his substance use disorder. Further, he has discontinued all contact with
the person from whom he had purchased cocaine during the last several years of his use.
Ex. 2 at 4. In light of the individual’s drug treatment and abstinence, as well as his
counseling for trauma and grief, his criminal activity with respect to drug involvement is
unlikely to recur. Cf. Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline J ¶ 32 (a) and (d).
The individual’s two arrests occurred approximately 30 years ago. These are the only two
times that the individual has been charged or arrested. Ex. 2 at 4; Tr. at Tr. at 139. These
- 10 -
were both vehicular charges – one for evading the police while driving with a broken
muffler (1984) and one for DUI (1988). In light of the time that has elapsed since these
offenses occurred and the fact that the most recent offense (1988) involved misuse of
alcohol, for which the individual has evidenced adequate rehabilitation and reformation,
such behavior is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s present
reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment. Cf. Adjudicative Guidelines at Guideline J
¶ 32 (a) and (d).
For the reasons set forth above, I find that the individual has resolved the security concerns
associated with Guideline J.
V. 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 the Bond Amendment
and Guidelines E, G, H and J. After considering all of 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 resolve the security concerns associated with the Bond
Amendment and Guidelines E, G, H and J. 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: August 23, 2017