PSH-18-0042

*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: May 16, 2018 ) Case No.: PSH-18-0042
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: August 14, 2018
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States 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.”1 As discussed below, after carefully
considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or
Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that
the Individual’s access authorization should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
A DOE contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. The Individual submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on November 11, 2015. DOE Ex. 11 at
52. OPM’s Federal Investigative Services conducted a background investigation on the Individual
which revealed that the Individual filed for bankruptcy subsequent to completing the e-QIP, had a
history of failing to meet his financial obligations, and suffered from memory lapses and muscle
tics as a result of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) stemming from his service in the U.S.
Army. DOE Ex. 6. As part of its evaluation of the Individual for a security clearance, the local
security office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (2017 PSI) of the Individual on
August 2, 2017. DOE Ex. 10 at 1.
Based upon information provided by the Individual in the 2017 PSI, the analyst who interviewed
the Individual recommended that the Individual undergo a psychological evaluation. DOE Ex. 5
1 The regulations define access authorization 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). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
- 2 -
at 1. A DOE psychologist conducted an evaluation of the Individual on October 19, 2017
(Psychological Evaluation). DOE Ex. 7 at 1. Based on discrepancies between the information
provided by the Individual on his e-QIP, in the 2017 PSI, and during the Psychological Evaluation,
the LSO conducted a second PSI (2018 PSI) on January 3, 2018. See DOE Ex. 4 at 1; see also
DOE Ex. 9 at 1.
As the 2017 PSI, Psychological Evaluation, and 2018 PSI raised unresolved security concerns, the
LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter dated March 23, 2018 (Notification Letter),
that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s
eligibility to hold a security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under “Guideline I,
Psychological Conditions.” DOE Ex. 1.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. DOE Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in the case, and I subsequently conducted an administrative hearing
in the matter. At the hearing, the LSO introduced eleven (11) numbered exhibits (DOE Ex. 1–11)
into the record and presented the testimony of the DOE psychologist. The Individual introduced
thirteen (13) lettered exhibits (Individual Ex. A–M) into the record and presented the testimony of
seven (7) witnesses, including himself. I received a transcript of the proceedings (Tr.) on August
9, 2018.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) as the basis for denying the Individual a
security clearance. DOE Ex. 1.
Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness. Guideline I at ¶ 27. The Notification Letter asserted that: the DOE psychologist
determined that the Individual’s willingness to present highly inconsistent versions of his
psychological, emotional, and physical function depending upon the circumstances constituted a
personality condition which could impair his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness;
the DOE psychologist determined that the Individual’s judgment was impaired; and, the DOE
psychologist concluded that the Individual’s behaviors form a constellation of a personality
condition which impairs his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. DOE Ex. 1. The
Individual’s inconsistent accounts of his psychological, emotional, and physical function, as well
as the DOE psychologist’s determination that the Individual has a personality condition which
impairs his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness, justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I
in the Notification Letter. Guideline I at ¶ 28(a)–(b).
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
- 3 -
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.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual is a U.S. Army veteran who suffered several traumatic events during the course of
his military service. See DOE Ex. 7 at 2–3. The Army honorably discharged the Individual in 2008.
Individual Ex. B. The injuries the Individual suffered during his service left him permanently
disabled, and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gave the Individual a seventy
percent (70%) service-connected disability rating (disability rating), which rating included a
disability rating of thirty percent (30%) for PTSD. See Individual Ex. K at 4; see also DOE Ex. 3.
The Individual possessed a Department of Defense Top Secret security clearance until 2010.
Individual Ex. A at 1. After leaving the Army, the Individual started his own business. Id. at 3.
The Individual experienced significant personal and professional difficulties in 2014, including
divorce from his wife, the death of his father, and the financial failure and closure of his business.
See DOE Ex. 7 at 3; see also DOE Ex. 9 at 32; see also DOE Ex. 10 at 11–12. The Individual’s
wife managed administrative and financial aspects of his business, and he attributed some of his
business’ financial difficulties to debts and bills his wife failed to pay and of which he was
unaware. DOE Ex. 10 at 12, 17; see also Tr. at 158. The Individual gambled during this period,
and reported during the 2018 PSI that his gambling at that time “was probably the highest point of
[his] gambling.” DOE Ex. 9 at 84. The Individual attributed this gambling to his failing marriage,
and reported budgeting approximately five hundred dollars ($500) per occasion for gambling “a
couple times a week . . . .” Id. at 27–28.
