PSH-21-0078

*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: June 29, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0078
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 24, 2021
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. On February 21, 2018, the Individual signed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP). Exhibit (Ex.) 11 at 43.2 In his response to the QNSP, the Individual denied
violating any information technology (IT) rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations in the prior
seven years. Id. at 41. On February 11, 2019, an Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
investigator interviewed the Individual as part of OPM’s investigation of his eligibility for access
authorization. Ex. 13 at 60. During the interview, the Individual disclosed that he had violated IT
security policies by connecting a personal Universal Serial Bus (USB) device to his work computer
to print documents for one of his children’s extracurricular activities. Id. at 60. He also disclosed
that, about five years prior to the interview, he viewed pornography on his work computer. Id. at
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 The internal pagination of numerous exhibits offered by the LSO does not correspond to the number of pages
included in the exhibit. For example, the first page of Exhibit 2 is marked as page 5. This Decision cites to pages in
the order in which they appear in exhibits without regard for their internal pagination.
- 2 -
61. The Individual volunteered that he had been “lied to his whole life,” “is being watched, even
at home,” and that these matters went “straight to the top.” Id. at 62.
On May 5, 2020, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory
(LOI). Ex. 6 at 2. In his response, the Individual admitted that he connected a personal USB to his
work computer numerous times from 2016 to 2019 to further his volunteer work for his child’s
extracurricular activity. Ex. 7 at 3. The Individual also disclosed that he believed that he had been
monitored for his entire life and that he was “interesting to a lot of people.” Id. at 1–2. After
submitting his response to the LOI, the Individual e-mailed the LSO to volunteer that he had
potentially violated the DOE Contractor’s IT policies in February 2019 when he used a colleague’s
personal USB drive to transfer work-related data. Ex. 8.
On August 20, 2020, the Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist)
for a clinical evaluation. Ex. 9 at 2. During the clinical interview, the Individual divulged that he
believed that he was chosen for a special purpose revealed through astrology and the Bible, that
his genes are “quite powerful,” and that his children are prodigies with special mental abilities. Id.
at 4–6. The Individual reported believing that he had discovered coded clues revealing that the
Freemasons were monitoring him and manipulating events in his life. Id. at 5–6. The Individual
also believed that he had discovered a network of Freemasons, including coworkers, friends, and
family members, who were behind this manipulation. Id. The Individual indicated that he was no
longer angry about this situation, but had previously considered assaulting those who he suspected
of being Freemasons and committing suicide. Id. at 6–7.
Following the clinical interview, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a Psychological Assessment (Report)
in which he opined that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Delusional Disorder, Mixed
Type with Grandiose and Persecutory Delusions, Continuous, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD), Combined Presentation, Moderate, under the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Id. at 10. The DOE Psychiatrist opined that
Delusional Disorder could impair the Individual’s judgment, reliability, stability, or
trustworthiness and that ADHD could “compound” the adverse effects of Delusional Disorder. Id.
at 9. The DOE Psychiatrist indicated that the Individual’s prognosis was “poor,” but could be
improved by establishing a therapeutic relationship with a psychologist and undergoing an
evaluation by a psychiatrist for consideration for psychotropic medication. Id. at 9–10.
The LSO issued the Individual a letter in which it notified him that it possessed reliable information
that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. In a Summary
of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline I
(Psychological Conditions), and Guideline M (Use of Information Technology) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted thirteen exhibits (Ex. 1–13). The Individual submitted one exhibit
- 3 -
(Ex. A). The Individual testified on his own behalf and DOE presented the testimony of the DOE
Psychiatrist. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 3.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the first basis
for its determination that the Individual was ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 1.
“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 or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate
or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative
processes.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. The SSC cited the Individual’s admission to having
used his USB drive and a colleague’s personal USB drive on his work computer, his misuse of his
work computer to view pornographic material, and his failure to disclose his violations of IT
policies on the QNSP. Ex. 1 at 1–2. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual deliberately omitted
relevant information from the QNSP and misused government resources justify the LSO’s
invocation of Guideline E. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a), (d).
The LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the
second basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 2. “Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under
this guideline.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. The SSC cited the DOE Psychiatrist’s
determination that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Delusional Disorder and ADHD
under the DSM-5. Ex. 1. The opinion of the DOE Psychiatrist that the Individual has one or more
conditions that may impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness justifies the LSO’s
invocation of Guideline I. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b).
The LSO cited Guideline M (Use of Information Technology) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as
its final basis for concluding that the Individual was ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 3.
“Failure to comply with rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations pertaining to information
technology systems may raise security concerns about an individual’s reliability and
trustworthiness, calling into question the willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive
systems, networks, and information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 39. The SSC cited the
Individual’s admission to violating the DOE contractor’s IT policies by using his coworker’s USB
device and his personal USB device on his work computer. Ex. 1 at 3. The LSO’s allegation that
the Individual introduced hardware, firmware, software, or media to an IT system when prohibited
by rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations or when otherwise not authorized justifies the
LSO’s invocation of Guideline M. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 40(f).
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
- 4 -
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
Dep’t 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. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual testified that he unintentionally omitted his violation of the DOE contractor’s IT
policies from the QNSP due to carelessness. Tr. at 25. He admitted that he violated his employer’s
IT policies when he inserted his personal USB device and his colleague’s personal USB device
into his work computer. Id. at 18–24. The Individual indicated that he used the colleague’s personal
USB device because he needed to provide data he had collected to the colleague, an approved
device he had been issued was malfunctioning, and the colleague told him that he often used the
USB device at work. Id. The Individual testified that he had not considered that using personal
USB devices on his work computer violated the DOE contractor’s IT policies until the interview
with the OPM investigator, and said that he disclosed his conduct to the DOE contractor several
days after the OPM interview. Id. at 19–20, 24. The Individual attributed his accessing
pornographic material on his work computer to the incompatibility of his sedentary job with his
“genetics.” Id. at 26–27. The Individual represented that he had been “almost on autopilot” for
years and was seeking an outlet for his boredom. Id.
With respect to his beliefs concerning the Freemasons, the Individual said that he had noticed
colleagues behaving oddly and been told strange things by his family which led him to research
his circumstances. Id. at 29–33. The Individual represented that he began researching Freemasonry
on the recommendation of a colleague and reached the conclusion that he was a Christ figure. Id.
at 32, 42–44, 47. The Individual said that his wife “laughs at [him]” and that he had no one to talk
to concerning his beliefs because “everyone lies to [him].” Id. at 31, 33. The Individual represented
that research into numerology and astrology allowed him to interpret hidden messages and predict
future events. Id. at 33–36; see also Ex. A (reflecting the Individual’s thoughts and predictions
since September 2020).
The DOE Psychiatrist testified that the Individual’s Exhibit A confirmed that the Individual
experienced symptoms of Delusional Disorder in the year following the clinical interview. Id. at
46. The DOE Psychiatrist indicated that his diagnosis of the Individual was unchanged, and that
the Individual’s prognosis was poor to very poor. Id. at 46–47.
- 5 -
V. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual viewed pornographic content on his work computer on numerous occasions in
2014. Ex. 13 at 61; Tr. at 26–27. From 2016 to 2019, the Individual routinely connected a personal
USB device to his work computer to prepare and print documents for one of his children’s
extracurricular activities. Ex. 13 at 60; Tr. at 18–20. In 2019, the Individual connected a
colleague’s personal USB device to his work computer to transmit data to the colleague when a
USB device approved by the DOE contractor malfunctioned. Tr. at 22–24; Ex. 8. Each of these
actions by the Individual violated the DOE contractor’s IT policies. Tr. at 17–19, 22.
The Individual checked a box marked “no” in response to a question on the QNSP asking whether,
in the prior seven years, he had “introduced, removed, or used hardware, software, or media in
connection with any information technology system without authorization, when specifically
prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations or attempted any of the above.” Ex. 11
at 41. The Individual disclosed to an OPM investigator that he viewed pornographic material on
his work computer and violated the DOE contractor’s IT policies by connecting a personal USB
device to his work computer. Ex. 13 at 60–61. Two days after the investigatory interview, the
Individual disclosed his use of a personal USB device on his work computer to the appropriate
personnel at the DOE contractor. Id. at 67. The DOE contractor deemed the Individual’s violation
of its IT policies a “non-incident” and did not take any action based on his disclosure. Id.
The Individual told the OPM investigator and LSO that he was being monitored at all times. Ex. 7
at 1–2; Ex. 13 at 62. During the clinical interview with the DOE Psychiatrist, the Individual
revealed his belief that he had uncovered that Freemasons were responsible for important historic
events and that a network of Freemasons, including his friends, family, and coworkers, were
manipulating events in his life and testing him. Ex. 9 at 6–8. He also asserted that he is endowed
with powerful genes that have enhanced his mental and physical abilities, compared his historical
significance to that of Jesus and Moses, and indicated that he has been chosen to bring in the age
of Aquarius. Id. at 5–7. The Individual believes that he is a messiah and is seeking to understand
how to fulfill his world-changing purpose. Tr. at 36–38; see also Ex. A (reflecting hundreds of
pages of the Individual’s observations and thoughts from September 2020 to August 2021).
The DOE Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with Delusional Disorder and ADHD. Ex. 9 at 10.
The DOE Psychiatrist opined that Delusional Disorder could impair the Individual’s judgment,
reliability, stability, or trustworthiness and that ADHD could “compound” the adverse effects of
Delusional Disorder. Id. at 9. The Individual does not agree that he has experienced delusions and
has not pursued treatment with a mental health professional. Tr. at 37–38, 43–44. The DOE
Psychiatrist opined at the hearing that the Individual is experiencing ongoing symptoms of
Delusional Disorder and that his prognosis is poor to very poor. Id. at 46–47.
VI. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
As discussed above, the LSO’s allegations that the Individual omitted his violations of the DOE
contractor’s IT policies from the QNSP and misused government resources by viewing
- 6 -
pornography on his work computer justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline E. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 16(a), (d). The Individual asserted that he disclosed his misuse of unapproved USB
devices and viewing of pornography on his work computer and fully acknowledged his
misconduct. The Adjudicative Guidelines provide seven conditions which may mitigate security
concerns under Guideline E:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly
contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional
responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning
security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide
the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) 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;
(d) 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;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability; and
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased, or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(a)–(g).
The Individual disclosed his omissions from the QNSP to the OPM investigator without being
confronted by the facts. There is no indication in the record that the OPM investigator was aware
of the Individual’s violations of the DOE contractor’s IT policies or that the Individual’s behavior
ever would have been discovered but for his volunteering the information. Additionally, the
Individual made appropriate disclosures of his use of unapproved USB devices to the DOE
contractor within days of his interview with the OPM investigator. For these reasons, I find that
the first mitigating condition under Guideline E is applicable to the Individual’s omission of his
use of unapproved USB devices from the QNSP. Id. at ¶ 17(a).
Two-and-one-half years have passed since the Individual disclosed to the DOE contractor that he
used an unapproved USB device on his work computer. Additionally, approximately seven years
have elapsed since the Individual reported having last viewed pornography on his work computer.
In light of the passage of a significant period of time without recurrence of the misconduct, I find
that the third mitigating condition is applicable in this case. Id. at ¶ 17(c).
The Individual demonstrated honesty and a willingness to place national security over his self
interest by volunteering his derogatory conduct to the OPM investigator. In light of the Individual’s
- 7 -
forthcomingness, and the passage of time since he committed the derogatory conduct, I find that
the Individual has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline E.
B. Guideline I
The DOE Psychiatrist’s opinion that the Individual has a condition that may impair his judgment,
stability, reliability, or trustworthiness raises security concerns under Guideline I. Id. at ¶ 28(b).
The Individual argued that he had uncovered hidden truths, however improbable they might sound,
and that he was not delusional. An individual can mitigate security concerns under Guideline I if:
(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;
(c) [a] recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government [indicates] that an individual’s
previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of
recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability; or,
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(a)–(e).
The first two mitigating conditions are inapplicable because the Individual has not pursued
treatment with a mental health professional. Id. at ¶ 29(a)–(b). The third and fourth mitigating
conditions are inapplicable because the DOE Psychiatrist opined at the hearing that the Individual
demonstrated ongoing symptoms of Delusional Disorder and that his prognosis without treatment
was poor to very poor. Id. at ¶ 29(c)–(d).
The fifth mitigating condition under Guideline I is inapplicable because the Individual’s testimony
during the hearing provided evidence of an ongoing problem. I find the Individual’s beliefs that
he is a Christ figure, that his friends, family, and coworkers are conspiring to deceive him, and that
a cabal of Freemasons is manipulating events impossible to believe and indicative of impaired
reasoning on the part of the Individual. Id. at ¶ 29(e).
The DOE Psychiatrist’s diagnosis of the Individual with Delusional Disorder and opinion that this
condition impairs his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness raised significant security concerns
under Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. The DOE Psychiatrist reaffirmed his opinion at
the hearing and the Individual’s testimony showed that he continues to hold paranoid and
unreasonable beliefs. Therefore, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline I.
- 8 -
C. Guideline M
The LSO’s allegations that the Individual used unapproved USB devices on his work computer in
violation of the DOE contractor’s IT policies raise security concerns under Guideline M. Id. at
¶ 40(f). The Individual acknowledged that he had violated the DOE contractor’s IT policies but
represented that he had disclosed his actions and that the DOE contractor had deemed the
violations incidental non-compliance. An individual may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline M of the Adjudicative Guidelines if:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the behavior happened, or it happened under such
unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) the misuse was minor and done solely in the interest of organizational efficiency and
effectiveness;
(c) the conduct was unintentional or inadvertent and was followed by a prompt, good-faith
effort to correct the situation and by notification to appropriate personnel; and
(d) the misuse was due to improper or inadequate training or unclear instructions.
Id. at ¶ 41(a)–(d).
Several years have passed since the Individual’s last use of an unauthorized USB device on his
work computer, the Individual disclosed the behavior to the appropriate entity within the DOE
contractor, the DOE contractor deemed the Individual’s behavior a “non-incident,” and, in the case
of the USB device provided by his colleague, the Individual’s behavior was unintentional and in
the interest of completing a work project. For these reasons, I find the first three mitigating
conditions under Guideline M applicable. Id. at ¶ 41(a)–(c). Thus, I conclude that the Individual
has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline M.
VII. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines E, I, and M of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns asserted under Guidelines E
and M, but has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns under
Guideline I. 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.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals