PSH-21-0092

*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 21, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0092
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: November 5, 2021
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXX XXXXX (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 not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
A DOE contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. On October 1, 2018, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP). Ex. 9. The Individual disclosed on the QNSP that he had been diagnosed by a
mental health professional with Bipolar Disorder since approximately March 2018 and had been
hospitalized for treatment. Ex. 9 at 49; Ex. 6 at 1. Subsequently, the Local Security Office (LSO)
asked him to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) regarding his psychological conditions and
the mental health treatment he had received. Ex. 6. Because the Individual's responses to
the LOI did not resolve the concerns raised by the Individual's hospitalization, the LSO requested
that the Individual undergo a forensic psychological evaluation by a DOE Psychologist (the DOE
Psychologist). The DOE Psychologist conducted a clinical interview (the Clinical Interview) of
the Individual on December 12, 2019, and on December 26, 2019, she issued a report concluding
that the Individual met the criteria for the diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder set forth in the Diagnostic
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 -
and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and that
this condition impairs the Individual’s judgement, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 7 at
10.
The LSO informed the Individual, in a letter dated February 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 Security Concerns), the
LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline I 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 nine numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–9) into the record, and presented the
testimony of the DOE psychologist at the hearing. The Individual submitted one exhibit (Ex. A)
into the record, and presented the testimony of three witnesses, and his own testimony.
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. Certain emotional, mental, and
personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 27. An opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that an individual
has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness can raise a
security concern under Guideline I. Id. at ¶ 28(b). The Summary of Security Concerns cited the
DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual meets the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for Bipolar I Disorder which is a condition that
impairs his judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness. Ex.1. The DOE Psychologist’s
opinion justifies 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 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 entire process
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,
- 3 -
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 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.
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
In reaching her determination that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Bipolar I Disorder
under the DSM-5, the DOE Psychologist relied on the Individual’s long history of mental health
treatment, his self-reporting of past suicide attempts and some related inpatient hospitalizations,
as well as reports of manic symptoms, and treatment records from his then-current mental health
treatment provider. Ex. 7 at 3–5. In addition, the DOE Psychologist administered a battery of tests
to the Individual including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), and
conducted a mental status exam. Id. at 6–8,12–29. Based on the results, the DOE Psychologist
found that in addition to Bipolar Disorder, the Individual meets the criteria for Delusional
Disorder, unspecified, and he showed indications of Borderline Personality Disorder. Id. at 8. She
opined that the Individual’s diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder, characterized by both depressive and
manic episodes impairs his judgment or reliability. Id. at 14. She concluded that the Individual’s
prognosis is poor due to reasons including the presence of multiple psychiatric conditions that are
characterized by poor insight, his history of suicidality, and the presence of psychotic symptoms.
Id. at 10. She further concluded that the Individual’s prognosis could be improved with more
frequent medication management and monitoring along with pharmacological treatment of his
psychotic symptoms and weekly psychotherapy. Id.
The Individual submitted a letter from his previous provider, a psychiatric nurse practitioner, who
provided both psychotherapy and medication management while he was under her care. Ex. A.
The previous provider discussed the Individual’s diagnoses, prognosis, and compliance with his
treatment plan. Id.
V. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual’s witnesses all testified that the Individual is trustworthy, reliable, and honest . Tr.
at 15, 18–20, 28–29, 45–47. The Individual’s former supervisor testified that he has known the
Individual for nine years, and served as his supervisor until May 2021. Id. at 12–13. During the
time he supervised the Individual, he was aware that the Individual had some physical problems
that affected his mobility and limited his ability to complete some tasks at work. Id. at 16–17. The
- 4 -
former supervisor testified that he had no concerns about the Individual’s ability to work with
sensitive documents, and in the nine years he has known the Individual has not had any concerns
about the Individual’s emotional stability. Id. at 20 –21.
The Individual’s coworker testified that he has known the Individual since 2013, and has socially
interacted with the Individual outside of work approximately 10 to 12 times. Id. at 27. He testified
that they have never discussed anything related to the Individual’s psychological conditions or
mental health treatment. Id. at 27–28.
The Individual’s friend testified that she met him as a coworker approximately eight years ago. Id.
at 41,51. She testified that she spends time with him outside of work approximately once a month
to share a meal. Id. at 42. She stated that they have discussed the topics of work and family stress,
and the Individual mentioned to her that he might seek mental health treatment. However, she did
not know if he had in fact obtained treatment. Id. at 43. The friend also testified that she was aware
that the Individual had some physical health problems that affected his ability to work in a full
duty capacity. Id. at 43–44. She has spent time with him recently since he has been off work due
to physical disability, and he has discussed his stress related to his being the sole support of his
family. Id. at 50. She testified as to the Individual’s wife’s health conditions and the difficulty of
their management. Id. Further, she stated that the Individual’s stepdaughter and granddaughter
live with the Individual and the stepdaughter is not very reliable in terms maintaining employment.
Consequently, the stepdaughter does not help the Individual with family finances. Id. Regarding
the Individual’s emotional state since he has been on disability, the friend testified that she noticed
that he appeared to be less stressed because he was no longer experiencing work related stress
which included his work on a high-pressure project. Id. at 51–52.
The Individual testified regarding the mental health treatment he has received since 2019. He was
previously receiving psychotherapy and medication management from a psychiatric nurse
practitioner until her medical practice was no longer in his health insurance network. Tr. at 58, 76,
120, 125; Ex. A. He testified that after a four-month gap in treatment, he found a new therapist
and restarted psychotherapy in June or July 2021.2 Id. at 58, 61, 76. His therapy consists of
individual psychotherapy sessions although he usually likes to have his wife attend his therapy
sessions with him because she is the focal point of most of his current life stressors. Id. at 61. He
asserted that both of his current mental health treatment providers including his provider for
medication management, believe that he has a “mild case of bipolar.” Id. at 60. He indicated that
they diagnosed him with “whatever one’s the least-lesser” form of Bipolar Disorder, but he
indicated he was not sure if it was Bipolar I Disorder or Bipolar II Disorder. Id. The Individual
testified that since the date of the DOE Psychologist’s report in December 2019, he has had no
thoughts of suicide, has made no suicide attempts, and did not feel that he has had manic
symptoms, or significant depression. Id. at 64, 84.
2 The Individual inadvertently misspoke when he stated during the hearing that he stopped his prior treatment in March
2020. Tr. at 58. He subsequently testified that he had a gap of four months between when he ended treatment with his
previous provider and when he began receiving psychotherapy with his current treatment provider in June or July
2021. Id. at 58, 61, 76. Therefore, it seems that the correct date for his termination of his prior treatment is March
2021-one year later. Moreover, the letter provided by the Individual’s previous nurse practitioner confirms that the
Individual was still under treatment with her as of July 7, 2020. Ex. A.
- 5 -
Regarding his medication regimen, the Individual testified that he has been taking the same
combination of medications at the same dosages since 2016. Id. at 57, 63. He stated that when he
met with his current nurse practitioner for medication management, they agreed that his current
doses were effective, so she kept him on the same medication regimen. Id. at 66. The Individual
testified that he takes his medication as prescribed and has no plans to stop taking his medication
because he trusts the medical providers to prescribe him the correct medication at the correct
dosages. Id. at 65–66. Further, he feels that his current prescribed combination of medication is
working effectively. Id. at 63.
In support of the Individual’s testimony, he submitted a letter from his previous psychiatric nurse
practitioner (previous provider) which was written in response to the DOE Psychologist’s report.
Ex. A; Id. at 83. The previous provider stated that the Individual has been under her care for over
two years and is diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Depressed; Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic; and Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in Sustained Remission.
Ex. A. She stated that after he initially sought treatment for depression, his mood stabilized within
the first six weeks of treatment, and that due to his level of stability, he has only been seen every
three months since May 2018. Id. She further stated that he has shown no signs or symptoms of
mood elevation, depression, or anxiety, and that despite experiencing significant situational
stressors over the past two years, his mood has remained stable with no breakthrough symptoms.
Id. The previous provider noted that the Individual has never reported a history of psychosis, nor
has there been any signs of psychosis while the Individual has been under her care. Id. She attested
to the fact that “[h]e has been very compliant with his appointments and all aspects of his treatment
plan.” Id.
The Individual testified that he manages his Bipolar Disorder by taking his medications, “taking
one day at a time,” and applying the beliefs and tenets from his faith to his daily life. Id. at 63. He
also relies on his support system which consists of his friend (who testified at the hearing), his
current therapist, his current nurse practitioner who provides medication management, and his
stepdaughter. Id. at 64–65. However, he admitted that other than his stepdaughter, he lacks a
support system that would enable his wife to achieve stability in her psychological conditions, so
he plans to move to another state where he will have additional family support to assist his wife.
Id. at 78.
The Individual discussed his current mental health treatment which he received from his new
providers in June or July 2021. Id. at 58–59. He stated that his current treatment plan is to meet
with his therapist for individual psychotherapy sessions every other week for six months, followed
by a decrease in frequency to monthly sessions. Id. at 62. His therapy provides him the benefit of
addressing his current stressors, as well as ongoing monitoring for potential depressive and manic
symptoms. Id. at 60. The Individual asserted that he has gained insight into his mental health by
learning about the effects of his childhood trauma and his previous acts of self-harm. Id. at 62–63.
However, despite this plan, he has attended only three therapy sessions since June or July 2021.
Id. at 61. He asserted that the primary reason he has missed his appointments was because of his
wife’s ongoing mental health problems. The Individual’s wife tried to commit suicide in
September 2020 and was hospitalized for over four weeks. Id. at 66–68. She also attempted suicide
again in July 2021. Id. at 68. He also testified that on two additional occasions, his wife’s mental
health problems flared up while they were driving to his psychotherapy appointments which
- 6 -
impaired his ability to attend his therapy sessions. Id. at 69. Due to his wife’s mental health
problems, he has also had to cancel some therapy appointments at the last minute. Id. at 71. The
Individual admitted that his wife’s mental health problems are a hindrance to his ability to manage
his psychological condition because they cause him to miss therapy appointments which are
beneficial to him. Id. at 78. The Individual also testified that his hospitalizations for physical health
problems have also caused him to miss some therapy appointments. Id. at 71–72.
When asked about his plans to address his wife’s mental health issues, the Individual stated that
he plans to move out of state where he will have the support of his siblings and his in-laws to
provide the caregiving support he needs for his wife. Id. at 78. However, he admitted that this is
not an immediate plan because it requires significant preparation before it can be brought into
fruition. Id. at 75. When the Individual was asked what his immediate plans are if his wife has
another adverse psychological episode, he replied, “I’m going to have to cross that bridge when I
get to it.” Id. at 76.
The Individual admitted that he has had some breakthrough depressive and manic symptoms after
his DOE psychological evaluation. Id. at 84, 87. He stated that he felt a little depressed due to his
wife’s initial suicide attempt. Id. at 84 –85. He realized that he was depressed because his
stepdaughter pointed out to him that he was less responsive and was blaming himself for his wife’s
psychological problems. Id. at 85. However, the Individual asserted that once his stepdaughter
informed him of his depression, he used his coping skills to identify his needs. Additionally, after
speaking to his wife’s mental health providers and his stepdaughter, he realized that his wife’s
suicide attempt was not his fault and he had no control over what actions she might take in the
future. Id. at 86–87. Moreover, he asserted that the caregiving responsibilities that he provides for
his wife do not exacerbate his psychological condition because it is giving him a purpose, which,
helps him come out of depression. Id. at 80–81.
Regarding manic symptoms, he stated that he most recently experienced feelings of mania in early
2020. Id. at 87–88. He stated that when he had the manic episode, he spent several hundred dollars
on unnecessary purchases such as extravagant meals. Id. at 88. The Individual testified that he told
his previous treating therapist about his manic behaviors when they occurred, but that she did not
indicate that there was a significant concern because her response to him was, “[y]ou’re a very
generous fellow, aren’t you?” Id. at 89.
The DOE Psychologist testified after observing the hearing and all of the testimony offered therein.
She opined that the Individual’s diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder is still present and continues to
impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Id. at 104. She explained that none of
the testimony presented at the hearing demonstrated any change in the Individual’s diagnosis or
treatment. Id. at 104–05. Moreover, she stated that it might have been helpful if she had been able
to review the Individual’s treatment records from his current treatment provider. However, the
Individual had not provided these records. Id.
The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s prognosis is poor for multiple reasons. Id. at
105–06. Specifically, she stated that the Individual has not provided enough information to change
her opinion. Id. at 105. She is also equally concerned because the Individual has not adequately
addressed the issues identified two years ago in her evaluation. Id. The DOE Psychologist
- 7 -
acknowledged that the Individual has not reached the point that he has needed hospitalization.
Nonetheless, the Individual has not presented enough evidence to indicate that he has made any
improvement. Id. at 106. Moreover, she has concerns regarding his stability due to his current level
of stressors combined with the fact that he is not engaged in any kind of meaningful therapy. Id.
Regarding the Individual’s stability as related to his prognosis, the DOE Psychologist asserted that
in order to show that he has a chance of maintaining stability despite his current stressors, the
Individual needs to purposefully prioritize his own treatment, his own self-care, and learn better
tools to be able to monitor himself. Id. at 117. He would need to know when he might need a
medication adjustment or be able to recognize when he needs to address an active stressor or
symptom with his therapist. Id. By contrast, the DOE Psychologist concluded that currently, the
Individual has not shown any of the above behaviors, but rather, he is depending on his
stepdaughter who was portrayed by one of the witnesses as being unreliable in terms of being able
to maintain employment and contribute financially. Id. at 118. Thus, the Individual does not seem
to have a reliable source of support that would encourage his stability. Id. This concerns the DOE
Psychologist because, although the Individual has a history of rising to the occasion-e.g., being
able to provide care for his wife’s mental health needs, the possibility of additional stressors such
as inability to work, would affect his stability. Id. at 80–81, 118.
Further, the DOE Psychologist testified that even if the Individual had received treatment, his
prognosis could still be guarded based on the results of his personality inventory from her
evaluation. Id. at 111. The Individual’s profile indicates that he may present as doing really well
in treatment, which tends to lead providers to terminate treatment. Id. at 111–12. The DOE
Psychologist opined that in order for psychotherapy to have a sustained effect, the Individual’s
therapist would need to understand and challenge his root issues and the Individual would need to
maintain compliance in treatment. Id. at 112.
The DOE Psychologist stated that in order for the Individual to show that his Bipolar I Disorder
was not impairing his judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness, he needed to have participated in
regular psychotherapy since she completed her evaluation. Id. at 109. She stated her belief that the
Individual has not made his treatment a priority. Id. at 110. She opined that he Individual would
need to demonstrate that he is more knowledgeable about his disorder and has utilized more coping
skills to address his depression. Id. He also needs to have the ability to check in with himself and
recognize on his own when he was feeling depressed, rather than needing someone else to tell him
that he was experiencing depression. Id. Moreover, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the
Individual needs to be engaged in therapy including working on past traumatic events that
influence his mood and his current perceptions about himself and the world. Id. She also opined
that in order to measure objectively his level of engagement in his treatment, he needs to be in
psychotherapy every other week for a year. Tr. at 116, 122. In addition, she testified based on her
experience that it is very uncommon for someone who is being medicated for Bipolar Disorder to
be on the same dosage of the same medication regimen for as long as the Individual has. Id. at 122.
This is because it is difficult to achieve a long-term decrease in symptomatology by maintaining
the same medication regimen. Id. at 123. This is in part because there are often reoccurring
depressive symptoms even although they may not be as severe. Id.
- 8 -
V. ANALYSIS
The DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual meets the DSM-5 criteria for Bipolar I
Disorder which impairs his judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness raises security
concerns under Guideline I. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28 (b). An individual may 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) 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;
(d) the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Id. at ¶ 29(a)–(e).
Regarding the mitigating factor set forth in ¶ 29 (a), I cannot find that the Individual has
demonstrated consistent compliance with his treatment plan. While the Individual has
demonstrated previous compliance with his former mental health treatment provider, he is no
longer maintaining ongoing compliance since beginning psychotherapy with his current therapist.
By his own admission, he has only attended three psychotherapy appointments since June or July
2021, despite his own therapist’s recommendation and the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation
that he attend psychotherapy at least once every other week.
The Individual has also not satisfied the mitigating factor under ¶ 29(b). To his credit, the
Individual has demonstrated an effort to remain in treatment, even after he lost his long-term
treatment provider due to her no longer belonging to his health insurance network. He actively
sought a new therapist and a new nurse practitioner in his network so he could receive both
psychotherapy and medication management for his Bipolar Disorder. He also presented a letter
from his former treatment provider which asserted that he is stable. However, he has not submitted
any evidence such as treatment records from his current psychotherapist or current nurse
practitioner. As such, other than his own testimony, the record contains no evidence from his
current practitioner that indicates that the Individual has a favorable prognosis.
Regarding the third mitigating factor, the DOE Psychologist’s opinion does not support a finding
that the Individual has satisfied the mitigating factor set forth in ¶ 29 (c). The DOE Psychologist
opined that the Individual’s Bipolar Disorder continues to impair his judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness and his prognosis is poor for multiple reasons. Her opinion that the
Individual has not demonstrated that he has made any improvement since the time of her
evaluation, reflects that the Individual’s condition is not in remission or currently under control.
- 9 -
Moreover, despite the negative impact of his wife’s serious psychological conditions that impair
his own mental health treatment, the Individual only has a tentative plan of moving out of state
where he has a more robust family support system. Currently, his only immediate plan if his wife
condition worsens is to “cross that bridge when I get to it.”
Further, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual has currently not shown behaviors
that demonstrate that he has a low probability of recurrence of impairment due to his Bipolar
Disorder. She stated in order for the Individual to show that he can maintain stability despite his
significant current stressors, he would need to demonstrate that he can successfully recognize when
he has depressive or manic symptoms. Further, he should be able to demonstrate that he can
recognize when he needs to consult with his treatment providers regarding medication adjustment
or how to resolve stressors. Instead, the Individual is relying on his stepdaughter to tell him when
he is showing signs of depression. Moreover, the DOE Psychologist stated that the Individual
needed to have shown that he is attending therapy every other week for a year, and is addressing
deeper issues including childhood traumas that still affect his current mood and symptoms.
Additionally, the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating factors set forth in ¶ 29 (d) and (e).
Since both of these factors relate to the current status of the Individual’s condition, I will analyze
them together. The Individual has shown some indications of emotional instability, including his
testimony that he experienced manic symptoms in early 2020. He also testified that he experienced
depression following his wife’s initial suicide attempt. As testified to by the DOE Psychologist,
these symptoms are known as breakthrough symptoms, and contrary to his prior treatment
provider’s letter which states he has not experienced any breakthrough symptoms, his testimony
reflects otherwise. Further, the Individual has not demonstrated that he has developed and utilized
coping skills that would encourage his stability. He presented no evidence to show that he has
attended therapy every other week for a year, nor has he demonstrated sufficient self-care by being
able to monitor himself for symptoms and his need for more frequent medication management.
Moreover, the Individual has not put forth sufficient evidence to show that his Bipolar Condition
was temporary. He presented no treatment records from his current providers and has only attended
three therapy sessions with his current therapist, so I cannot conclude that the Individual’s
condition is resolved. In addition, despite the negative impact of his wife’s psychological problems
on his own mental health, the Individual has not developed an immediate plan to alleviate the
primary stressors that affect his ability to achieve long term stability. As such, I cannot conclude
that the there is no indication of a current problem.
For these reasons, I find the Individual has not presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the
mitigating conditions under ¶ 29(a)–(e).
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guidelines I 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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
- 10 -
concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals