PSH-21-0112

*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: August 8, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0112
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 27, 2021
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., 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
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. The Individual submitted an Incident Report to the Local Security Office (LSO) in
August 2020, regarding a physical altercation he had with his son. Ex. 6. As a result, the LSO
provided the Individual with a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), which he completed in February
2021. Ex. 8 at 6–12. He later underwent a psychological evaluation by a DOE consultant
psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in April 2021. Ex. 9.
Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO informed the Individual, in a letter dated July 9,
2021 (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 or SCC), the LSO explained that the derogatory information
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 -
raised security concerns under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) and Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct) 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 twelve numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–12) into the record and presented
the testimony of the DOE psychologist at the hearing. The Individual submitted 23 exhibits (Ex.
A through W) into the record, and presented the testimony of four witnesses, including his own.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines as a basis for suspending the Individual’s security clearance. Ex. 1 at 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).
In citing Guideline I, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual
met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and that this condition impairs his judgment, stability, and
reliability. Ex. 1 at 1. The above information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I.
The LSO also cited Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as a basis for
suspending the Individual’s security clearance. Ex. 1 at 1–2. Criminal activity creates doubt about
a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. By its very
nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations. Id. In citing Guideline J, the LSO relied upon the following information: State and
local police departments initiated an investigation of the Individual for Abuse of a Child-
Intentional and Interference with Communications, after the Individual engaged in a physical
altercation with his son. The altercation resulted in his son needing medical attention for a
separated shoulder and torn rotator cuff. Subsequently, his case was referred for investigation by
a local Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD), which substantiated the allegations of
excessive physical discipline. The LSO further cited that on August 3, 2020, an Order of Protection
(restraining order) was filed against the Individual after he engaged in the physical altercation with
his son; and on December 28, 2015, the Individual’s then-wife filed an Order of Protection against
him for allegations of a history of physical, mental, and verbal abuse against her and their children.
The above information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J.
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
- 3 -
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,
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
In the LOI, the Individual stated that his 13-year-old son (son) suffers from Oppositional Defiant
Disorder (ODD), a behavioral disorder characterized by a persistent pattern of hostile, vindictive,
and defiant behavior toward authority figures. Ex. 8 at 9.2 He further stated that his son has
displayed violent behaviors at school and at home, including a prior threat of assault towards the
Individual’s wife. Id.
The Individual asserted that the July 27, 2020, physical altercation began when his son became
very contentious and threatening towards his current wife. Id. The Individual stated that he tried
to intervene and separate his son from his wife. Id. His son then began kicking and punching him,
and the Individual tried to restrain him by grabbing his arms, but the son continued to assault him,
so he twisted one of his son’s arms behind his back to get him to stop the physical altercation. Id.
at 9–10. His son’s mother picked him up from the Individual’s house and took the son to the
hospital where he was found to have a slight shoulder separation.3 Id. at 10. The Individual stated
his son’s mother later called the local CYFD and filed a restraining order against him. Id. at 10.
2 As evidence of his son’s behaviors, the Individual submitted an email to his ex-wife regarding meetings with his
son’s teachers on October 24, 2019, because the son had pushed another student causing him to hit his head, and
because he is disruptive in class and requires his teacher to intervene. Ex. V. He also submitted the following: an email
from his son’s P.E. teacher stating he sent the son to the principal and discipline officer for using vulgar language in
class and refusing to stop this behavior; a treatment note from his son’s therapist reflecting that the son hits and kicks
family members; and a treatment note from his son’s medical treatment provider reflecting the son’s uncooperative
behavior towards his medical provider during his appointment. Ex.T; Ex. Q; Ex. S.
3 The son’s mother is the Individual’s ex-wife, and they share custody of two children. Ex. 8 at 9.
- 4 -
He further stated that the police conducted an investigation, but he was not charged or arrested.
The Individual asserted that he had attached a copy of the police report with his LOI.4 Id.
In the LOI, the Individual stated that the CYFD’s findings of excessive physical discipline were
based on his son’s documented shoulder injury and the Individual’s admission that a physical
altercation had occurred. Id. The Individual asserted that he completed all CYFD requirements to
resolve the incident, including completion of parenting classes and therapy sessions. Id. at 10–11.
In this regard, the Individual has submitted evidence regarding his CYFD-mandated requirements
including a court order, case plan recommendations, a certificate of completion of a parenting
course, and letters from his former therapist and his current therapist (Therapist) verifying his
compliance with psychotherapy and treatment. Exs. A-l; Ex. N; Ex. O; Ex. W. He also submitted
a case closure letter dated December 18, 2020, signed by a CYFD supervisor stating that the
Individual’s case was closed because he had successfully completed all CYFD requirements.
Ex. P.
In April 2021, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation by the DOE Psychologist,
including a clinical interview. Ex.9. In her report (Report), the DOE Psychologist noted that
various mental health providers had diagnosed the Individual with several psychological illnesses:
Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; Major Depressive Disorder
(MDD), Recurrent, Severe; and PTSD. During her examination, the DOE Psychologist concurred
with the PTSD diagnosis and concluded that the Individual’s PTSD remains untreated. Id. at 10.
The Individual reported that he had experienced severe physical abuse from his father and had
witnessed domestic violence incidents from his father towards his mother “thousands of times.”
Id. at 9. The Individual also acknowledged PTSD symptoms including flashbacks, nightmares,
hypervigilance, intrusive thoughts, and negative emotions. Id.
During the evaluation the Individual reported that he is taking prescribed antidepressant
medication and no longer suffers from symptoms of depression. Id. The Report noted that the DOE
Psychologist verified with the Individual’s former treating therapist that she had provided
individual and family therapy for the Individual from October 2018 through February 2021. Id. at
6. The former therapist stated she was somewhat disappointed in the physical altercation between
the Individual and his son as the Individual had not been able to follow the plan they had discussed
in therapy regarding how to work on emotional regulation and disengage with his son. Id. Since
the Individual was diagnosed with PTSD, the former therapist referred him to obtain Eye
Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy. Id. at 6. The Report stated that the
EMDR therapist advised the Individual that she could not proceed with EMDR therapy because
she “wanted him to be more stable” before beginning EMDR therapy. During the evaluation, the
Individual told the DOE Psychologist that he had also called five or six other EMDR providers but
was unable to get an appointment. Id. at 7. The Individual’s medication management provider
(provider), a certified nurse practitioner who had diagnosed him as suffering from PTSD and
MDD, prescribed psychotropic medication for the Individual. Id. at 7–8. The provider noted in
March 2021 that the Individual’s depressive symptoms improved, and his other symptoms were
4 The LSO’s Exhibits do not include a copy of the police report.
- 5 -
“controlled.” Id. She recommended that he continue taking his medication, continue counseling,
and schedule a follow-up appointment in three months. Id. at 7.
Ultimately, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s untreated PTSD is a diagnostic
condition which in his case can, and has, impaired his judgment, stability, and reliability. Id. at 10.
She further concluded that without appropriate treatment of EMDR therapy, the Individual’s
prognosis is guarded, and he remains at risk for recurrence of problem behaviors. Id.
V. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual’s relative (“relative”) testified that her niece is married to the Individual. Transcript
(Tr.) at 10. The relative has known the Individual for approximately five years, visits and talks
with him regularly, and has spent a lot of time with the Individual and his family, including at his
home. Id. at 10, 19, 21, 23. The relative further testified that she has, on many occasions, witnessed
the Individual’s son exhibit problematic behaviors because “he does have an attitude and a mouth,
and just doesn’t hold back.” Id. at 16–17. She stated that when the Individual’s son and his other
children are fighting, she has seen the Individual verbally intervene to request that his son and
other children stop fighting or misbehaving. Id. When the Individual intervenes, he raises his voice
in a nonviolent way, for the purpose of getting their attention. Id. at 22. She has also observed the
Individual intervene in an intense, emotional altercation between the Individual’s son and wife
without using physical force. Id. at 14-15. The relative asserted that she has never seen the
Individual physically hurt anyone, nor has she seen him put his family in danger by his action or
his judgment. Id. at 18.
During her testimony, the relative asserted that the Individual’s wife has never complained to her
about any mistreatment from the Individual. Id. at 15, 22–23. The relative described the Individual
as trustworthy and having good judgment and asserted that she finds him reliable based on his
interactions with her and her family. Id. at 13, 17.
The Individual’s colleague testified that he has known the Individual for almost five years, and
they work together daily. Id. at 27. The colleague, who was aware of the Individual’s physical
altercation alleged in the SSC, testified that the Individual told him he is attending psychotherapy,
although the colleague was not aware of any other details regarding his therapy sessions. Id. at 28,
31. He testified that other than the physical altercation alleged in the SSC, he had not heard of any
other problems regarding the Individual and his family. Id. at 35. The colleague asserted that he
has never seen the Individual lose his temper or become angry to the point of wanting to physically
strike someone. Id. at 29–30. He described the Individual as a nice person who is talkative with a
good sense of humor, and who treats everybody with respect Id. at 32. The colleague asserted that
the Individual consistently demonstrates responsibility and provided examples of how the
Individual took responsibility without shifting blame to others. Id. at 30–31. He asserted that the
Individual is trustworthy and demonstrates good judgment at work. Id. at 29, 33–34, 36.
The Individual’s Therapist testified that the Individual was referred to her by his former therapist
for the purpose of providing him with EMDR therapy. Id. at 40. The Therapist described EMDR
therapy and its effectiveness for individuals who have experienced trauma. Id. at 41. She stated
that based on her intake assessment, she diagnosed the Individual with another trauma-related
- 6 -
diagnosis because she concluded that he did not meet the DSM-5 criteria for PTSD.5 Id. at 42, 59–
60. She testified that she has been providing psychotherapy treatment for the Individual since June
2021. Id. at 40. The Therapist has ongoing therapy sessions with the Individual twice per month,
and she estimated she has had a total of 24 sessions with him as of the date of the hearing. Id. at
43, 59.
The Therapist testified that although the Individual was referred to her to receive EMDR therapy,
she chose to first provide him with dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT). Id. at 45–46; Ex. W. She
testified that DBT is specific to helping individuals who struggle with regulating their emotions.
Id. at 46. The Therapist also testified that in her clinical practice, she usually has her clients start
with DBT before doing EMDR therapy. Id. at 49. She stated that she initially began EMDR therapy
with the Individual, however, she then determined that the Individual needed DBT before moving
forward with EMDR therapy. Id. at 47–48, 64. Moreover, the Individual had reported to her that
because he reacts immediately, he wanted to learn how to “take a step back” and assess the
situation to have a better outcome in his response. Id. at 46. The Therapist stated that because this
hearing was causing the Individual some distress, she determined that it was best to delay EMDR
therapy until after the hearing. Id. at 48.
The Therapist testified that the Individual has been compliant with treatment and is committed to
working on his mental health. Id. at 57. His most recent therapy session was five days before the
hearing, and per his request, the Individual will be able to remain her client when the Therapist
starts employment for a new employer. Id. at 43. The record also contains a letter by the Therapist,
dated October 30, 2021, stating that the Individual has attended therapy on a regular basis, is
forthcoming and accountable during therapy sessions, and will begin EMDR therapy soon. Ex. W.
Regarding the Individual’s prognosis, the Therapist asserted that the Individual has implemented
the skills he has been working on during therapy sessions and is progressing well, and she provided
a specific example that demonstrated how he successfully implemented one of the DBT techniques
to effectively handle a stressful situation with his wife and children. Id. at 47, 51–53. Regarding
his ability to achieve effective impulse control, the Therapist opined that the Individual is
improving and if he continues to attend therapy and practice what he is learning, he will continue
to improve. Id. at 53. The Therapist also opined that the Individual has the skills to interact with
his sons once he gets to resume visitation with them, and she “highly recommend[s] family therapy
with his two other children.” Id. at 55. She asserted that the Individual is motivated to continue
participating in therapy because of his desire to improve how he responds to situations with his
family and daily life, and to maintain his security clearance. Id. at 54. The Therapist stated that
once she begins doing EMDR therapy with the Individual, she hopes that it will help the Individual
resolve any trauma-related issues he’s had from his past. Id. at 53. She testified that based on her
therapy sessions with the Individual, she does not believe that he has an issue with his judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness. Id. at 56.
The Individual testified regarding the incident resulting in the physical altercation between him
and his son. His testimony was consistent with his LOI response. Id. at 70–74, 91–92; Ex. 8 at 9–
12. He stated that after the incident, he told his ex-wife what had happened, and she agreed to pick
up their son. Id. at 73. After his son left, CYFD contacted the Individual that night asking him
5 The Therapist was unable to recall the exact trauma-related diagnosis that she specified regarding the Individual. Tr.
at 42.
- 7 -
about the altercation and he told them what had happened. Id. at 74. The next day, CYFD told him
that because of the investigation, his son had to remain with the Individual’s ex-wife. Id. at 74.
The Individual asserted that the shoulder and rotator cuff injury was not the arm that the Individual
had grabbed. Tr. at 74. He asserted that his son had previously broken his collarbone when he was
younger, and the Individual testified that he thinks that during the altercation, his son fell and used
his arm to regain his balance, which caused his shoulder injury. Id. The Individual testified that
although the abuse allegations were substantiated, it was only because there was an injury. Id. at
74–75. He also stated that he was never contacted by or spoke to the police about the altercation.
Id. at 91–92.
The Individual further testified regarding the progress he has made in his mental health treatment.
He stated that in his previous therapy sessions with his former therapist, he did not get to focus on
his own issues because she conducted family therapy and couples therapy simultaneously with his
individual therapy. Id. at 77. He testified that while his former therapist tried to address his issues
of being reactive, she did not give him tools to use when facing situations that required him to
“take a step back.” Id. at 79. By contrast, the Individual testified that his current DBT therapy has
been very helpful because the individual therapy sessions allow him to prioritize to address his
psychological issues. Id. at 77. He admitted that his problems with being impulsive and reactive
were present even before the altercation with his son. Id. at 77–78. He testified that because of
what he has learned in therapy with his Therapist, he is able to effectively handle situations
involving his son by taking time to assess situations before reacting, and then providing more
defined and direct instructions to his son which prevents ongoing arguments. Id. at 78. He
described specific examples of techniques learned in DBT and how he applies them to make better
judgments when interacting with and disciplining his children. Id. at 89–90. He asserted that he
has also used DBT tools in daily life situations and in his marriage. His DBT tools have
successfully improved his marital communication. Id. at 79–80. Moreover, he has been taking his
psychotropic medication daily as prescribed. Id. at 89.
The Individual confirmed that he has had significant traumas in his life. Id. at 81. He testified that
because of his previous traumatic experiences, he is motivated to work on his behaviors as a father
and resolve his past issues so that his children will not have to live through what he has
experienced. Id. at 81. The Individual also acknowledged that, in the past, when he communicated
his feelings, this has been perceived as shifting blame to others. Now with his current therapist, he
is working to address this by learning better communication techniques. Id. at 82.
Regarding the 2020 restraining order, the Individual admitted that the agreed to comply with the
order so that his son could receive multisystemic therapy (MST) because CYFD had recommended
MST in its family treatment plan. Id. at 84. He asserted that the restraining order prevented him
from having contact with his son while his son was receiving MST therapy but later the Individual
would be brought into the therapy with his son. Id. at 85, 93. In support of his assertions, the
Individual submitted court documents which showed that his ex-wife filed a restraining order on
August 30, 2020, and showed the order was in effect until November 11, 2020. Ex. E; Tr. at 83–
84. Further, the Individual submitted CYFD Priority Consultation Recommendations including
MST. The Individual also submitted a court order mandating that the Individual’s son must
continue MST counseling, and that the Individual must participate in his son’s counseling service
“once the counselor determines it to be in [the son’s] best interest.” Ex. E; Ex. G; Tr. at 83–84.
- 8 -
Regarding the 2015 restraining order, the Individual admitted that the restraining order was filed
as alleged in the SSC. Id. at 85. He asserted that the restraining order was filed within a few weeks
of his ex-wife filing for divorce. He asserted that his ex-wife filed the 2015 restraining order to
prevent him from seeing his children, and so she could use the order to get better financial
arrangements from the Individual. Id. at 85–86; Ex. 8 at 9.
The DOE Psychologist testified after observing the hearing and listening to the testimony of all
the witnesses. She opined that at the time of the hearing, his PTSD diagnosis remains unchanged.
Id. at 100, 102. She further opined that EMDR therapy is evidence-based treatment that is
determined to be effective in PTSD. Id. at 103. She concluded that the DBT and counseling that
the Individual is receiving from his Therapist is “preparatory.” Id. at 102. The DOE Psychologist
testified that she “would not disagree” with the Therapist’s determination that the Individual
needed DBT before starting EMDR therapy, because EMDR therapy is an intense treatment. Id.
She opined that the Individual has made progress in several ways including emotional regulation
and decreased irritability. Id. at 105 –06. She also stated that the prescribed medication that the
Individual takes can also help with anxiety, and PTSD is an anxiety-based condition. Id. at 108.
Regarding whether he has gained sufficient impulse control skills from his DBT and counseling
sessions with his Therapist, the DOE Psychologist opined that based on the Individual’s testimony
and that of his Therapist, the Individual’s treatment is “a work in progress,” but she acknowledged
that the Individual has made good progress. Id. at 107–08. She concluded that EMDR therapy will
make a more significant difference for the Individual’s progress than DBT. Id. at 102. She
explained that EMDR therapy provides a “deeper” therapy that goes beyond applying DBT
techniques and tools to emotionally reset oneself. EMDR therapy addresses the motivation and
background behind traumas, so that the actual symptoms including anxiety and emotional
dysregulation no longer occur. Id. at 103–04.
The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s current prognosis is fair. Id. at 106. She
testified that the Individual’s PTSD symptoms, which she reiterated from her Report, can affect
the Individual’s reliability and his ability to make determinations based on his judgment and
emotional stability. Id. at 104–05. She opined that it was not the Individual’s fault that he did not
get EMDR treatment earlier. Id. at 106. She also concluded that in DBT, there is no set timeline
for when DBT has reached the point of effectiveness when a person is able to manage any
symptoms. Id. at 109 –10. Accordingly, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s
therapist would just have to use her best judgment to determine when the Individual might be ready
for EMDR. Id. at 110. The DOE Psychologist opined that if the Individual begins and completes
approximately three months of EMDR, then his prognosis is good. Id. at 106.
VI. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline I
The DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of the Individual with PTSD, and her opinion that the
Individual’s condition impairs his judgment, stability, and reliability, raises concerns under
Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b). An individual may
mitigate security concerns, in relevant part, under Guideline I if:
- 9 -
(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).6
Regarding the mitigating factor set forth in ¶ 29(a), the Individual has made consistent efforts
to comply with his treatment plan. He takes his daily medication as prescribed, and he credibly
testified that his current DBT therapy with his Therapist is helping him address emotional
regulation issues. He was also able to provide tangible examples of how he uses DBT
techniques and tools in his interactions with his children and in his communication with this
wife. He and the Therapist are also working together to help him obtain sufficient impulse
control skills. The Individual also provided evidence, including his Therapist’s testimony and
her written statement, that supports his assertions regarding his progress. I also recognize that
the Individual has made multiple efforts to obtain EMDR therapy for his PTSD. The Individual
is consistently complying with his DBT treatment needed before beginning EMDR therapy.
Nonetheless, as the Therapist testified, and as explained by the DOE Psychologist, while DBT
will assist the Individual so that he will be ready to begin EMDR therapy, he has not yet arrived
at a point where he can engage in EMDR therapy. Currently, the Individual still exhibits
symptoms, including unresolved issues related to impulse control, which can affect his
judgment, reliability, and emotional stability. Because circumstances have not allowed the
Individual to reach the point where his condition is readily controllable with treatment, I cannot
find that he has mitigated the DOE’s concerns under ¶ 29 (a).
Under the second mitigating factor, ¶ 29(b), the Individual has successfully shown that he
voluntarily entered a counseling program for PTSD, which is a condition that is amenable to
treatment. Moreover, the Therapist testified that the Individual has made significant progress
in that he has demonstrated to her that he has been trying to implement the skills that he has
learned in DBT. Regarding his prognosis, while the Individual’s Therapist asserted that the
Individual would begin EMDR therapy soon, she could not provide a favorable prognosis
regarding his progress in EMDR therapy because the Individual still needs to resolve some of
his emotional regulation issues and impulse control issues in DBT. To mitigate concerns under
Guideline I under the second mitigating factor, the Individual needs to show a favorable
prognosis for his PTSD. While he is successfully doing the preparatory work so he can begin
recommended EMDR therapy, without significant advancement in EMDR therapy, he is
6 I find that the other listed Guideline I mitigating factors under ¶ 29(d) and (e), regarding a mental condition that is
temporary or the lack of a current problem, are not applicable in this case.
- 10 -
currently lacking the favorable prognosis he needs to mitigate the security concerns under
¶ 29(b).
As for the third mitigating factor, ¶ 29(c), I cannot find that the opinion of the DOE
Psychologist fully supports mitigation of the Individual’s psychological condition. The DOE
Psychologist testified that several of the Individual’s PTSD symptoms can affect his judgment,
reliability, and emotional stability. She recommended that the Individual complete three
months of EMDR therapy to effectively resolve the concerns surrounding his PTSD. As it
stands, without having started EMDR therapy, the DOE Psychologist opined that the
Individual’s current prognosis is fair. Thus, the Individual has not obtained a favorable
prognosis that is necessary to meet the requirements under the third mitigating factor.
Consequently, I do not find that the Individual has completely resolved the Guideline I security
concerns.
B. Guideline J
My review of the Guideline J mitigating factors listed in the Adjudicative Guidelines (listed at
¶ 32) find none that are applicable in the present case. The criminal incident at issue in this case is
recent (approximately 17 months before the hearing) and thus I do not find mitigation under ¶ 32(a)
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(a) (so much time has elapsed
since the criminal behavior happened that it is unlikely to recur). Further, the Individual has not
presented sufficient evidence where I can conclude that he in fact did not commit the offense of
Abuse of a Child. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(c) (no reliable evidence to support that the
individual committed the offense). Lastly, regarding successful rehabilitation described in ¶ 32(d),
it is apparent from the record of this case that the Individual’s alleged criminal conduct is the result
of his trauma-related disorder and that this disorder is still being treated and is not fully resolved.7
See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(d) (evidence of successful rehabilitation). Considering the
record before me, I cannot find that the Individual has fully mitigated the Guideline J 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 Guidelines I and J 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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline
I and J security concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s
access authorization should not be restored at this time.
7 I find that the mitigating factor under ¶ 32(b) Adjudicative Guidelines regarding coercion is not applicable in this
case.
- 11 -
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Richard Cronin
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals