PSH-21-0017

*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: February 16, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0017
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 6, 2021
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (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 should be
granted a security clearance.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires possession of a security
clearance. During an investigation to determine her suitability to hold a security clearance,
derogatory information relating to the Individual’s mental health history was discovered. The Local
Security Office (LSO) began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a Notification
Letter to the Individual informing her that she was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative
Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to continue holding 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 OHA Director appointed me as the Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing, the Individual testified on her own behalf. Transcript of Hearing (“Tr.”).
The LSO presented the testimony of a psychologist who had evaluated the Individual and provided
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
a report. The LSO submitted eight exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 8 (“Ex.”). The Individual
submitted 15 exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through P.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
The Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE
created a substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline I
(Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
Guideline I provides that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28. Conditions that could
raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness;” and “voluntary or involuntary inpatient hospitalization[.]”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b), (c). In the Notification Letter, the LSO alleged that (1) a DOE-
consultant psychologist (“Psychologist”) concluded that the Individual met the criteria for a
diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder and the condition could impair her judgment, stability, reliability,
or trustworthiness; (2) the Individual was involuntarily hospitalized for three days in 2003 for
treatment of depression;3 and (3) the Individual was involuntarily hospitalized for three days in
2018 for treatment of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and not sleeping. The LSO’s concerns
under Guideline I are justified.
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) (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 or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of
evidence at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10
C.F.R. § 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of
evidence to mitigate the security concerns at issue.
2 An Exhibit E was not included in the submission.
3 We take judicial notice that this hospitalization occurred when the Individual was a minor child.
3
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual did not dispute the allegations contained in the Notification Letter. In a January
2020 report, the Psychologist opined that the Individual was compliant with prescribed medication
regimens to treat her Bipolar I Disorder diagnosis, but she had failed to seek counseling when faced
with increased symptoms, even, in one instance, after being urged to do so by family and friends.
Ex. 5 at 5. He noted her history of two psychiatric hospitalizations, occurring in 2003, when the
Individual was a pre-teen, and more recently in 2018. Id. at 3. He also noted that she saw her
therapist only five times in the eight months prior to the evaluation, and she saw her psychiatrist
only one time in the same period. Id. at 5. After opining that her condition was not adequately
rehabilitated or reformed, he recommended a minimum of three visits per year with a psychiatrist
and a similar regimen with a therapist or counselor. Id. at 6. He also stated that she should remain
symptom free for a minimum of two years while maintaining ongoing appointments with treatment
providers. Id.
The Individual testified that she was first diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder in 2018 but had been
voluntarily receiving treatment for mental health issues since childhood. Tr. at 20–21. She felt that
her current treatment team was very good and testified that she “really connected with” her current
counselor in particular. Id. at 21–22. She described enduring a severe and persistent hostile work
environment for several months leading up to her 2018 hospitalization and cited the relentless and
targeted nature of hostility as a major factor leading to her hospitalization. Id. at 23–31, 40–41. She
acknowledged that she should have sought treatment earlier than she did and described symptoms
she subsequently learned to look for when evaluating whether to seek additional treatment in the
future. Id. at 42–43.
The Individual clarified the situation surrounding her involuntary hospitalization in 2018. She
testified that she initially began a voluntary stay at a different hospital, endured repeated
inappropriate advances from a male patient, and begged her parents to help her get to a safer place.
Tr. at 70, 72. She was released from her voluntary hospitalization and shortly thereafter
involuntarily hospitalized at a different hospital. Id. at 72.
The Individual testified that her mental health is much improved since 2018, due, in part, to a
supportive and civil work environment and being prescribed the right medication, adding active
and outdoor hobbies to her lifestyle, and better utilizing therapeutic resources such as counseling
and a mood support group. Tr. at 43–45, 58, 63–64. The Individual testified that her psychiatrist’s
online messaging portal has improved her access to treatment and, while she has always taken her
medication as prescribed, her current prescriptions are working better than some past medication
regimens.4 Id. at 45–50, 73. She sees her psychiatrist every four months, and she testified that she
had seen her counselor regularly since 2019. Id. at 52–54; see also Ex. B at 1. She described how
she works through feelings and anxiety with her counselor and testified that she can access
4 Her consistent compliance with her medication regimen is corroborated by a June 19, 2020, letter from her treating
psychiatrist. Ex. A.
4
counseling sessions within a few days of her request. Id. at 51–52, 74. The Individual stated that
the counseling is very helpful and that she intends to continue seeing her counselor. Id. at 52–53.
She testified that her treatment and her lifestyle changes are sufficient to control her diagnosed
condition and help her function appropriately. Id. at 54.
The Psychologist testified after observing the Individual’s testimony. He testified that the
Individual’s willingness to seek treatment was compelling, and he noted that she had followed his
care recommendations and maintained stability since the evaluation. Tr. at 80. He also noted that,
in making his initial report, he was not aware of several of the Individual’s treatment sessions that
occurred prior to the evaluation because she did not recall them and thus failed to report them.5 Id.
at 79. He opined that her current treatment plan is effective, and he took a positive view of the
Individual’s medication compliance and her communication with her treatment providers. Id. at 83.
The Psychologist noted that Bipolar I Disorder is a lifelong condition, but it is readily controlled
by treatment for most patients. Id. at 86–87. He testified that the Individual is adequately
rehabilitated or reformed and that she was adequately stabilized. Id. at 83–84. He believed that the
Individual would reach out to her treatment providers quickly if she experienced difficulties such
as a relapse or increase in symptoms, or her providers would be able to identify issues and modify
her treatment plan accordingly. Id. at 84. He also testified that the Individual appears to have
appropriate stress responses and that she knows what to do to help herself going forward. Id. at 85.
V. ANALYSIS
Guideline I provides, in part, that security concerns arising from psychological conditions can be
mitigated when:
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health
professional;
. . . .
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
Based on the above, I conclude that the Individual has resolved the security concerns under ¶ 29(a).
First, the record demonstrates that the Individual’s diagnosed condition, Bipolar I Disorder, can be
controlled through treatment such as medication, counseling, and therapy. Second, the Individual
has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to and compliance with her treatment plan, as evidenced
by her active involvement in managing her medication, her regular visits with treatment providers,
and her willingness to seek additional treatment if she notices an increase in symptoms. My findings
are consistent with the Psychologist’s testimony that the Individual’s treatment plan has been
effective.
5 A letter from the Individual’s counselor documents these sessions. Ex. L at 2-3.
5
I further conclude that she has resolved the security concerns under ¶ 29(b). There is no dispute
that the Individual is currently and voluntarily receiving counseling and medical treatment from
both a counselor and psychiatrist. Furthermore, not only is the condition amenable to treatment,
but, according to the Psychologist, her treatment is effective, her condition is stabilized and
rehabilitated, and she is therefore likely to address any increase in symptoms. Like the
Psychologist, I find that the Individual has learned to recognize and address triggers and symptoms
of her condition. I find that the Individual is likely to diligently pursue help in the future if faced
with such triggers or symptoms and that she has a variety of resources available to her to do so. I
also give particular weight to the Psychologist’s testimony that the Individual is adequately
rehabilitated and stabilized. I therefore conclude that the Psychologist’s opinion is a favorable
prognosis. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has resolved the Guideline I security concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline I of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has succeeded in resolving those
concerns. Therefore, I conclude that granting DOE access authorization to the Individual “will not
endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10
C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should grant the Individual access
authorization.
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals