PSH-22-0031

*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: December 17, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0031
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 10, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 should be granted
access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. On January 26, 2021, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking a security clearance. Ex. 7 at 51. The Individual
disclosed on the QNSP that he was receiving treatment for Bipolar II Disorder. Id. at 42–43.
A DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) conducted a clinical interview of the
Individual on June 22, 2021. Ex. 5 at 3. On June 29, 2021, the DOE Psychologist issued a
Psychological Assessment (Report) in which he determined that the Individual met the diagnostic
criteria for Bipolar II Disorder, Depressed, with moderate severity, under the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Id. at 8.
The local security office (LSO) issued the Individual a letter in which it notified him that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a
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 clearance. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, 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
hearing. The LSO submitted seven exhibits (Ex. 1–7). The Individual submitted thirty exhibits
(AA–BD). The Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of his girlfriend
(the “Girlfriend”) and a friend (the “Friend”). Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 3. The LSO offered the
testimony of the DOE Psychologist. Id.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) as the basis for its determination that the
Individual was ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1. “Certain emotional, mental, and
personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 27. The SSC cited the DOE Psychologist’s determination that the Individual met
the diagnostic criteria for Bipolar II Disorder under the DSM-5 and his opinion that this condition
could impair the Individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 1. The opinion
by a duly qualified mental health professional that the Individual has a condition that may impair
his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline
I. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b).
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 regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence
to mitigate the security concerns at issue.
- 3 -
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
In February 2020, the Individual consulted with a medical provider at the university at which he
was enrolled for symptoms of depression. Ex. AB at 1; Ex. AG. He was prescribed an
antidepressant. Ex. AB at 10. After he began using the antidepressant, he did not want to leave his
bed due to feelings of depression, cut his legs “as a way of feeling something and [to] take out
anger at himself,” and experienced suicidal ideation. Ex. 7 at 87. The Individual shared his suicidal
ideations with his Girlfriend, who also observed his self-inflicted cuts, and she urged him to seek
help from a medical professional. Tr. at 59, 61–62, 66.
On October 16, 2020, the Individual consulted with a psychiatrist (Individual’s Psychiatrist)
concerning his symptoms. Id. at 86; Ex. AC at 1. The Individual’s Psychiatrist diagnosed him with
Bipolar II Disorder and prescribed him Lamotrigine. Ex. 7 at 86–87; Ex. AC at 1. The Individual’s
Psychiatrist indicated that antidepressants cause “hypomanic episodes” in persons with Bipolar II
Disorder and that the Individual’s self-harm could have been the product of a hypomanic episode.
Ex. AD at 1. The Individual shared his diagnosis with his Girlfriend and his Friend. Tr. at 13–14,
35–36.
The Individual signed and submitted the QNSP on January 6, 2021. Ex. 7 at 51. The Individual
disclosed on the QNSP that he had been diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder and was receiving
treatment. Id. at 42–43.
The DOE Psychologist conducted a clinical interview of the Individual on June 22, 2021. Ex. 5 at
3. During the clinical interview, the Individual indicated that he had experienced feelings of
depression and suicidal ideation in early 2020. Id. at 4. He admitted that he experienced a
hypomanic episode, which included “deadened” emotionality and increased energy, after taking
the prescribed antidepressant. Id. at 3–4. On June 29, 2021, the DOE Psychologist issued his
Report. Id. at 8. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for
Bipolar II Disorder, Depressed, with Moderate Severity, under the DSM-5. Id. at 7–8. The DOE
Psychologist recommended that the Individual receive treatment from a psychiatrist and for that
psychiatrist to attest to the Individual’s stability, absence of hypomanic episodes, and medication
compliance for at least twelve months. Id. at 8. The DOE Psychologist also suggested that the
Individual obtain psychotherapy from a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist focused on self-
improvement, self-awareness, and acceptance of his condition for at least three months. Id.
In March 2021, the Individual’s Psychiatrist and the Individual identified a Lamotrigine dosage
which best managed the Individual’s condition. Ex. AC at 1–19; Tr. at 73. The Individual has
adhered to this medication regimen since then. Tr. at 73–74; see also Ex. AC at 25–26
(demonstrating that the Individual has filled each prescription). The Friend testified to the
Individual’s use of pill organizers and the Individual’s storing of medication in his travel bag and
vehicle to ensure he does not miss a dose. Tr. at 23. The Individual’s Girlfriend testified that the
Individual uses a medication-tracking application on his phone to ensure that he adheres to his
medication schedule and has shared his data with an application on her phone so that she can
monitor his compliance. Id. at 39.
- 4 -
The Individual met with a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) for thirty-two psychotherapy
sessions from March 2020 to February 2022. Id. at 83; Ex. AK at 4. The Individual’s therapy with
the LCSW helped him to overcome stigma associated with his diagnosis and accept the diagnosis
without allowing it to “define” him as a person. Tr. at 106–07. The LCSW opined that the
Individual demonstrated “noteworthy” honesty and integrity compared to other patients, had
responded “extremely well” to treatment, and was likely to seek help if he experienced negative
symptoms in the future. Ex. AK at 6. To comply with the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation
that he pursue therapy with a psychologist, and at the recommendation of the Individual’s
Psychiatrist, the Individual recently began treatment with a psychologist specializing in patients
with mood disorders. Tr. at 80, 108; see also Ex. AJ (showing that the Individual met with a
psychologist on February 7, 2022).
The Individual has experienced improved energy and an absence of symptoms since beginning his
current medication regimen in March 2021, and has not experienced urges to self-harm since
discontinuing the use of antidepressants. Tr. at 110, 112–13. The Individual also testified that he
would contact the Individual’s Psychiatrist if he perceived that his medication was not effectively
managing his condition. Id. The Friend observed that the Individual appeared happier since
undergoing treatment and had not shown signs of a depressive episode for over one year prior to
the hearing. Id. at 17, 21. The Friend would encourage the Individual to consult with a medical
practitioner, and notify the Individual’s Girlfriend and parents, if he observed the Individual
displaying signs of mania or depression. Id. at 23–24. The Individual’s Girlfriend observed the
Individual demonstrated more energy, positivity, and proficiency in communicating his feelings
after undergoing treatment, and has not demonstrated manic or depressive behaviors since October
2020. Id. at 42, 57–58. The Individual’s Girlfriend would encourage the Individual to seek
professional assistance or contact his mental health practitioners herself if she observed symptoms
of mania or depression in the Individual. Id. at 43. The Individual’s Psychiatrist believes that the
Individual is adhering to his medication regimen, has not experienced a hypomanic episode since
October 2020, and has been stable since adopting his current medication regimen in March 2021.
Ex. AF at 1.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist indicated that Bipolar II Disorder is a permanent condition
that would require lifelong management. Tr. at 124–25, 127. He indicated that the Individual had
substantially complied with his treatment recommendations, the treatment had stabilized the
Individual’s condition, and that his Bipolar II Disorder was in remission. Id. at 125–26. The DOE
Psychologist stated that the symptoms of Bipolar II Disorder can generally be controlled with
medication, provided that the condition is closely monitored, and that the prevalence of clinically
significant hypomanic and depressive episodes in patients with Bipolar II Disorder who adhere to
their medication regimens was “very low.” Id. at 131–33. The DOE Psychologist opined that the
Individual’s prior self-harm did not pose a significant risk because it was the product of a
hypomanic episode, and that the Individual’s medication regimen significantly reduced the
probability of such an event occurring in the future. Id. at 130. He further opined that the
Individual’s prognosis remained fair based on the possibility that hypothetical future life events,
such as marriage, children, or relocation, could impact the management of the Individual’s
condition. Id. at 126–27, 133–34.
V. ANALYSIS
- 5 -
The Individual’s diagnosis with Bipolar II Disorder, and the DOE Psychologist’s opinion in his
Report that this condition may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, raises
security concerns under Guideline I. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b). The Individual asserted
that the security concerns were mitigated because his condition was controllable with treatment,
and he had successfully complied with treatment recommendations for over one year. Tr. at 8.
An individual can mitigate security concerns under Guideline I if:
(a) the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) [a] recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by,
or acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government [indicates] that an
individual’s previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low
probability of recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has
been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional
instability; or,
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(a)–(e).2
The DOE Psychologist opined that Bipolar II Disorder is controllable with treatment and that the
prevalence of clinically significant hypomanic and depressive episodes among patients who adhere
to their medication regimens is “very low.” The Individual offered substantial documentation, as
well as corroborating witness testimony and a letter from the Individual’s Psychiatrist, to
demonstrate that he has adhered to the medication regimen established in March 2021 and has not
experienced any hypomanic or depressive episodes since beginning the medication regimen. For
these reasons, I find that the Individual has satisfied the first mitigating condition under Guideline
I. Id. at ¶ 29(a).
The DOE Psychologist also opined that the Individual is stable, his Bipolar II Disorder is in
remission, the condition does not currently impair his judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness, and
that he has a low risk of hypomanic or depressive episodes so long as he adheres to his medication
regimen.3 For these reasons, I find that the Individual has satisfied the third mitigating condition
under Guideline I. Id. at ¶ 29(c).
2 The second mitigating condition is not applicable in this case because the one-page letter from the Individual’s
Psychiatrist is insufficient for me to conclude that the Individual has received an unqualified favorable prognosis.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(b). The fourth and fifth mitigating conditions are inapplicable because Bipolar II
Disorder is not a temporary condition. Id. at ¶ 29(d)–(e).
3 Although the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s prognosis was only “fair,” I nonetheless find that the
Individual has satisfied this mitigating condition. Balanced against this assessment is the DOE Psychologist’s own
- 6 -
The Individual is stable, has demonstrated exceptional compliance with his medication regimen,
only experienced a hypomanic episode as a side effect of antidepressants he was prescribed before
he was diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder, has not experienced any hypomanic or depressive
episodes for over one year, and has established effective personal and medical networks to support
his continued stability. For these reasons, I find that the Individual has resolved the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline I.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise 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
should be granted access authorization. Either party may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal
Panel pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
testimony that the risk of a person experiencing a clinically significant hypomanic or depressive episode was “very
low” if the person adhered to his medication regimen. The record indicates that the Individual has demonstrated
significant stability and adherence to his medication regimen. Consequently, after considering all of the evidence
before me, I find that third mitigation condition under Guideline I nonetheless applies in the present case.