PSH-21-0085

*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: July 20, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0085
)
__________________________________________)
Issued:
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXX XXXX (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 security
clearance should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. On December 9, 2019, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP), in connection with seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 7 at 43. In
response to one of the questions regarding psychological and emotional health, the Individual
responded that he had been hospitalized on three occasions for a mental health condition in 2013,
August 2008, and May 1985. Id. at 28–29. The Individual later underwent a psychological
evaluation by a DOE consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in September 2020. Ex. 5.
Due to unresolved security concerns related to the Individual’s psychological condition, the Local
Security Office (LSO) informed the Individual, in a letter dated October 28, 2020 (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 letter (Summary of
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 -
Security Concerns), the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns
under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) 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 review
hearing. The LSO submitted eight numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–8) into the record and presented the
testimony of the DOE psychologist at the hearing. The Individual submitted 25 exhibits (Ex. A
through X) into the record, and presented the testimony of three witnesses, including his own
testimony.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security
clearance. The LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines
as a basis for denying the Individual a security clearance. Ex. 1. Guideline I provides that “[c]ertain
emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a
concern under this guideline. Id. A condition that could raise a security concern is “[a]n opinion
by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair
judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id. at ¶ 28(b).
The LSO alleged that: 1) the Individual was involuntarily hospitalized for three days because he
was delusional in 2013; 2) was involuntarily hospitalized for three days following an incident
where he physically threatened another man in August 2008; 3) in May 1985, he was involuntarily
hospitalized for three days with a diagnosis of Pseudobulbar Affect, followed by a transfer to a
psychiatric facility where he was involuntarily admitted for three to four weeks with a diagnosis
of Phencyclidine Delirium; and 4) the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual met the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for
Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type, a mental condition that impairs judgement, reliability,
stability, and trustworthiness. Ex. 1. The above allegations adequately justify the LSO’s invocation
of Guideline I.
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 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 entire process
2 The Individual’s exhibits A through W were combined and submitted in a single, 487-page PDF workbook. Some
of the exhibits contain page numbering that is inconsistent with their location in the combined workbook. This
Decision will cite to the Individual’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit and page number within the combined
workbook where the information is located. The Individual submitted two exhibits that were both marked “Exhibit
X.” To avoid confusion, this Decision refers to the final exhibit as “Exhibit X.1.
- 3 -
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. 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 eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted 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.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
On September 10, 2020, the DOE Psychologist conducted a clinical interview (CI) of the
Individual as part of a psychological evaluation. Ex. 5 at 1. During the CI, the Individual reported
a history of his psychiatric hospitalizations and mental health treatment. His first hospitalization
was in 1985, which resulted in an initial diagnosis of Pseudobulbar Affect. Id. at 2. He was then
transferred to a state hospital and was diagnosed with Phencyclidine Delirium, although there was
no evidence that the Individual had ingested hallucinogenic drugs. Id. at 2–3. The DOE
Psychologist noted in his evaluative report (Report) regarding his examination of the Individual
that the Individual remained hospitalized for three to four weeks, which suggests he was treated
for psychosis. Ex. 5 at 3.
Additionally, the Individual reported that in August 2008, he was hospitalized for three days
following an angry incident with another man. Ex. 5 at 3. He said that he had become “addicted”
to marijuana, which he used in oil form two or three times a week for the prior two years. Id. He
believes his anger was caused by suddenly stopping the marijuana one month prior to the August
2008 incident. Id. In 2009, he began seeking treatment from his current treating psychiatrist
(Treating Psychiatrist) who diagnosed him with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Id. The
treating psychiatrist has since revised the Individual’s diagnosis to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD), which is treated with prescribed medication. Id. at 3–4.
The Individual also told the DOE Psychologist that he had obtained a medical marijuana card
(medical card)3 in April 2011 to treat PTSD and pain symptoms but did not renew his medical card
and ceased marijuana usage in 2013. Id. at 2, 4. Approximately one month after he ceased
3 A medical card authorizes a person to legally use and possess marijuana medical products pursuant to state law.
- 4 -
marijuana use in 2013, he was arrested and charged when an altercation ensued after he attempted
to take another man’s wallet. Id. at 4. Upon his arrest, he refused to give his name, stating that he
was from “the White Sands Missile Range in Area 51, and that any information on him had to go
through Dick Cheney or President Barack Obama, as his information was classified.” Id. at 5.
Because he was delusional, he was hospitalized for three days. Id. at 4. When hospital staff asked
him for his name, he provided a similar response regarding the confidentiality of his name and that
only the President could require him to provide it. Id. at 5. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder
and marijuana abuse. Id. at 5. He stated that he experienced anger as a withdrawal symptom for a
month after discontinuing marijuana use. Id. The DOE Psychologist noted that although the
Individual admitted that his behavior during the 2013 incident was psychotic, he also stated that
he had a reasonable explanation for his behavior. Id. The Individual explained that at the time of
the incident, he was working on an invention for which he was applying for a grant from the Bill
Gates Foundation, and he was worried that divulging his real name would connect him to his arrest
and jeopardize his chances of being awarded the grant from the Gates Foundation. Id.
The DOE Psychologist reported that during the CI, the Individual discussed multiple inventions
that he had created including the invention for the Gates Foundation which he is very “secretive”
about, and he had believed that “mild voices in [his] head” were telling him that he was “special”
and that his invention would “make a lot of money” so that he could stop working for his family
business. Id. The DOE Psychologist also reported that the Individual told him about two other
businesses that he had registered that were related to other inventions, however, the Psychologist
stated that there was no record by the Secretary of State that he had registered one of his businesses.
Id. at 6.
As part of his examination of the Individual, the DOE Psychologist ordered a drug screening test
and administered a battery of psychometric tests, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and the Rorschach test (Rorschach). The DOE
Psychiatrist additionally conducted a mental status exam on the Individual.4 Id. at 2, 6–8, 11–24,
27–31. The drug screen was negative for all drugs including marijuana.5 Id. at 11–12. The MMPI-
2-RF results suggested that he portrayed himself as unusually virtuous, although the results did not
indicate any psychopathology. Id. at 7. In his Report, the DOE Psychologist noted the Rorschach
findings relevant to his evaluation, including the Individual’s weak reality adherence. The DOE
Psychiatrist also noted that some of the Individual’s Rorschach responses are often seen in people
prone to mania and a type of thought disorder often seen in people prone to delusions. Id.
In the Report, the Psychologist diagnosed the Individual as suffering from Delusional Disorder,
grandiose type, which is a mental condition that impairs judgment, reliability, stability, and
trustworthiness. Id. at 8. He noted that the Individual believes he is “especially talented and gifted
with an important ability to imagine inventions.” Id. at 7–8. The DOE Psychologist recommended
that the Individual be evaluated for antipsychotic mediation by a psychiatrist who is provided the
4 The LSO subsequently submitted the Rorschach test separately from the Psychologist’s report and noted that it is
still part of Exhibit 5. Accordingly, this Decision cites the Rorschach test as Exhibit 5 at 27–31.
5 According to the physician who provided the test results to the DOE Psychologist, in the case of marijuana, the test
provides evidence that the Individual had not used marijuana for possible weeks before the test was conducted. Id. at
12.
- 5 -
full information about his psychotic tendencies. Id. at 8. The DOE Psychologist further opined that
the Individual’s prognosis is poor because delusional thinking is usually difficult to change with
either medication or verbal therapy. Id. at 9.
The Individual submitted court documents for his 1985 involuntary confinement, including an
Individual Treatment Plan prepared by a clinical psychologist where he was hospitalized. Ex. A.
He also submitted hospital records from his 2008 and 2013 hospitalizations, as well as proof of
expungement and court dismissal regarding his 2013 arrest. Exs. C–D; Ex. E. Ex. E. He also
submitted a report dated March 28, 2021, from an examining psychologist who conducted a Fit
for Duty psychological evaluation of the Individual. Ex. F at 278. Based on her evaluation, and a
review of collateral information including the Individual’s records and the DOE Psychologist’s
Report, the examining psychologist opined that “[b]ased on the current findings, delusional
disorder was not supported.” 6 Id. at 285. Additionally, the Individual submitted a Treatment
Summary report from his psychiatrist (Treating Psychiatrist) which summarized the treatment that
he has provided for the Individual since 2009. Ex. G at 289. The Treating Psychiatrist also
reviewed the DOE Psychologist’s Report and opined that he “completely disagreed with the
diagnosis of delusional disorder[.]” Id. at 290.
The Individual submitted nine reference letters written by his current colleagues and managers, as
well as one letter from his brother who was his former supervisor. Exs. H–O; Ex. X; Ex. X.1. All
these character statements asserted that the Individual possessed sound judgment and is trustworthy
and reliable. Id. Further, regarding his job skills, a colleague described the Individual as having “a
unique ability to adapt and improvise using any machine on the floor to get the job done[.]” A
performance appraisal regarding the Individual stated he has “excellent machining skills” and
highlighted specific duties in which he has particularly strong abilities. Ex. M; Ex. P. 7
V. HEARING TESTIMONY
During the hearing, the Individual sought to demonstrate that he had mitigated the security
concerns. Regarding his 1985 hospitalization, he testified that he had not knowingly ingested PCP,
although his diagnosis involved PCP use. Tr. at 24. He indicated that he may have unknowingly
ingested PCP, because a friend with whom he had a disagreement, may have drugged him. Id. at
22–23.
The Individual testified regarding his involvement in a 2008 altercation which led to his psychiatric
hospitalization. Id. at 25–30; Ex. C at 87–90. He asserted that in 2008, shortly prior to his
hospitalization, he had tried to stop using marijuana. Id. at 28–30. At the time of the 2008
altercation, he was in withdrawal from marijuana use, which caused excessive energy and
difficulty sleeping. Id. at 28–30. The Individual testified that he has learned from subsequent
sessions with his Treating Psychologist that sleep deprivation can trigger mania, which is what the
Individual believed happened prior to the altercation. Id. at 28–29. Hospital records from 2008
6 The examining psychologist noted that the Rorschach results from the DOE Psychologist’s report were not included,
and despite requesting them, she was not able to obtain them as of the date of her report. Ex. F at 285.
7 The Individual also submitted a response addressing the allegations in the Summary of Security Concerns and
included documents related to his inventions. Exs. Q–X.
- 6 -
reflect that he was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder I, manic, severe, and was hospitalized for three
days. Ex. C at 87–90. He was discharged with prescription medication. Id. at 39.
The Individual testified that his 2013 hospitalization was a result of the combination of severe
sleep deprivation coupled with heavy medical marijuana use. Id. at 32–33, 81. In support of his
testimony, he submitted his 2013 hospital records which showed he had a positive toxicology
screen for marijuana, and was diagnosed with history of bipolar disorder, most recent episode
hypomanic; and marijuana abuse. Ex. D at 113–15. He explained that in May 2013, he was working
on a grant proposal for one of his inventions, and due to the very tight deadline, he was working
long hours which resulted in significant sleep deprivation. Tr. at 31, 82. He had also stopped using
marijuana in May 2013, right before his hospitalization. Id. at 81–83. Moreover, he indicated that
on the date of the 2013 altercation, which led to his arrest and hospitalization, he was already angry
because of a previous heated argument with his brother. Id. at 79–80.
Additionally, he testified that while hospitalized for a psychotic episode, he was prescribed
Lithium which he believes helped stabilize him. Id. at 96–97. He briefly complied with a referral
to another treatment provider after his hospitalization but stopped because he felt he did not need
further treatment since he had stabilized. Id. at 89–91. After his 2013 hospitalization, the Individual
kept a reserve supply of prescribed antipsychotic medication and made an agreement with his
family members that if he ever experienced psychotic symptoms again. Id. at 96–99. 162–64.
However, he admitted that he did not disclose his 2013 hospitalization to his Treating Psychiatrist
or inform him of his family agreement. Id. at 92–93, 97–98.
The Individual testified that he possessed a medical card from 2011–2013.8 Tr. at 149–150, 158.
He stated that the medical card was issued by his state’s Department of Health. Id. at 159. He was
interested in trying medical marijuana because he believed it would relieve anxiety symptoms. Id.
at 150. At the time he requested a prescription, his Treating Psychiatrist did not feel comfortable
prescribing medical marijuana to him, so he found another doctor that prescribed it for PTSD.9 Id.
at 149–50. He testified that before his medical card expired, he used medical marijuana a few
times every week on a regular basis. Id. at 81. He stated that he used marijuana capsules containing
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrated oils, as it was recommended for PTSD. Id. The
Individual further asserted that during the period that he had a medical card, he never ingested
nonprescribed marijuana and that his last use of nonprescribed marijuana was prior to the time he
obtained his medical card. Id. at 158. He asserted that his last use of marijuana was in May 2013,
when his medical card expired. Id. at 83. He recognizes the harm that marijuana has caused him,
including the traumatic psychotic episodes. Id. at 65. Consequently, he discontinued the use of
medical marijuana because he has no desire to use the substance again. Id. He further asserted that
even if he does not obtain his security clearance, he will not return to using marijuana. Id. at 66–
8 The transcript indicates the Individual testified that his medical card expired in 2018, however, this appears to be a
misstatement. Tr. at 150. All other instances of the Individual’s testimony state that his medical card expired in 2013,
which he asserts is also his last date of marijuana use. Id. at 64–65, 83.
9 The Treating Psychologist subsequently testified that he prescribes medical marijuana for people who have chronic
pain and PTSD, although he is “not a big fan of it” because for some people it works well, while for others “it’s a
disaster.” Id. at 56–57. He testified that at the time the Individual initially inquired about it, the Treating Psychiatrist
did not believe he knew him well enough to prescribe him medical marijuana, although he acknowledged that the
Individual did have PTSD, which would be a reason to use it. Id. at 57.
- 7 -
67. He is motivated to remain abstinent from drug use because he highly values and enjoys his
current job, and his employer has a random drug testing program, so if he ever tested positive for
drugs, he would be terminated. Id. at 66. He asserted that his colleagues and management are happy
with his work performance and like him as a colleague. Id. at 67; Exs. H–O; Ex. X; Ex. X.1.
The Individual also testified about his inventions. He asserted that he has an entrepreneurial spirit
because he had worked in his family business where he created products from raw materials. Tr.
at 68. He testified that because he worked with his family business for 33 years, he was “naturally
drawn to want[ing] to make things,” and became very good at manufacturing and creating things.
Id. at 16, 68. He acknowledged that at times, the products he created were not successful or
lucrative. Id. at 17, 71. In support of his testimony, he submitted evidence regarding his inventions,
including his application for a 2013 grant and tax forms that indicated revenue earned for the sales
he made. Exs. P–T.
The Individual testified that he sought treatment with his prior treating psychiatrist from 1987
through 1999, who initially diagnosed him with bipolar disorder, but later adjusted his diagnosis
to ADHD.10 Id.at 86–87; see Ex. 8 at 87. Regarding his current mental health treatment, the
Individual testified that he currently sees his Treating Psychiatrist every three months and has not
missed any of his treatment appointments in the past three years. Id. at 155. He also testified that
he planned to discuss prescription Lithium use with his Treating Psychiatrist. Id. at 156.
The Individual’s Treating Psychiatrist testified on the Individual’s behalf at the hearing. The
Treating Psychiatrist has been intermittently treating the Individual since 2009. Ex. G at 1. He
stated that initially, there was a gap in the Individual’s treatment including when the Individual
had his 2013 psychotic episode. Id. at 56; see Id. at 93 (Individual stated he did not tell his Treating
Psychiatrist about the 2013 hospitalization). The Treating Psychiatrist testified that for the past
three years, he has been providing the Individual with psychiatric treatment on a regular, consistent
basis every two to three months. Id. at 55–56.
Regarding the Individual’s diagnosis, the Treating Psychiatrist opined that the Individual has a
history of drug-induced manic psychotic episodes. Id. at 41. He further opined that he does not
believe that the Individual has bipolar disorder, because he has not manifested this diagnosis in
any way and is not involved with marijuana or other drugs. Id. In addition, he opined that the
Individual has a diagnosis of ADHD under the DSM-5, and although he does not quite meet the
criteria for situational anxiety, he has anxiety from this process of trying to obtain his security
clearance. Id. He testified that he previously treated the Individual for PTSD. Id. at 37. The
Treating Psychiatrist opined that the Individual has a mild case of ADHD, which does not affect
his judgment and reliability. Id. at 42. He further testified that he does believe that the Individual’s
ADHD plays a role in susceptibility to psychotic episodes. Id. at 57. The Treating Psychiatrist
10 A letter written by the prior treating psychiatrist dated March 12, 1999, stated that he has known the Individual since
1990, and opined that the Individual that the Individual has been competent during that entire time, and the prior
psychiatrist’s professional medical opinion is that the Individual is competent as of the date of the letter. Ex. 5 at 3;
Ex. 8 at 87.
- 8 -
prescribes the Individual a very low dose of atomoxetine, which is a drug treatment for ADHD.
Id. at 55.
The Treating Psychiatrist also testified that having reviewed the DOE Psychologist’s Report, he
disagrees with the diagnosis of delusional disorder, grandiose type. Id. at 37 –38. He asserted that
the diagnosis is an overreach of the interpretation of the information given during the CI. Id. at 38.
He testified that he has not seen any evidence of the Individual having true delusions. Id. He
explained that a grandiose delusion is a belief held where a person clearly believes something is
not true, and any reasonable person would say is not true. Id. In this regard, the Individual neither
believes that he is special, nor does he believe that he is waiting to be discovered for his inventions.
Id. at 39. The Report indicated that the Individual’s delusions consisted of the Individual’s
inventions, including one for which he was applying for an award, and the Individual’s belief that
he is “special” because he thinks he is capable of being an inventor since he is a good mechanic.
Id. at 39. The Treating Psychiatrist testified of his awareness that the Individual, in fact, tried to
create the inventions that he described in the CI, and when he was unsuccessful in selling one of
his inventions, acknowledged that his attempt at inventing did not work. Id.
Further, the Treating Psychiatrist noted that the MMPI did not show any psychotic tendencies.11
Id. He also noted that he is not an expert in psychological testing, however, he asserted that
psychologists have different opinions regarding the accuracy of the Rorschach test. Id. at 40. The
Report showed the Individual had abnormal Rorschach results, which indicated tendencies towards
mania, and the Treating Psychiatrist stated that he is aware that the Individual has experienced
mania when he has been under the influence of drugs or coming off drugs and was sleep deprived.
Id. Neither the Individual’s current nor the Individual’s former Treating Psychiatrist, who treated
the Individual for approximately eight or nine years, saw any evidence of mania in the Individual.
Id.
The Treating Psychiatrist concluded that, based on his clinical experience working with patients
experiencing the effect of cannabis use and withdrawal of manic symptoms, and his knowledge of
the Individual, it is quite plausible that the Individual’s psychotic episodes were due to a
combination of reducing or abruptly stopping marijuana use and sleep deprivation. Id. at 40–41.
He explained that cannabis (marijuana) contains both THC and cannabidiol (CBD), which
possesses antipsychotic qualities. Id. at 45. However, THC lasts in the body’s system much longer
than CBD. Id. at 45. The Treating Psychiatrist stated that for some people who stop using
marijuana, once the CBD, which is a psychotic blocker, is no longer in their system, any THC in
that person’s system could cause a delayed psychotic reaction. Id. He noted that the Individual’s
hospital records for his 2013 hospitalization showed he had cannabis in his system when he had
his psychotic episode. Id. at 45; Ex. D at 115. He also noted that in addition to having cannabis in
his system, the Individual also had significant sleep deprivation. Based upon on his clinical
experience, the combination of sleep deprivation and sudden discontinuation of sedating
substances has resulted in some of his patients having psychotic symptoms. Id. at 46.
11 The Treating Psychiatrist acknowledged that the MMPI results showed the Individual “tried to look good[,]”
however, he indicated that this portrayal would be consistent with someone who is taking an MMPI for the process of
trying to obtain a security clearance. Id. at 39–40.
- 9 -
The Treating Psychiatrist opined on his conclusion that the Individual does not suffer from bipolar
disorder. He asserted that assuming if the Individual had bipolar disorder and the marijuana was
making it worse, the Individual would have continued to manifest bipolar symptoms after the
marijuana left his system. Id. at 61. However, the Individual did not manifest any bipolar
symptoms either under the care of his current Treating Psychiatrist or while under the care of his
former treating psychiatrist. Id. at 60. The Treating Psychiatrist also asserted that while the
Individual’s hospital records indicated that he stabilized when he was given Lithium, it is difficult
to state with certainty that he stabilized due to Lithium. Id. at 47–48. He asserted that for a true
manic episode, it would take up to eight weeks or longer before Lithium would stabilize bipolar
disorder, so if a person stabilizes in a few days, then it was probably the result of the Lithium. Id.
The Treating Psychiatrist testified that the Individual could have stabilized spontaneously during
his hospitalization, because he was getting sleep and the marijuana was further processing out of
his body. Id. at 47.
The Treating Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual’s prognosis is excellent as long as he does
not use marijuana again. Id. at 42. Although he acknowledged that the Individual’s prior history
of three psychiatric hospitalizations is concerning, he believes that the Individual’s last two
psychotic episodes were due to the combination of substance use and sleep deprivation. Id. As
such, he opined that he is confident that “as long as he stays away from using any substance [,] he
will not have another [psychotic] episode.” Id. at 53. Moreover, the Treating Psychiatrist asserted
that the Individual has been able to withstand significant stress without developing any psychotic
symptoms, so he is confident in his belief that the Individual is not “at any more risk [for future
psychotic episodes] than the average person. Id. at 58. He further testified that the Individual has
been consistently adamant in spontaneously declaring his intention to remain abstinent for
marijuana and other illicit substances, as he has recognized the potential for harm. Id. at 62–63.
The Treating Psychiatrist also stated that the Individual has indicated to him that he wants to
continue treatment, which the Treating Psychiatrist is “absolutely” willing to oblige. Id. at 43.
The Examining Psychologist testified regarding the Fit for Duty psychological evaluation of the
Individual. See Ex. F. She stated that she administered a battery of clinical tests, including the
MMPI and a test based on DSM criteria. Id. at 102–108. She testified that the Individual’s MMPI
results showed elevated underreporting consistent with the MMPI results from the DOE
Psychologist’s Report, which is common in these types of evaluations. Id. at 104. Moreover, she
testified that when the MMPI scales accounted for this underreporting, the Individual did not have
elevations in any other scales including scales for delusional disorder. Id. at 104. The Examining
Psychologist stated that the Individual had no elevations and that his results in normal range
following all other clinical testing. Id. at 105–108. She opined that the Individual does not meet
the criteria for delusional disorder, grandiose type, as the diagnosis involves types of beliefs that
cannot be verified by independent sources. Id. at 115–16, 119–20. By contrast, she testified that
the Individual’s desire to create and garner grants for inventions are not delusions. Id. Further,
unlike delusions that cannot be verified, the inventions and projects that the Individual stated he
worked on were verified by independent sources which she also confirmed. Id. at 116–17; Ex. F
at 280–81; Exs. P–T. The Examining Psychologist also asserted that people with grandiosity do
not admit to a lot of fault, as “it can never be that person’s fault” when it comes to matters like
their ideas. Id. at 117. By contrast, she stated that that the Individual did not attribute fault to others
when his inventions were not successful, and rather, “he took responsibility, which also shows a
- 10 -
lack of grandiosity.” Id. at 117–18. The examining psychologist also testified that based on testing
results and a review of his treatment records, there is no diagnosis under the DSM-5 for the
Individual.12 Id. at 108–09; 130. Regarding the Individual’s prognosis, she opined that if he
remains sober, then he has a good prognosis and is not expected to have further psychotic episodes.
Id. at 109, 131.
The DOE Psychologist confirmed that he had diagnosed the Individual with Delusional disorder
and stated that he based the diagnosis primarily on the fact that “[t]he nature of [the Individual’s]
psychotic episodes always had a grandiose component to it, which the hospitals noted.” Id. at 174-
75. He provided the example of the Individual’s 2013 hospitalization, during which the Individual
had a delusion that his name was classified so he could not reveal it to hospital staff. Id. at 175.
The DOE Psychologist testified that he now recognizes the significance of the fact that the
Individual’s grandiose delusions had only appeared during the times that he had been hospitalized
for psychotic episodes. Id. at 177–78.
After issuing his Report, the DOE Psychologist reviewed the Individual’s hospitalization records,
and based on the information contained therein, he changed his opinion regarding the possibility
of the Individual suffering from bipolar disorder as an underlying condition. Id. at 180–81. He
stated that the hospital records showed that the Individual had “blatant manic episodes.” Id. at 181.
The DOE Psychologist noted that although he cannot conclude whether the Individual’s marijuana
use really caused the Individual’s manic episodes, he is aware that there is a lot of variation
regarding how individuals metabolize THC. Id. at 181. He testified that research findings by the
Mayo Clinic suggest that if a person uses marijuana daily, the half-life of it can be as long as 15 to
20 days, which is contrasted by a much shorter half-life for a person who only uses marijuana once
or twice per month. Id. Thus, the DOE Psychologist concluded that if the Individual had stopped
using marijuana approximately one month before a manic episode, then this prior use could have
a manic episode.13 Id. at 182.
The DOE Psychologist also concluded that given that the Individual has not had any additional
hospitalizations in the last eight years, the Individual may have an underlying condition that is
triggered with the use of marijuana. Id. at 183. The lack of manic episodes within the last eight
years is a positive prognostic note for the Individual. Id. at 183. He further concluded that he
agrees with the Individual’s treating psychiatrist’s opinion, in that if the Individual refrains from
using marijuana, he is “probably… going to be okay.” Id. at 42, 183–184. Moreover, he asserted
that if he had received all the Individual’s medical records at the time of his evaluation, he would
not have diagnosed him with delusional disorder. Id. at 187. He testified that he would have said
the Individual “had delusions, …and it probably was in the context of bipolar disorder,” although
12 The examining psychologist stated that she did not test for ADHD because that was not part of the referral question
when the Individual was referred to her for an evaluation. Tr. at 109.
13 The DOE Psychologist explained that in his professional experience and based on the literature he has reviewed,
the current strength of marijuana is far greater than 30 years ago. Id. at 179. He indicated that the Individual had the
choice of a wide range of marijuana products, which have varying degrees of potency. Id. The DOE Psychologist
asserted that if a person has an underlying psychological condition, and if he uses marijuana or any disinhibiting drug,
it tends to release that underlying condition and bring it to the forefront. Id. at 179–80.
- 11 -
he could not diagnose him with bipolar disorder for a lack of some symptomatic characteristics.
Id. at 186–87.
Ultimately, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual has a “very serious underlying
propensity for manic behavior and loss of control…[a]nd it is a fact [that is] tied to his use of
marijuana.” Id. at 184. His conclusion is that the Individual is prone to “manic psychotic episodes.”
Id. at 186. He further opined that if the Individual does not use marijuana, then his prognosis is
very good and that the condition the Individual has is not going to be activated. Id. at 184, 188.
VI. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline I Considerations
The Individual’s prior involuntary hospitalizations and the DOE Psychologist's diagnosis of the
Individual with Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type, raise security concerns under Guideline I of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b)–(c). An individual may
mitigate security concerns, in relevant part, 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) recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or acceptable
to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous condition is under
control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29 (a)–(c).14
I find that the Individual has put forth sufficient evidence to apply the mitigating condition
described under ¶ 29(a). First, the evidence demonstrates that his condition is readily controllable
with treatment and the Individual has not had any psychotic episodes or psychiatric
hospitalizations since 2013. He credibly testified that during his two most recent hospitalizations,
he was withdrawing from marijuana and was significantly sleep deprived. Having engaged in
regular treatment with his Treating Psychiatrist, he learned that the combination of sleep
deprivation and marijuana use triggered his prior psychotic episodes. The Individual has also
demonstrated his ongoing and consistent compliance with a treatment plan. He intentionally did
not renew his medical card and has not used marijuana since 2013, which was the date of his last
hospitalization. Moreover, he participates in regular treatment with his Treating Psychiatrist every
three months and has not missed any of his treatment appointments in the past three years. Finally,
he takes his medication as prescribed, and has asserted his willingness to undergo a change in
medications if his Treating Psychiatrist recommends it in the future.
14 The additional mitigating factors for Guideline I are not applicable to these facts.
- 12 -
I further find that the Individual has established the mitigating condition described under ¶ 29(b).
In this regard, the Treating Psychiatrist’s testimony that it is unlikely that the Individual is going
to have psychotic episodes in the future and his prognosis is excellent as long as he does not use
marijuana again, is persuasive. Further, the Treating Psychiatrist’s basis for his opinion is
supported by the evidence in the record. The Treating Psychiatrist has treated the Individual
continually for the past three years and has not observed any delusional symptoms. The letter
submitted by the Individual’s former treating psychiatrist also contained no indications of the
presence of delusions. Since the Individual has stopped using marijuana in 2013, he has not
experienced psychotic episodes, thus supporting the Treating Psychiatrist’s opinion that the
Individual’s psychotic episodes were caused by the combination of THC and a severe lack of sleep.
I also note that the Treating Psychiatrist persuasively testified that the Individual is willing to
continue psychiatric treatment. Finally, the clinical findings support the opinion offered by the
Examining Psychologist and Treating Psychiatrist, who both indicated a lack of delusional disorder
and a favorable prognosis so long as the Individual remains abstinent from marijuana.
I also find that the Individual has established the mitigating condition described under ¶ 29(c). The
evidence in the record supports the conclusion that while the Individual is prone to manic episodes
as indicated by the DOE Psychologist, as long as he remains abstinent from marijuana, his
prognosis remains good. Moreover, I note that the Individual has not suffered any psychotic
episodes since he ceased marijuana use in 2013. Accordingly, I find that the evidence before me
demonstrates that the Individual’s condition is readily controllable with treatment and has a low
probably of recurrence. Given the applicability of these mitigating factors, I therefore find that the
Individual has resolved the Guideline I security concerns.
VII. Conclusion
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 Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all 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 brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns set
forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s
access authorization should be granted.
Error! Reference source not found.
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals