PSH-18-0061

*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: August 6, 2018 ) Case No.: PSH-18-0061
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 4, 2018
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXX (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) (Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s
access authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
A DOE contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires her to hold a security clearance.
The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Investigative Services
conducted a background investigation on the Individual which revealed that the Individual believed
that a demonic being spoke to her on a frequent basis, that the Individual occasionally perceived
the demonic being as controlling her physically, and that she had previously sought psychological
treatment in connection with these symptoms. DOE Ex. 5 at 2. Consequently, the local security
office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the Individual on February 22,
2018. DOE Ex. 8 at i.
Based upon information provided by the Individual in the PSI, the LSO recommended that the
Individual undergo a psychological evaluation. DOE Ex. 4 at 1. A DOE-contracted psychologist
(DOE Psychologist) conducted an evaluation of the Individual in mid-April 2018 (Psychological
Evaluation). DOE Ex. 3 at 1; DOE Ex. 6.
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 -
Because neither the PSI nor the Psychological Evaluation resolved the security concerns raised by
the Individual’s psychological symptoms, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter
dated July 10, 2018 (Notification Letter), that it possessed reliable information that created
substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to hold a security clearance. In an attachment to the
Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns
under “Guideline I, Psychological Conditions.” DOE Ex. 1.
The Individual exercised her 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
concerning the matter. At the hearing, the LSO introduced nine (9) numbered exhibits (DOE Ex.
1–9) into the record and presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist. The Individual
introduced four (4) lettered exhibits (Ind. Ex. A–D) into the record and presented the testimony of
three (3) witnesses, including herself. I received a transcript of the proceedings (Tr.) on October 2,
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 met the criteria for Delusional Disorder under the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth (DSM-5), and that this condition can impair the
Individual’s judgement, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. DOE Ex. 1. The DOE
Psychologist’s determination that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Delusional Disorder
justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I in the Notification Letter. Guideline I at ¶ 28(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
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
- 3 -
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 ANALYSIS
The DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Delusional
Disorder under the DSM-5, primarily based on the Individual’s visual and auditory hallucinations
of a spiritual nature. DOE Ex. 6 at 5. The Individual began hearing a voice, which she first thought
to be Jesus but then came to believe to be an evil spirit, in 2011. DOE Ex. 8 at 9–13. During the
PSI, the Individual reported that the evil spirit sometimes caused her to feel physical pain or ordered
her to perform tasks. Id. at 11–13. The Individual sought treatment with a psychiatrist, but the
Individual found the treatment unhelpful and the voice did not subside. DOE Ex. 8 at 8, 10, 17.
During the Psychological Evaluation, the Individual reported hearing the demonic voice about once
or twice per month, and noted that it tried to disturb her prayers. DOE Ex. 6 at 3. The Individual
testified at the hearing that she no longer hears the demonic being, but believes that God places
thoughts in her mind during prayer and last did so within a week of the hearing. Tr. at 37–38. The
Individual did not dispute the relevant facts set forth in the DOE Psychologist’s report, but argued
that her experiences were consistent with her religious beliefs as a Catholic and that experiences
arising from her religious beliefs could not amount to the Delusional Disorder diagnosed by the
DOE Psychologist. DOE Ex. 2; Ind. Ex. A; Tr. at 9.
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the exhibits and the testimony
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) and
the Guidelines. The security concerns at issue center on whether the Individual suffers from a
psychological condition that impairs her judgement, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. After
due deliberation, I find that the Individual’s DOE security clearance should not be restored.
Specifically, I cannot find that restoring the Individual’s security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security, or that doing so would be clearly consistent with the national
interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The relevant evidence and my specific findings in support of this
decision are discussed below.
A. Guideline I Considerations
In evaluating whether or not to restore the Individual’s access authorization, I must consider
whether the Individual exhibits signs of a psychological condition and the extent to which that
psychological condition may impair the Individual’s judgement, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness, keeping in mind the Individual’s heavy burden to demonstrate that restoring 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); Guideline I at ¶ 27. This review does
not call upon me to pass judgement on the validity of the Individual’s personal faith, or to factually
evaluate whether the Individual has or has not received spiritual insight.
The Individual testified during the hearing that her condition was somewhat changed since the
Psychological Evaluation. According to the Individual, her studies on differentiating godly spiritual
- 4 -
communications from evil ones, as well as guidance that she received from a spiritual director, had
helped her to control her fears and manage her life. Tr. at 31–32. The Individual testified that she
had not heard voices or perceived that she had seen demonic figures since 2011 or 2012, and that
the only spiritual messages she received now were godly messages of peace and serenity placed in
her mind by God during prayer. Id. at 35–38. According to the Individual, she last received such a
message during prayer within a week of the hearing when God instructed her to say a rosary for
her son. Id. at 38. The Individual testified that she had been prescribed medication in May, which
she understood to have been prescribed for depression, but said that she did not intend to pursue
psychiatric treatment in the future as she had found spiritually-based healing more effective in the
past. Id. at 29–32.
The DOE Psychologist, after observing the entirety of the hearing, testified that he believed that
the Individual continued to meet the diagnostic criteria for Delusional Disorder, and testified that
the Individual may also suffer from Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features. Id. at 45.
The DOE Psychologist opined that these conditions could impair the Individual’s judgement,
reliability, or trustworthiness. Id. at 44. The DOE Psychologist testified that his opinion was based
on the Individual’s perception that she received external stimuli directly from God, which the DOE
Psychologist testified was clinically distinguishable from the thoughts an ordinary person with
strong religious beliefs might report God inspires within them, and that this delusional belief
influenced her behavior. Id. at 46–47, 51–52, 55–56. The DOE Psychologist acknowledged that
the Individual only receiving messages from God during prayer was a different set of external
stimuli than she reported to him during the Psychological Evaluation, but opined that this difference
did not alter his diagnosis. Id. at 47–48. The DOE Psychologist further opined that his prognosis
for the Individual was guarded because of the Individual’s resistance to pursuing psychiatric
treatment. Id. at 50–51.
An individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline I if she can demonstrate that she is
pursuing appropriate care for a treatable condition. Guideline I at ¶ 29(a)–(b). In past cases
involving individuals diagnosed with psychological conditions by DOE psychologists based on
visual and auditory hallucinations, OHA has deemed the security concerns arising from the
psychological conditions mitigated where medication can stop the hallucinations but has denied
access authorization where medication does not affect the individuals’ symptoms. Compare
Personnel Security Hearing, PSH-18-0014 (2018) (granting access authorization to an individual
who experienced auditory hallucinations and perceived himself as doing God’s work during manic
episodes brought on by Bipolar Disorder because medication could prevent the individual from
experiencing manic and psychotic episodes), with Personnel Security Hearing, TSO-0922 (2010)
(denying access authorization to an individual who perceived that he saw and heard angels despite
taking medication prescribed by his psychiatrist, even though a DOE psychologist testified that the
individual’s prognosis was good and the individual’s psychologist opined that the individual’s
condition did not impair his judgement, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness).2 In this case, the
Individual continues to experience symptoms that the DOE Psychologist deems evidence of a
Delusional Disorder despite prior treatment with medication. Tr. at 31–32, 37–38; see also DOE
Ex. 6 at 3 (noting the Individual’s discontinuation of psychiatric treatment in 2012).3 Moreover,
2 Decisions issued by OHA are available on the OHA website located at http://www.energy.gov/OHA.
3 The Individual testified during the hearing that she had been prescribed a low dosage of a medication the DOE
Psychologist speculated might have been prescribed as an antipsychotic approximately one (1) month after the
- 5 -
the Individual has manifested a resistance to pursuing psychiatric treatment. Tr. at 31–32.
Therefore, I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns under
Guideline I by demonstrating that she is pursuing appropriate care for a treatable condition.
An individual may also mitigate security concerns under Guideline I if the past instability was a
temporary condition or there is no indication of a current problem. Guideline I at ¶ 29(d)–(e). The
Individual offered the testimony of two (2) co-workers, who both interacted with the Individual on
a near daily basis, to show that she had resolved her past instability. One of the co-workers testified
that, in 2012, he had seen the Individual experience an episode in the workplace during which she
heard a voice of a spiritual nature. Tr. at 12–13. However, the co-worker testified that he had not
seen the Individual have such an episode since, and that he perceived the Individual to be a reliable
and trustworthy person. Id. at 14, 16–17. The second co-worker, who had worked with the
Individual for approximately eighteen (18) months, testified that he had never seen the Individual
experience an episode in the workplace. Id. at 17. However, the Individual does not assert that her
perception that she is receiving spiritual communications is a temporary condition. Rather, as the
DOE Psychologist noted, the Individual’s symptoms have persisted in varying forms for years. See
Tr. at 47–48, 54. Therefore, I find this mitigating factor inapplicable.
Lastly, an individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline I based on the testimony of
a qualified mental health professional that the individual’s “condition is under control or in
remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation.” Guideline I at ¶ 29(c). The
DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s condition is not under control, and that the
Individual is not pursuing appropriate treatment. Tr. at 49–50. Furthermore, the DOE Psychologist
opined that he would like to see two (2) years pass without the Individual experiencing symptoms
before he would deem the Individual’s condition in remission because of the significant period of
time for which the Individual has experienced what the DOE Psychologist characterized as auditory
and visual hallucinations. Id. at 54–55. The Individual did not offer testimony from her own expert.
Accordingly, this mitigating factor is not applicable.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Psychological Evaluation, but had not noticed a reduction in the number of instances in which she perceived herself as
receiving communications from God. Tr. at 42–43, 49–50.
- 6 -
Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. Either party may seek review of this
Decision by an Appeal Panel pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Error! Reference source not found.
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals