PSH-18-0091

*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.
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: December 28, 2018 ) Case No.: PSH-18-0091
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 1, 2019
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (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, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
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 not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
A DOE contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In April 2018, the Individual completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) in which he disclosed that he was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder in 2018 and
was pursuing treatment to manage his symptoms. DOE Ex. 9 at 40–41. The local security office
(LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the Individual on July 17, 2018. DOE
Ex. 8 at i.
As the information provided by the Individual in the PSI presented unresolved security concerns,
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
August 2018 (Psychological Evaluation). DOE Ex. 6 at 1.
The DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual suffered from Bipolar Disorder, and that this
condition impaired the Individual’s judgement, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. DOE Ex.
6 at 5. Based on the DOE Psychologist’s report, the LSO informed the Individual, in a notification
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
letter dated November 19, 2018 (Notification Letter), that it possessed reliable information that
created substantial doubt regarding his 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
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 unlabeled exhibits, which I organized into three (3) lettered exhibits (Ind. Ex. A–C),
into the record and presented his own testimony. I received a transcript of the proceedings (Tr.) on
March 1, 2019.
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 Bipolar II Disorder, most recent episode
hypomanic with anxious distress, rapid cycling, in Partial Remission, under the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), which condition can impair the
Individual’s judgement, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness; and also that the Individual’s
symptoms of psychomotor agitation, decreased concentration, flight of ideas and racing thoughts,
pressured speech, and hypersexuality can impair his judgement, stability, and reliability as a result
of his lessened impulse control. DOE Ex. 1. The Individual’s impulsive behavior and the DOE
Psychologist’s determination that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Bipolar II Disorder
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
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
3
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
In 2017, a naturalist the Individual was seeing for various health and wellness services suggested
to the Individual that he might be suffering from Bipolar Disorder and referred the Individual to a
psychiatrist. DOE Ex. 8 at 10–12. The psychiatrist to whom the naturalist referred the Individual
diagnosed the Individual with Bipolar II Disorder in January 2018 and prescribed the Individual
25mg of Lamotrigine. Id. at 13, 32. This dosage was insufficient to control the Individual’s
symptoms, and the psychiatrist later increased the Individual’s Lamotrigine dosage to 300mg and
added another medication, Aripiprazole 5mg, which the Individual deemed effective at managing
his symptoms. Id. at 13–14.
According to the Individual, he experienced what he characterized as “manic episodes”
approximately twice per month from when he was a teenager until he began taking Lamotrigine at
300mg. Id. at 17–19. The Individual stated during the PSI that his mind races and he becomes
angry when he experiences manic episodes. Id. The Individual also reported undergoing what he
described as “depressive episodes” approximately once per month, during which he experienced
suicidal ideation. Id. at 18. The Individual stated during the PSI that he is not able to identify the
onset of manic episodes, but that his wife is able to detect the onset of manic episodes based on
changes in the Individual’s behavior. Id. at 39–40.
The Individual indicated during the PSI that he has acted impulsively during manic episodes. The
Individual reported that, during manic episodes, he made individual purchases of approximately
one hundred dollars ($100.00) each, even though he knew he should not have, felt dissatisfaction
with his marriage, engaged in binge drinking, and acted in a hypersexual manner. Id. at 24, 41,
48–49, 54. The Individual described how, during one manic episode, he consumed alcohol and
made sexual advances towards a co-worker while travelling for work. Id. at 55. When asked during
the PSI if he had engaged in any illegal acts as a result of his hypersexual behavior during manic
episodes, the Individual recounted how on two (2) occasions he had “an episode where [he] held
[his] wife down [a]nd [it] was like an out-of-body experience.” Id. at 70–71.
The DOE Psychologist conducted the Psychological Evaluation on August 30, 2018, during which
she administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Interview-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-
2-RF) and the Rorschach Inkblot Test (Rorschach Test) and conducted a clinical interview. DOE
Ex. 6 at 2. The Individual’s mostly average results on the Rorschach Test led the DOE Psychologist
to dismiss concerns that the Individual engaged in delusional, dissociative, or aggressive thinking
outside of hypomanic episodes. Id. at 4. However, the DOE Psychologist noted with concern the
Individual’s limited sensitivity to his internal experiences, and suggested that this lack of attention
to nuance caused him to fail to recognize the onset of hypomanic episodes. Id. at 4–5.
4
In light of the Individual’s relevant medical history, his description of his symptoms, and the
frequency with which the Individual moved between hypomanic and depressive episodes in the
past, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Bipolar II
Disorder, most recent episode hypomanic with anxious distress, rapid cycling, in Partial
Remission, under the DSM-5. Id. at 5. The DOE Psychologist also noted that the Individual’s
impulsive behavior during hypomanic episodes could impair his judgement, stability, and
reliability. Id. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s prognosis was good, provided
that he pursued treatment with a qualified medical practitioner. Id. In light of the Individual’s
limited ability to recognize the onset of hypomanic episodes, the DOE Psychologist recommended
that the Individual participate in counseling focused on psychoeducational approaches to
recognizing the signs of oncoming episodes and providing appropriate interventions. Id.
During the hearing, the Individual recounted how he had experienced “episodes of mostly anger
and strange sexual behaviors,” in which he lashed out at his wife in fits of anger that he could not
control and sought extra-marital sexual partners, before being prescribed an effective dosage of
medication for his Bipolar Disorder. Tr. at 15–16. The Individual reported that he still experienced
biweekly “manic episodes where [he would] pursue compulsive [sic] pornography,” but that
otherwise he felt that his medication effectively managed his symptoms. Id. at 20. The Individual
testified that he now confides in his wife when he is experiencing these episodes, that they work
together “to manage the symptoms as best we can,” and that he will “just stay home, don't go
anywhere, and try to feel better, kind of wait it out,” when he experiences these episodes. Id.
Although the Individual reported that his medication regimen was effective, he testified at the
hearing that he had not regularly met with his psychologist or participated in psychoeducational
counseling as recommended by the DOE Psychologist. The Individual could not recall meeting
with his psychiatrist after receiving the DOE Psychologist’s report until two (2) days prior to the
hearing, though he indicated that he had called his psychiatrist from time-to-time to adjust the
levels of his medication. Id. at 33. The Individual testified that his psychiatrist declined to testify
on his behalf at the hearing or provide a letter concerning his status until he participated in
additional sessions with the psychiatrist. Id. at 18. As of the date of the hearing, the Individual had
not participated in any form of psychoeducational counseling. Id. at 40.
After observing the entirety of the hearing, and all of the testimony offered therein, the DOE
Psychologist testified that her diagnosis of the Individual was unchanged and that the Individual’s
Bipolar Disorder continued to impair his judgement during hypomanic episodes. Id. at 55. The
DOE Psychologist also indicated that the Individual had failed to meet her treatment
recommendation with respect to pursuing psychoeducational counseling, and that his current
approach of “just staying home and white-knuckling it when he’s having hypomanic symptoms”
was not an optimal approach to managing his symptoms. Id. at 54–55. The DOE Psychologist
opined that psychoeducational counseling is an essential component of treatment of Bipolar
Disorder because Bipolar Disorder is a recurring condition and counseling can teach an individual
suffering from Bipolar Disorder to recognize the signs of an impending episode and manage the
episode through an individualized plan. Id. at 48–49. Without the counseling she recommended,
the DOE Psychologist expressed that the Individual is likely to experience symptoms of greater
severity more frequently and present a greater security risk during hypomanic episodes. Id. at 52,
56–57.
5
V. ANALYSIS
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 Adjudicative Guidelines. The security concerns at issue center on whether the
Individual suffers from a psychological condition that impairs his judgement, stability, reliability,
or trustworthiness. After due deliberation, I find that the Individual’s 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. Adjudicative Guideline I Considerations
The Individual did not contest his diagnosis or the allegations set forth in the Notification Letter,
but argued that there was no reason to believe that he could not handle classified material because
his medication was helping him to manage his symptoms and he believed that “everything is in
control.” Tr. at 36. The Individual asserted that the facts that he previously held several security
clearances without a security incident for numerous years, honestly self-reported his diagnosis,
and had never been hospitalized or arrested as a result of his condition demonstrated that he was
not a risk to national security. Tr. at 8–9.
An individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines if
“the past psychological/psychiatric problem was temporary . . . .” Guideline I at ¶ 29(d). The DOE
Psychologist testified that Bipolar Disorder is “by definition a disorder that recurs,” not a
temporary one. Tr. at 48. Therefore, I find this mitigating factor inapplicable.
An individual may also mitigate security concerns under Guideline I by demonstrating “ongoing
and consistent compliance with [a] treatment plan” or by “receiving counseling or treatment with
a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional.” Guideline I at ¶ 29(a)–(b).
In this case, the Individual has not complied with the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation that
he pursue psychoeducational counseling and has not met with his own mental health professional
on an adequately frequent basis for her to provide a prognosis. Supra p. 4. Accordingly, the
Individual has not satisfied these mitigating criteria.
Finally, an individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline I by showing that his
“condition is under control or in remission[] and has a low probability of recurrence or
exacerbation,” or that “there is no indication of a current problem.” Guideline I at ¶ 29(c), (e). The
DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s frequent hypomanic episodes present a current
problem because the Individual’s judgement is impaired during these episodes, and opined that the
Individual could better manage these risks by following her recommendation to participate in
psychoeducational counseling. Supra p. 4. Absent effective treatment, the DOE Psychologist
testified that the Individual was very likely to experience more frequent and severe symptoms that
could impair his judgement. Tr. at 56–57. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not satisfied
these mitigating criteria.
6
The Individual has not satisfied any of the mitigating criteria under Guideline I, and concerns
persist about his ability to manage his hypomanic symptoms without the counseling recommended
by the DOE Psychologist. Therefore, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline I.
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
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.
Richard A. Cronin, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals