PSH-18-0032

*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 13, 2018 ) Case No.: PSH-18-0032
)
_________________________________________ )
Issued: July 12, 2018
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (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, 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 not be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is an applicant for a DOE Security Clearance. His initial background investigation
revealed that he has a history of five alcohol-related arrests between 2003 and 2013, and had been
the subject of a number of employment terminations. The Local Security Office (LSO) conducted
a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the Individual on July 7, 2017. During this PSI, the
Individual initially provided misleading information concerning his use of alcohol, although he
later became more forthcoming about his alcohol use during the PSI. Because the background
investigation and the PSI raised concerns about the Individual’s alcohol use and psychological
state, the LSO asked the Individual to undergo a forensic psychological evaluation by a DOE
Psychologist (the Psychologist). The Psychologist conducted an evaluation of the Individual on
October 19, 2017. On October 24, 2017, he issued a report in which he concluded that the
Individual meets the criteria set forth in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American
Psychiatric Association, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) for Substance Use Disorder - Alcohol, moderate,
and for “facets of Antisocial Personality Disorder.” Ex. 1 at §§ II.A and III. The Psychologist
further opined that both conditions can impair the Individual’s judgment, reliability, stability, and
trustworthiness. 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
1 Under the regulations, “Access authorization” means 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 also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
- 2 -
Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding 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 Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the Administrative Judge
in this matter on April 13, 2018. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e)
and (g), I took testimony from the Individual, his mother, his second level supervisor, his girlfriend,
his union representative, and the Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-18-0032
(hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted ten exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 10
(hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual did not submit any exhibits.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED 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 Guidelines E, G, I, and J of the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a
Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines).
Under Guideline E: Personal Conduct, the LSO alleges that the Individual has failed to provide
truthful and candid answers during his PSI, when he misrepresented the frequency with which he
consumed alcohol, the amount of alcohol he would consume, and whether his alcohol consumption
would result in intoxication. “Conduct involving questionable judgment lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Of special
interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security
investigative or adjudicative processes.” Guideline E at ¶ 15. These allegations adequately justify
the LSO’s invocation of Guideline E.
Under Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption, the LSO alleges that the Individual has been diagnosed
by the Psychologist with Substance Use Disorder - Alcohol, moderate, under the DSM-5. The LSO
further alleged that the Individual had a history of five alcohol-related arrests during the period
beginning on November 12, 2003, and continuing through December 2013. In addition, the
Individual admits that he stabbed his brother with a steak knife while he was under the influence
of alcohol on February 10, 2007. This information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of
Guideline G and raises significant security concerns. The Adjudicative Guidelines state:
“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.”
Guideline G at ¶ 21. Among those conditions set forth in the Guidelines that could raise a
disqualifying security concern are “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving
while under the influence, fighting, . . . disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern,
regardless of the frequency of the individual's alcohol use or whether the individual has been
diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.” Guideline G at ¶ 22(a). Guideline G further provides that a
“diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of [an] alcohol use
disorder” “could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying.” Guideline G at ¶ 22(d). These
allegations adequately justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
- 3 -
Under Guideline I, Psychological Conditions, the LSO alleges that the Psychologist has concluded
that the Individual meets the criteria for “facets of Antisocial Personality Disorder” under DSM-5.
Guideline I provides that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Guideline I at ¶ 28. Guideline I further provides that
“an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that
may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness” may raise a security concern and be
disqualifying. Guideline I at ¶ 28(b). Accordingly, these allegations adequately justify the LSO’s
invocation of Guideline I.
Under Guideline J: Criminal Conduct, the LSO alleges that the Individual has been cited for Open
Container, Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) (two occasions), aggravated DWI, and for Shoplifting
alcoholic beverages.2 In addition, the Individual admits that he stabbed his brother with a steak
knife while he was under the influence of alcohol. Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness and calls into question a person’s ability or willingness
to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Guideline J at ¶ 30. These six allegations of criminal
activity adequately justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of 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). 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 granting
or restoring 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). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue. Ex. A at Paragraph IV.B.
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
2 In addition, the Notification Letter cites the fact that a person obtained a restraining order against the Individual in
2011, but does not explain how that restraining order evidences criminal activity on his part.
- 4 -
The Individual is an applicant for a DOE security clearance. During his background investigation,
the LSO obtained information indicating that the Individual has a history of five alcohol-related
arrests or citations,3 and a history of several employment terminations. One such termination
resulted from an incident in May 2015, in which the Individual was denied an apartment at a low
income housing complex, because his income was too high. The individual then forged the
signature of the head of his employer’s human resources department on an income statement which
understated his income, in an effort to qualify for the low income housing. Ex. 10 at 69. Another
of these terminations resulted when the Individual was found to have had three separate safety
violations within a six month period. Ex. 10 at 71.
Because of the security concerns raised by these arrests and terminations, the LSO conducted a PSI
of the Individual on July 7, 2017. During the PSI, the Individual admitted that he had experienced
difficulty in maintaining employment, including several terminations, because of his poor
“attitude” and misconduct. Ex. 9 at 35-55. The Individual admitted that he was terminated on May
13, 2015, by his employer for forging a document on company letterhead intentionally minimizing
his income in order to qualify for subsidized low-income housing. Ex. 9 at 50-51. He stated that
he had not had any problems at his current employer because he has matured and stabilized. Ex. 9
at 56-57. The Individual admitted that he had been drinking before each of his DWI arrests and
his citation for Open Container. Ex. 9 at 62-65, 76-78, 83, 91-92. The Individual admitted that he
has driven while intoxicated on 50 to 90 occasions. Ex. 9 at 117. The Individual admitted that he
had shoplifted alcohol on two occasions and was arrested on the second occasion. Ex. 9 at 121-
122. The Individual acknowledged that alcohol has caused serious problems for him. Ex. 9 at 124.
He further admitted that, in 2007, he had stabbed his brother “in the kidney area” with a steak knife
during a fight when the Individual was intoxicated. Ex. 9 at 150-154. The Individual initially
claimed that he was presently only using alcohol about once a month, would limit himself to one
beer, and had not consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication for several years. Ex. 9 at 109-
112. When confronted with conflicting statements that he had made to the Office of Personnel
Management investigator, however, the Individual admitted that he would consume “four to five
shots of hard liquor and three to four beers in a two to four-hour time” on “an average of two to
three times a week.” Ex. 9 at 140-141. The Individual then further admitted that he is most likely
intoxicated on a weekly basis. Ex. 9 at 141.
Because the PSI did not resolve the security concerns raised by the Individual’s initial background
investigation, and raised additional security concerns, the LSO requested that the Individual be
evaluated by the Psychologist. The Psychologist evaluated the Individual on October 19, 2017,
and issued his Psychological Assessment of the Individual on October 25, 2017. Ex. 6 at 1. In his
Psychological Assessment, he opined that the Individual’s “misrepresentation of facts, his history
of criminal arrests, his several issues with employers, his tendency to fight taking responsibility for
his behaviors, and his tendency to attribute blame for his misbehavior to others raised the concern
that he might have antisocial tendencies.” Ex. 6 at 35. The Psychologist further opined that the
Individual’s
3 In December 2013, the Individual was cited for Open Container. On September 18, 2010, police charged him with
DWI. On April 8, 2006, and in January 2005, police charged him with Aggravated DWI. On November 12, 2003, he
was cited for shoplifting alcohol.
- 5 -
…reactive tendency to respond to confrontation with angry retorts has become
much more controlled over the last two years but will remain a vulnerability
probably for the rest of his life. . . . His gross misrepresentation of his drinking
appears motivated by the same effort to avoid having other's judgments of his
behavior control or limit him. His significant misrepresentations to the PSS three
months ago reveals that this remains an active tendency. The smoothness with
which he lied suggests that this is a practiced, well used tendency and, if the PSS
had not had access to other information, his obscuration might have gone unnoticed.
. . . It is my opinion, however, that being untruthful will be a hard tendency for him
to break when he finds himself "trapped" (his word), if he does not engage in a
therapy. This tendency is not just a problem in his youthful past but is a current
behavior, even while he was under oath in the PSI. His frank admission of his
untruths during the PSI and his grasping that lying is a tendency that he has to avoid
to stabilize his life are promising attitudes that should support his changing.
Ex. 6 at 7-8. The Psychologist found that the Individual meets several DSM-5 criteria for
Antisocial Personality Disorder, but failed to meet one of the essential criteria. Ex. 6 at 8. He
therefore diagnosed the Individual “with having a mental condition with facets of an Antisocial
Personality Disorder (but not sufficiently meeting all of the criteria). Ex. 6 at 8. The Psychologist
further diagnosed the Individual with “Substance Use Disorder- Alcohol, moderate.” Ex. 6 at 8.
The Psychologist further opined that the Individual was not rehabilitated from these two conditions,
noting that the Individual had continued to consume alcohol heavily until three years ago, and that
not enough time had passed “to be confident that the Individual had achieved sustained control
over his use of alcohol.” Ex. 6 at 9. He further noted that the Individual’s history of minimizing
his alcohol use “makes it difficult to believe assertions he might make about his sobriety.” Ex. 6
at 9. The Psychologist recommended that the Individual make a lifelong commitment to abstain
from alcohol use and attend an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP). Ex. 6 at 9. In order to address
the Individual’s facets of Antisocial Personality Disorder, the Psychologist recommended that the
Individual attend “a dynamic, verbal therapy meeting at least weekly.” Ex. 6 at 9.
At the hearing, the Individual presented testimony showing that he recognized that he has an
alcohol problem and that he understood that his personality issues had interfered with his career,
led to several terminations, and caused him unhappiness. He sought to demonstrate that, although
he has forgone counseling until very recently, he has changed his life, maintained steady
employment for the past three years,4 entered into a serious long-term relationship,5 assumed a
parental role for his girlfriend’s daughter, and has not used alcohol for a year.
4 The Individual’s second level supervisor for the past three years testified that the Individual is a very good employee.
Tr. at 13-14. The second level supervisor further testified that the Individual is very reliable and gets along well with
his coworkers. Tr. at 13-14. The Individual has never had any incidents at work. Tr. at 14. The Individual’s Union
Representative testified that he has not known the Individual to act impulsively or aggressively. Tr. at 59-60. He noted
that the Individual is very punctual and dependable, and that he has never known the Individual to be dishonest. Tr. at
60-61. It is his understanding that the Individual has not used alcohol for “years.” Tr. at 61. He believes the Individual
to be very trustworthy. Tr. at 61. He stated that he does not hear of any problems with the Individual at the Individual’s
workplace. Tr. at 61.
5 The Individual’s girlfriend testified at the hearing that she has been living with him for the past three years. Tr. at 34.
She further testified that the Individual has not used alcohol for almost a year, and intends to abstain from using alcohol
in the future. Tr. at 35-36, 44. She testified that the Individual used to use alcohol at home. Tr. at 36-37. She noted
- 6 -
The Individual identified himself as an “alcoholic” and testified that will always be an alcoholic.6
Tr. at 101, 121. The Individual testified that he has not driven under the influence since his last
DWI, and he plans to completely abstain from alcohol use for the rest of his life. Tr. at 72-73, 120-
121. The Individual testified that he has not used alcohol since July 8, 2017.7 Tr. at 90-91, 96,
120. The Individual testified that alcohol use was interfering with his ability to make the changes
he needed to address for his “mental situation.” Tr. at 113. He recognizes that if he were to begin
using alcohol again, he would likely lose his career, his relationship, his home, and his happiness.
Tr. at 84, 99, 103, 105, 107, 125. The Individual recognizes that his past behavior and criminal
activity has hurt his reputation and cost him employment opportunities. Tr. at 117. The Individual
testified that when he was drinking, getting laid off, and getting arrested, he was not able to
“succeed in life” and just kept finding himself “stuck” in an increasingly “darker, lonelier” place
in life. Tr. at 123-124. He believes that, if he can stay sober, he can progress in his career to a
management position. Tr. at 124. The Individual expressed his remorse for lying during the PSI,
stating: “I wish I had never tried to, you know, blatantly lie about how much alcohol I was using,
because it only made me sound worse than it really was.” Tr. at 84
The Psychologist observed the testimony of the other witnesses before he testified. He testified
that the Individual did not exhibit the core aspects of Antisocial Personality Disorder: “disregard
for other people and a sense of grandiosity or of specialness about themselves.” Tr. at 132-135.
The Individual did, however, meet several of the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder set
forth in the DSM-5. Tr. at 133-135. The Psychologist testified that the Individual has gradually
reformed himself and has successfully turned his life around. Tr. at 135-136. He noted that the
Individual probably still has urges to use alcohol or lie, but now understands the consequences of
obeying those urges and is able to control himself. Tr. at 138. When the Psychologist was asked
if he had any concerns about the Individual’s truthfulness about his drinking at the hearing, the
Psychologist noted two concerns: First, the Individual’s history of forging a letter from his
company, and second, the Individual’s willingness to lie during the PSI. Tr. at 142. The
Psychologist further noted however, that the Individual confessed that he lied at the PSI during the
PSI. Tr. at 143. The Psychologist testified that, despite the fact that the Individual did not comply
with his treatment recommendations, the Individual has been able to achieve reformation of his
Substance Use Disorder, Alcohol, and his facets of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Tr. at 146-
147, 151-155. The Psychologist further testified that the Individual’s likelihood of remaining
abstinent is “very high” and his likelihood of avoiding further issues with his “characterological
difficulties” is “moderate to a little higher than moderate.” Tr. at 147. However, the Psychologist
further testified that the Individual’s facets of Antisocial Personality Disorder would likely
continue “without being as prevalent or disruptive as there were in the past” and that the Individual
would likely “catch them and stop them.” Tr. at 152.
that she has never observed him acting impulsively or aggressively. Tr. at 39. She testified that the Individual is very
good with her ten-year old daughter. Tr. at 43. She further testified that the Individual is reliable, trustworthy, and
exercises good judgment. Tr. at 42-43. The Individual’s mother testified that the Individual’s girlfriend has been a
steadying, maturing influence on him. Tr. at 23.
6 The Individual testified that he had previously been attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, but stopped
at the request of his girlfriend. Tr. at 85-87.
7 The Individual testified that he had taken a PEth test the day before the hearing and intended to submit the results of
the test into the record. Tr. at 91-94. However, the Individual did not submit the results of that test into the record.
- 7 -
V. ANALYSIS
Guideline E Concerns
The Individual has clearly exhibited questionable judgment, a lack of candor, and dishonesty when
he intentionally attempted to conceal the extent and frequency of his alcohol consumption and
intoxication, which brings his reliability and trustworthiness into question. The concerns raised by
this intentional effort to conceal these facts are magnified by its occurrence during a PSI. See
Guideline E at § 15 (“of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid
answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes). The concerns raised
about the Individual’s judgment, trustworthiness and reliability are further magnified by the
information in the record showing that the Individual forged a document in order to obtain low-
income housing for which he was not eligible in May 2015.8
Guideline E sets forth a number of conditions that could mitigate security concerns. Section 17(a)
provides that mitigation may result when “the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct
the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts.” In the present
case it is clear that the Individual did not correct his omission, concealment, or falsification until
after he was confronted during the PSI. Section 17(c) provides that mitigation may result when
“the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened
under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” At the time of the hearing, it had been
approximately eleven months since the Individual’s omission, concealment, or falsification, so it
cannot be said that so much time has passed that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt upon
the Individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Section 17(d) provides that
mitigation may result when “the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained
counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors,
circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.” The Individual has acknowledged his behaviors.
However, he has only very recently begun counseling, having attended only two therapy sessions
at the time of the hearing. Even though, at the hearing, the Psychologist testified that the Individual
had, without the benefit of counseling, undergone changes which resulted in his reformation from
both his Alcohol Use Disorder and his facets of Antisocial Personality Disorder, I am not convinced
that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the significant security concerns arising from his
relatively recent omission, concealment, or falsification during the PSI. The Individual’s attempt
to deceive the LSO, when considered in connection with his history of forging a document in order
to wrongfully obtain low-income housing, raises grave concerns about his judgment, reliability,
honesty, and trustworthiness which cannot be sufficiently mitigated by his recently improved
insight and reformation.9
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns arising from his
intentional omission, concealment, or falsification during the PSI.
8 While this issue was not contained in the Statement of Security Concerns, it was part of the record in this case, and
is therefore a factor in my evaluation of the Individual’s credibility.
9 I note also that both the Individual’s deception during the PSI and his forgery exhibit a willingness on his part to
violate rules or laws in order to obtain a desired benefit.
- 8 -
Guideline G Concerns
At the hearing, the Individual presented compelling evidence that he has gained the insight and
understanding to recognize that he has a problem with alcohol, the destructive role that alcohol has
had in his life, and his need to permanently abstain from alcohol use. This testimony convinced
the Psychologist that the Individual has been reformed from his Substance Disorder, Alcohol,
moderate, and now has a “very high” likelihood of remaining abstinent. Accordingly, I find that
the security concerns arising from the Individual’s Substance Disorder, Alcohol, moderate have
been resolved.
Guideline I Concerns
At the hearing, the Individual’s testimony indicated that he has gained insight into himself and an
understanding of those aspects of his character which led the Psychologist to conclude that he has
facets of an Antisocial Personality Disorder. More importantly, the Individual was able to show
that he has been able to change his behavior. As a result, the Psychologist testified that the
Individual has been able to achieve reformation of his facets of Antisocial Personality Disorder,
and further testified that the Individual’s likelihood of avoiding further issues with his
“characterological difficulties” is “moderate to a little higher than moderate. The Psychologist
further testified that the Individual’s facets of Antisocial Personality Disorder would likely
continue without being as prevalent or disruptive as there were in the past, and that the Individual
would likely “catch them and stop them.”
Guideline I provides that a “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” is among
those conditions that can mitigate security concerns arising under Guideline I. However, I note
that the Psychologist stopped short of concluding that the risk of recurrence or exacerbation is low,
explicitly stating that the Antisocial Personality Disorder would likely continue at some level.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns arising under
Guideline I from the Psychologist’s finding that the Individual has facets of Antisocial Personality
Disorder.
Guideline J Concerns
The Individual’s history of at least six criminal incidents between 2003 and 2013 raises significant
concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. While this pattern appears to have
been extended into 2015, when the Individual committed his forgery, the passage of time since
2015 without the recurrence of criminal activity provides some mitigation of these security
concerns. See Guideline J at §32(d)(mitigation may occur where there is a passage of time without
recurrence of criminal activity). The Individual has also provided evidence of his good
employment record during the past three years, providing further mitigation of these security
concerns. See Guideline J at § 32(d)(mitigation may occur where there is evidence of a good
employment record). More importantly, each of these six criminal incidents involved alcohol, and
at least five of these incidents occurred when the Individual was under the influence of alcohol,
and were therefore symptomatic of his alcohol disorder. Because I have found that the Individual
has been reformed from his alcohol disorder, I am now convinced that the Individual’s criminal
- 9 -
activity is unlikely to recur as long as he abstains from alcohol use. Guideline J at § 32(a).
Accordingly, I find that the security concerns raised under Guideline J have been resolved.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E, G, I, and
J. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a common sense manner,
I find that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines
G, and J. However, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines
E and I. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that granting 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 not be granted. The Individual 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