The Individual sought mental health assistance from the VA in late 2014, and, beginning in 2015,
attended several individual psychological counseling sessions each week with VA clinicians. Id.
at 57; see also DOE Ex. 7 at 2; see also Tr. at 143–44. During these sessions, the Individual
discussed some of the traumatic events that he experienced during his military service and his
PTSD symptoms. DOE Ex. 9 at 58; see also DOE Ex. 7 at 3. The Individual also discussed his
gambling during these sessions, and stated during the 2018 PSI that the counseling addressed his
gambling problem, that he recognized that “circumstances got overwhelming and [he] tried to find
- 4 -
[] escapes,” and that he had developed coping mechanisms to address his problems without relying
on distractions such as gambling. DOE Ex. 9 at 58–59.
In October 2015, the Individual participated in a compensation and pension (C&P) evaluation for
the purpose of increasing his disability rating. During the C&P evaluation, the Individual endorsed
full-spectrum PTSD symptoms. See DOE Ex. 7 at 4. As a result of the C&P evaluation, the VA
increased the Individual’s disability rating to one hundred percent (100%), including a disability
rating of one hundred percent (100%) for PTSD.2 Individual Ex. M at 2–4; see also DOE Ex. 7 at
6.
The DOE contractor hired the Individual in October 2015. See DOE Ex. 9 at 30. The Individual
completed an e-QIP on November 11, 2015. DOE Ex. 11 at 52. The Individual indicated on his e-
QIP that he had never experienced financial problems due to gambling. Id. at 46–47. However,
treatment records from the VA indicated that the Individual engaged in “problematic gambling,”
incurring significant losses and, on one occasion, gambling away rent money. See DOE Ex. 7 at
4–5. VA records reflect that VA clinicians considered the Individual’s gambling habits as within
the scope of his treatment as recently as December 2015. See id. at 4. The Individual divulged
several financial delinquencies during the 2017 PSI that he failed to disclose on the e-QIP, but did
not mention his gambling-related VA counseling or significant gambling losses. See id. at 5. The
Individual described his history of gambling in significant detail during the 2018 PSI, represented
that he did not remember gambling away rent money, and indicated that he believed his answer on
the e-QIP to the effect that he had never experienced financial problems due to gambling was
accurate because he personally had tens of thousands of dollars in his bank account, the amount of
money he lost gambling was significantly less than his business’ obligations, and it “wouldn’t have
saved the situation” if he had invested the money he lost gambling into the business. DOE Ex. 9
at 60–64.
During the 2017 PSI, the Individual discussed several traumatic events that he experienced during
his military service, including a combat-related injury he suffered in 2008 which he indicated
caused him to suffer from a neurological disorder, reported that VA staff diagnosed him with
PTSD, and identified his total VA-assigned disability rating as one hundred percent (100%). DOE
Ex. 10 at 84–87, 99. The Individual reported that he had received VA counseling, and asserted that
the VA “disenrolled [him] because [he] had made progress . . . .” Id. at 91. VA records provided
to the DOE psychologist indicated that the Individual ceased attending VA counseling of his own
volition and against the recommendations of VA clinicians. See DOE Ex. 7 at 4.
The DOE psychologist’s report from the Psychological Evaluation cited ten (10) instances in
which she determined that the Individual presented a lack of candor concerning his psychological,
emotional, and physical function. Id. at 6–7. In order to evaluate the Individual, the DOE
2 A one hundred percent (100%) disability rating represents the maximum disability compensation that a veteran may
receive for a particular service-connected disability, but does not indicate that a veteran is unable to work.
“Unemployability” is determined separately from the percentage rating assigned to a particular service-connected
disability, and some veterans designated as unemployable have a disability rating of less than one hundred percent
(100%). See Individual Unemployability, U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, available at https://www.benefits.va.gov/
compensation/claims-special-individual_unemployability.asp (last modified January 19, 2018). The Individual’s
psychologist testified at the hearing that veterans, including the Individual, with a one hundred percent (100%)
disability rating, but who are not rated unemployable, are able to work. Tr. at 188.
- 5 -
psychologist reviewed his VA treatment records and personnel security file, subjected the
Individual to a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF)
personality test, and conducted a clinical interview of the Individual. DOE Ex. 7 at 2. VA records
indicate that, as of October 2015, the Individual endorsed “full-spectrum PTSD symptoms” in
connection with seeking a greater disability rating. Id. at 9. However, the DOE psychologist found
that the Individual minimized his PTSD diagnosis because he did not specifically say that PTSD
contributed to his disability rating during the 2017 PSI and reported that his disability rating for
PTSD was thirty percent (30%) during the Psychological Evaluation when it was in fact one
hundred percent (100%). Id. at 7, 9. Moreover, the DOE psychologist reported that the Individual
told her that his gambling ended in 2014 and that he always met his financial obligations, which
statements were inconsistent with the VA treatment records. Id. at 9. The DOE psychologist also
concluded that the results of the MMPI-2-RF showed that the Individual presented a high level of
virtuousness that caused her to question whether the Individual underreported dysfunction in other
areas of the test. Id. at 8.
Upon completing her evaluation, the DOE psychologist determined that the Individual’s
willingness to present highly inconsistent versions of his psychological, emotional, and physical
functioning depending on the circumstances constituted a personality condition which can impair
his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. Id. at 9. The DOE psychologist further
opined that the Individual’s prognosis was unlikely to change. Id. at 10.
During the hearing, three (3) of the Individual’s colleagues, a personal friend, and a business
consultant who advised the Individual when he operated his business testified that they believed
that the Individual demonstrated sound judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. Tr. at
16–17, 55–56, 72–73, 80, 83, 88, 96. The Individual testified that he has accepted his PTSD
diagnosis, reenrolled in VA treatment in 2017, has attended individual counseling with a VA
clinician, and voluntarily attends weekly group counseling sessions for military veterans with
PTSD. Id. at 128, 131, 168–69. The Individual described various coping mechanisms he uses to
control his PTSD symptoms, and testified that he feels the “controlled environment” at DOE is
conducive to controlling his PTSD symptoms. Id. at 123–24, 167–68.
The Individual offered the testimony of a psychologist who the Individual contracted to evaluate
him prior to the hearing. The Individual’s psychologist reviewed the DOE psychologist’s report,
consulted the Individual’s medical records, interviewed the Individual, and subjected the
Individual to a Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) test. Tr. at 190–91; see also Individual Ex.
K at 1. The Individual’s psychologist concluded that the Individual’s results on the PAI test were
within normal limits and did not reflect an effort to distort the results. Individual Ex. K at 3; see
also Tr. at 190–91, 193. The Individual’s psychologist opined that the Individual did not
demonstrate a psychological condition that could impair his judgment, stability, reliability, and
trustworthiness. Tr. at 217; see also Individual Ex. K at 5.
The DOE psychologist, after observing the hearing and all testimony offered therein, testified that
her opinion was unchanged and that she believed the Individual’s inconsistent representations of
his psychological, emotional, and physical function depending upon the circumstances constituted
a personality condition which could impair his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.
Tr. at 234–35. The DOE psychologist testified that she considered the severity of the symptoms
- 6 -
the Individual reported during the C&P evaluation compared to those he reported during the
Psychological Evaluation, the Individual’s inconsistent description of his gambling habits, and
minimization of his PTSD-related disability rating during the 2017 PSI and Psychological
Evaluation as significant evidence of the Individual’s personality condition. Tr. at 223, 227–29,
234–35.
Under cross examination, the DOE psychologist conceded that the Individual did not say during
the 2017 PSI “that 100% of his disability was based on memory and neurological symptoms” as
she had written in her report, that she could “see where there would be confusion” on the part of
the Individual as to his disability rating, and that his misstatement of his disability rating for PTSD
during the Psychological Evaluation was “not an important discrepancy . . . .” Tr. at 245–47. The
Individual offered testimony and evidence showing that he reviewed his VA disability rating
online, learned that his disability rating for PTSD was one hundred percent (100%), and sent an e-
mail message to the DOE psychologist the same day as the Psychological Evaluation to correct his
misstatement concerning his PTSD-related disability rating. Tr. at 154–55, 165–66; Individual Ex.
M.3
V. ANALYSIS
Guideline I Considerations
In this case, I am required to analyze the facts to determine which of two starkly differing narratives
of the Individual’s conduct better reflects his eligibility for a DOE security clearance.4 The DOE
psychologist states that the Individual minimized his gambling and PTSD-related symptoms
during the process of seeking his DOE security clearance as compared to his accounts to the VA
and during the C&P evaluation, speculated that “malingering cannot be excluded,” and concluded
that the Individual’s willingness to present differing accounts of his wellbeing when doing so suits
him is evidence of a personality condition which impaired his judgment, stability, reliability, and
trustworthiness. DOE Ex. 7 at 9; see also Tr. at 229–31, 234–35.
In contrast, the Individual’s psychologist found that the Individual does not have a psychological
condition that impairs his judgement, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, concluded that the
Individual’s reckless gambling and memory deficiencies were likely byproducts of the Individual’s
PTSD, and opined that the DOE psychologist “mischaracterize[d] the situation” with respect to
several of the instances in which the DOE psychologist claimed that the Individual displayed a
lack of candor. Individual Ex. K at 4–5; see also Tr. at 203, 217. Taking the totality of the record
into account, I am convinced that the security concerns asserted by the LSO were the product of
the Individual’s PTSD symptoms, that the Individual’s PTSD symptoms were aggravated by
unusual events in the Individual’s life, and that the Individual does not currently have a
psychological condition that impairs his judgement, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness.
An Individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline I if “the past emotional instability
was a temporary condition (e.g., one caused by death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has
3 The DOE psychologist claimed not to have received the e-mail message. Tr. at 224.
4 I note that neither mental health expert testified that the individual’s PTSD in itself raised a security concern.
- 7 -
been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability, [or] there
is no indication or a current problem.” Id. at ¶ 29(d)–(e). After considering the expert testimony
offered by the Individual’s psychologist and the DOE psychologist, I am not convinced that the
Individual currently suffers from a psychological condition that impairs his judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness.
The DOE psychologist’s opinion concerning the Individual’s personality condition relied upon
instances in which the Individual displayed a lack of candor; however, the DOE psychologist
unreasonably found several innocuous facts to be evidence of a lack of candor on the part of the
Individual. The DOE psychologist testified that the instances of “lack of candor” by the Individual
that she cited in her report were central to her conclusion that the Individual had a psychological
condition. Tr. at 222–23. The DOE psychologist acknowledged that the Individual’s PTSD might
have affected the Individual’s memory, but opined “that’s not as likely as it being about presenting
in a certain way under certain circumstances.” Id. at 259. However, during the hearing, the DOE
psychologist recanted several of her claims as to lack of candor by the Individual. See supra p. 6.
Furthermore, the record does not support two (2) additional instances of lack of candor cited by
the DOE psychologist. The DOE psychologist’s report states, without citing to any supporting
evidence, that the OPM “Investigator received the information about [the Individual’s] PTSD
diagnosis from sources, not from [the Individual] until he was asked about it [during the 2017
PSI].” DOE Ex. 7 at 6. However, the OPM report of investigation makes repeated mention of the
Individual’s PTSD in the section describing the OPM Investigator’s November 4, 2016 interview
with the Individual. DOE Ex. 11 at 59, 65. These entries directly contradict the DOE psychologist’s
claim that the Individual hid his PTSD from the OPM Investigator. The DOE psychologist also
claimed that the Individual displayed a lack of candor by not disclosing his employment with the
DOE contractor during the C&P evaluation held twelve (12) days after he was hired. DOE Ex. 7
at 6, 9. However, the Individual completed the intake form for the C&P evaluation prior to his
hiring by the DOE contractor; nothing in the record besides the DOE psychologist’s account of
how she has conducted C&P evaluations indicates that the Individual was asked to update his
employment information during the C&P evaluation, and the DOE psychologist admitted during
the hearing that misrepresenting his employment status could not have helped the Individual secure
a more advantageous disability rating. Individual Ex. K at 4; Tr. at 226–27, 247–51.
The record also shows that the Individual was forthcoming about his PTSD diagnosis throughout
the review of his eligibility for a security clearance. While the Individual did not agree with his
PTSD diagnosis in the past, the OPM report of investigation, 2017 PSI, and Psychological
Evaluation all contain entries reflecting that the Individual shared the diagnosis. DOE Ex. 11 at
59, 65; DOE Ex. 10 at 99; DOE Ex. 7 at 7. The Individual also demonstrated truthfulness
concerning his PTSD when he sent an e-mail to the DOE psychologist hours after the
Psychological Evaluation to clarify his disability rating for PTSD. Individual Ex. M. The
Individual’s disclosure of his PTSD diagnosis throughout this process, and his voluntary efforts to
correct his misstatement to the DOE psychologist concerning his PTSD-related disability rating,
undermine the DOE psychologist’s claims that the Individual intentionally misrepresented his
health based on the circumstances.
The Individual’s psychologist opined that, contrary to the findings of the DOE psychologist, the
Individual does not presently suffer from a psychological condition that could impair his judgment,
- 8 -
stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. Tr. at 217. The Individual’s psychologist discussed the
merits of the PAI she administered to the Individual, and why she believed the PAI more
appropriate to the Individual in light of his personal history than the MMPI-2-RF administered by
the DOE psychologist. Ind. Ex. K at 3; Tr. at 191. Specifically, the Individual’s psychologist
asserted that the Individual’s MMPI-2-RF test results indicated rigidity, not misrepresentations,
and that the PAI was more appropriate for subjects like the Individual with military service and
traditional values. Tr. at 199–200. The Individual’s psychologist further opined that the Individual
did not currently demonstrate behavior evidencing a psychological condition that could impair his
judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. Ind. Ex. K at 5; Tr. at 217. The Individual’s
psychologist also asserted that the Individual’s prior gambling and inconsistent recollection of
events were products of his PTSD, and opined that these issues subsided as the Individual obtained
treatment and learned to cope with his PTSD. Id.; see also Tr. at 189–90, 200–03.
In this case, the Individual’s reports of his symptoms to the VA, which the DOE psychologist
believed he exaggerated, occurred shortly after the Individual suffered a divorce, the death of his
father, and the loss of his business. The DOE psychologist concurred that this was a time of
extreme stress for the Individual. Tr. at 255. Since that time, the Individual has participated in
individual and group counseling. The DOE psychologist testified at the hearing that she believed
that “the treatment has been very helpful for [the Individual;] [h]e’s been diligent about attending
that treatment and getting the help that he needed.” Id. at 231. Likewise, the Individual’s
psychologist testified as to the Individual’s improved ability to manage his PTSD symptoms as a
result of his years of treatment for PTSD. Id. at 200–02. The Individual’s losses were unique,
significant events that likely temporarily exacerbated the Individual’s PTSD symptoms. These
issues have been resolved, and the Individual is pursuing counseling and healthy coping
mechanisms. Moreover, neither the Individual’s colleagues and friends who testified at the
hearing, nor the Individual’s psychologist, perceived any indication of a current problem.
Accordingly, I find that the past emotional instability was a temporary condition caused by a
confluence of stressful factors, that the situation has been resolved, and that the individual no
longer shows indications of emotional instability. I also find that there is no indication or a current
problem. Therefore, the Individual has mitigated the concerns pursuant to Guideline I at ¶ 29(d)
and (e).
The record establishes that the Individual reported significantly more severe PTSD symptoms in
2015 when pursuing treatment at the VA and seeking an increased disability rating than he did
during the Psychological Evaluation and PSIs, and that he provided inconsistent accounts of his
gambling habits. The Individual’s psychologist testified that the Individual’s PTSD symptoms
were exacerbated by the significant events that occurred in the Individual’s life in 2014 and are
now under control as a result of treatment, that the Individual’s inconsistent memory was a
symptom of his PTSD, and that the Individual does not currently have a psychological condition
that could impair his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. I find this opinion to be
significantly more compelling than the DOE psychologist’s opinion that the inconsistencies show
a willingness on the part of the Individual to misrepresent his health so as to secure government
benefits.
VI. CONCLUSION
- 9 -
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline I of the Adjudicatory Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the Notification Letter. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s
access authorization should be granted. Either party may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal
Panel pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals