PSH-21-0122

*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: September 30, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0122
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 4, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, 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 access
authorization should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The DOE employs the Individual in a position that requires possession of a security clearance. In
2020, the Individual submitted an incident report that disclosed his recent hospitalization for
mental health concerns. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) conducted an investigation and
requested that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychologist (“Psychologist”).
Subsequently, the LSO informed the Individual by letter (“Notification Letter”) that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security
clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled Summary of Security Concerns, the
LSO explained that the derogatory information raised a security concern under Guideline I of the
Adjudicative Guidelines.
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
- 2 -
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. See Transcript of Hearing (Tr.). At the hearing, the Individual presented the testimony of
his therapist (“Therapist”) and testified on his own behalf. The LSO presented the testimony of the
Psychologist. The Individual submitted eleven exhibits, marked Exhibits A through K. The LSO
submitted nine exhibits, marked Exhibits 1 through 9.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines as the basis for concern regarding the Individual’s eligibility to possess 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. 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 Notification Letter cited the Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual met the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, Fifth Edition, criteria for Major
Depressive Disorder (MDD), Moderate, Single Episode, which can impair his judgement,
reliability, stability, or trustworthiness. Ex.1. The above allegation 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 regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with
the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d
1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
2 The LSO’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 65-page PDF workbook. Many of the exhibits are
marked with page numbering that is inconsistent with their location in the combined workbook. This Decision will
cite to the LSO’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit and page number within the combined workbook where the
information is located as opposed to the page number that may be located on the page itself.
- 3 -
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. at
§ 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 late 2020, the Individual reported that he had been recently hospitalized for five days because
he experienced “suicidal ideations.” Ex. 6 at 19. He subsequently participated in a Partial
Hospitalization Program (“Partial Program”) for thirty-six days. Id. The Individual explained that
he voluntarily went to the hospital after experiencing “extreme feelings of guilt and shame[,] . . .
which resulted in suicidal thoughts[.]” Ex. 7 at 21.
While hospitalized, he received individual psychiatric consultations and group therapy. Id. at 22.
During the Partial Program, he participated in “outpatient individual and group counseling
sessions, consultation with a [p]sychiatrist, and group education classes.” Id. at 23. He also
received prescriptions for medications to control his depression and anxiety. Id. at 24. After leaving
the Partial Program, he continued to voluntarily attend a group therapy program to manage and
address his impulses and emotions, and he continued to see a psychiatrist to manage his
medications. Id. at 26. He also reported receiving behavioral therapy prior to his hospitalization,
and he admitted that the condition had impaired his judgment and reliability at certain points in his
life. Id. at 27-28.
The record includes the report provided by the Psychologist. Therein, the Psychologist recounted
information the Individual provided during the evaluation and information the Psychologist
gathered from the Individual’s Therapist and psychiatrist. The Individual stated that he had been
taking an anxiety-reducing medication leading up to the date he was hospitalized. Ex. 8 at 34. He
had also been feeling overwhelmed due to work stress, graduate school pressures, and the COVID-
19 pandemic restrictions. Id. He further stated that he had been “suppressing his feelings, allowing
things to fester, beating up on himself, keeping more to himself, and not reaching out for help.”
Id. On the night of the incident, he got into a heated argument with his wife, thought of suicide,
and voluntarily went to the hospital upon the advice of his psychiatrist. Id. He described making
positive changes in his lifestyle and treatment since his hospitalization. Id. After diagnosing the
Individual with MDD, the Psychologist recommended that he (1) attend therapy to decrease
depressions and develop coping skills to manage suicidal ideation; (2) continue weekly, individual
therapy for at least two years; (3) obtain a second opinion from a psychiatrist; and (4) continue to
comply with his psychiatrist’s treatment recommendations. Id. at 39.
The Therapist testified that he has been providing weekly individual, integrated psychotherapy to
the Individual since early 2021. Tr. at 16, 17, 18. The Therapist testified that the Individual is
motivated and committed, and he described the Individual’s attendance as exemplary. Id. at 16-
17. The treatment focuses on making sure the Individual is safe for himself, his family, and his
job. Id. at 17. It involves a variety of techniques that include self-empathy, ego strengthening, and
working on a variety of mental and physical coping skills. Id. at 18-20. The Therapist testified to
- 4 -
observing significant progress in the Individual’s ability to use cognitive coping skills. Id. at 42.
The treatment also addresses the Individual’s marriage, including joint treatment sessions with the
Individual’s wife. Id. at 22.
The Therapist testified that the Individual reported having an instance of suicidal thoughts in the
summer of 2021. Id. The Individual reported taking positive actions to successfully address the
thoughts, including taking a walk, calling people, and employing the tools he developed in
treatment. Id. at 35. The Therapist also reported that the Individual is currently attending two
therapy groups. Id. at 24. Finally, the Therapist testified that the Individual’s prognosis is “very
good[] and very strong.” Id. at 39.
The Individual testified that, leading up to his hospitalization, he had been under a lot of stress
balancing his difficult workload, his participation in a demanding graduate degree program funded
by his employer, and marriage difficulties. Id. at 51-54, 56, 58-59. At the time, he attempted to
cope with the pressure by increasing his focus on his work and studies. Id. at 61. On the night of
his hospitalization, he had argued with his wife and experienced extreme guilt and shame, which
led to thoughts of suicide. Id. at 62. He told his wife about his thoughts, and she encouraged him
to contact his psychiatrist. Id. 62-63.
The Individual testified that he began receiving treatment from a different psychiatrist after being
evaluated by the Psychologist. Id. at 80. He testified that his current medication significantly
contributed to his improvement, and he stated he is willing to continue it indefinitely. Id. at 68-69.
He explained, in contrast, that he had not been sure about the effectiveness of his pre-
hospitalization medication. Id. at 68. Regarding his treatment progress, the Individual testified that
he recognized that his priorities were way out of line. Id. at 70-71. He has been putting effort into
his recovery and his relationship, and he has established “firm boundaries” for himself and his
work. Id. at 70-71. The Individual is currently separated from his wife. Id. at 66. He sees her
weekly, and he believes they are “connecting on a much deeper level” and that they are “much
happier.” Id. at 75. He also withdrew from his graduate program. Id. at 72. Lastly, he described
successfully using coping mechanisms when engaging with his wife and work colleagues. Id. at
75-76. He testified that he views his therapeutic and psychiatric treatment as a lifelong
commitment. Id. at 81.
The Psychologist testified that the Individual had met a lot of the goals set forth in her
recommendations. Id. at 96. She further testified that she no longer had any concerns regarding his
stability or lack of reliability due to his past difficulty managing “his suicidal ideation or the
intensity or severity of his depression.” Id. at 96. She noted significant changes in both his insight
and behavior since the initial evaluation. Id. She explained that the severity and symptoms of his
depression had been adequately addressed by his treatment. Id. at 98. She concluded by stating
that the Individual had rehabilitated and reformed his psychological condition. Id. at 97. She
testified that the Individual has a low likelihood of entering a state of crisis that requires acute care.
Id. at 100.
- 5 -
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline I Considerations
Under Guideline I, the following relevant conditions could mitigate security concerns derived from
a psychological condition:
(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 ¶ 29.3
I find that the above conditions apply to resolve the Guideline I security concerns. Turning first to
¶ 29(a), the testimony and conclusions of the Therapist and Psychologist establish that the
Individual’s psychological condition is readily controllable with treatment. There is also ample
evidence that the Individual has consistently complied with the treatment recommendations of both
the Therapist and his psychiatrist, and he has successfully utilized the treatment and coping skills
to significantly improve his condition. Next, under ¶ 29(b), the record demonstrates that the
Individual voluntarily entered a counseling and treatment program consistent with the
Psychologist’s recommendations. The record also demonstrates that both the Therapist and
Psychologist gave the Individual a positive prognosis, which establishes that his condition is
amenable to treatment and that he received a favorable prognosis from a qualified medical health
professional. Finally, under ¶ 29(c), the preceding information, coupled with the Psychologist’s
conclusion, establishes that the Individual’s condition has a low probability of recurrence.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has resolved the Guideline I security concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised a security concern under Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of 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 restored.
3 The additional mitigating Guideline I factors are not applicable to these facts.
- 6 -
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals