PSH-22-0038

*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 29, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0038
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 6, 2022
_____________________
Administrative Judge Decision
_____________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXX XXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations
set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled “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 not be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position which requires that he hold a security
clearance. In March 2019, disciplinary actions were taken against the Individual for two separate
incidents. Ex. 4 at 1; Ex. 5 at 1, 4. These incidents gave rise to concerns that the Individual had
difficulty complying with rules and responding to authority. Ex. 5 at 1. Following the disciplinary
actions, the Individual was removed from the Human Reliability Program (HRP) but maintained
his security clearance. Ex. 5 at 4. In 2020, the Individual underwent a reinvestigation for his
security clearance by the Local Security Office (LSO). The reinvestigation raised doubts as to the
Individual’s continued eligibility for a security clearance. Specifically, the reinvestigation revealed
that the Individual’s supervisors had doubts regarding the Individual’s ability to cope with stress
and his attitude toward authority. The reinvestigation also found that a DOE site’s clinical
1 Access authorization is defined as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to
classified mater or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). Such
authorization will be referred to variously in this Decision as access authorization or security clearance.
2
psychologist opined that the Individual suffered from “a psychological condition that could call
into question his eligibility for continued clearance.” Ex. 5 at 5.
Subsequently, the Individual was asked by the LSO to undergo a psychological evaluation
conducted by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Ex. 3 at 1; Ex. 5 at 5. The
Individual complied with the LSO’s request, and a psychological evaluation was conducted on
August 25, 2021. Ex. 3 at 1. The DOE Psychologist opined in a September 8, 2021, report that
the Individual suffers from “several traits associated with narcissistic and avoidant personality
disorders that can impair his judgement, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.” Ex. 5 at 7. She
recommended psychotherapy and indicated that the Individual’s prognosis was poor. Ex. 5 at 7.
Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding
by issuing a letter (Notification Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance and that his clearance had been suspended. 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
Notification Letter informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of a therapist (Therapist). See Transcript
of Hearing, Case No. PSH-22-0038 (cited as “Tr.”). The Individual also submitted 11 exhibits
(“Ex.”), marked as Ex. A through K. The DOE Counsel presented the testimony of the DOE
Psychologist and submitted seven exhibits marked as Ex. 1 thorough 7.
II. Notification Letter and Associated Concerns
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance.
That information pertains to Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. Guideline I
(Psychological Conditions) provides that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions
can impair judgement, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Under
Guideline I, the LSO alleged that after conducting a psychological evaluation of the Individual,
the DOE Psychologist issued her September 2021 report indicating that the Individual suffers from
traits associated with narcissistic personality disorder and avoidant personality disorder, which can
impair his reliability, trustworthiness, and stability. Ex. 1 at 1. Further, the DOE Psychologist
determined that the Individual’s prognosis for rehabilitation from these traits was poor. Ex. 1 at 1.
This information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I in the present case.
3
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review process under Part 710 requires me, as Administrative Judge, to
issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgement, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable or 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),
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 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.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Therapist testified that in May 2019, she conducted several therapy sessions
with the Individual. Tr. at 13-14, 17. At the end of his first session, the Individual disclosed to her
that he had been assaulted when he was a young adult serving in the military. Tr. at 15, 65. During
those sessions, the Individual and his Therapist worked on reducing the Individual’s anxiety
surrounding the assault and they discussed other potentially helpful services. Tr. at 17. They also
discussed the Individual’s work stressors at the time, which included the fact that the Individual’s
then-supervisor reminded him of his assailant, which the Individual found triggering. Tr. at 17, 28.
The Therapist indicated that his reaction was “typical for survivors of trauma.” Tr. at 18. Based on
his symptoms and the Individual’s disclosure of the assault, the Individual was diagnosed by the
Therapist in May 2019 as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).2 Tr. at 19. To
alleviate his symptoms, the Therapist recommended additional therapy along with continuing with
his current anti-depression medication. Tr. at 19, 50, 83-84.
Nonetheless, the Individual believed that he did not require further therapy after his initial four
sessions with his Therapist in May 2019, and thus he discontinued therapy. Tr. at 17, 69-70. In
2 In making this diagnosis, the Therapist found that the Individual exhibited mood disruption, stress, anxiety,
depression, anger outbursts, and sleep disturbance. Tr. at 35, 38-43. The PTSD diagnosis was made pursuant to the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Tr. at 35.
4
December 2021, the Individual resumed therapy with the Therapist when his stressors increased.3
At this time, the Individual informed her of the psychological evaluation he underwent at the behest
of the DOE. Tr. at 21-22, 68-70.
The Therapist testified that, prior to reading the DOE Psychologist’s report, she had not been aware
of some of the specific events that had taken place during the Individual’s employment. Tr. at 22.
The Therapist further testified that she agreed with the DOE Psychologist’s report in that the
Individual has “some traits of avoidance personality disorder[,]” but she denied finding any traits
related to narcissistic personality disorder. Tr. at 23, 44-46. She also stated her belief that the
Individual continues to suffer from PTSD. Tr. at 23-24. In terms of the Individual’s avoidant
personality traits, he tends to “avoid conflict…to the point where he can…blow up or be a little bit
passive-aggressive with people.” Tr. at 25-26. The Therapist observed that the Individual is still
easily triggered by certain circumstances and people, and stated her desire to see the Individual
exhibit less reactionary behavior.4 Tr. at 26-27. She also indicated that the Individual’s PTSD and
avoidant personality traits have impacted his ability to deal with stress. Tr. at 29-30. The
Individual’s Therapist testified that the Individual tried “to avoid [his] supervisor so that he would
not get triggered,” and that she believed that his problematic behavior “could be seen as [the
Individual] being defiant[.]” Tr. at 20. Although the Individual was reluctant to share information
regarding his assault during his therapy sessions in 2019, his Therapist believes he is an honest
reporter of facts. Tr. at 20, 33-34.
The Therapist testified that she has observed improvement in the Individual’s ability to deal with
stressors, and further, that the Individual reported to her that his current job is less stressful for
him. Tr. at 36-37, 43. The Therapist believes that therapy has improved the Individual’s behavior
at home and work. Tr. at 30, 32, 34, 73-74, 79. The Therapist also believes that the Individual
understands that the events of his past do not have to continue impacting his behavior, and that he
reported feeling less defensive and on edge. Tr. at 77-78. The Therapist indicated that she plans
to see the Individual for several months to relieve some of the Individual’s PTSD symptomology
and that after this period, the Individual will be closer to resolving his PTSD. Tr. at 25, 33-34, 49-
50.
The Individual testified that when he reported for the psychological evaluation by the DOE
Psychologist, he had been informed that the report “was not confidential,” and at the time, he was
still experiencing feelings of embarrassment related to his assault. Tr. at 55; Ex. 5 at 5. The
3 At the time of the hearing, the Individual testified that he was seeing his Therapist on a weekly basis, with each
session lasting approximately 45 to 55 minutes. Tr. at 24-25, 31, 70; Ex. H. During their sessions, they discuss
relaxation skills, coping skills, and ways to understand triggers, and the Therapist educates the Individual about
trauma. Tr. at 31, 71-72. The Individual testified that he finds therapy helpful, intends to continue attending therapy,
and has experienced reduced anxiety and depression with his current anti-depression medication. Tr. at 31, 85, 108.
4 The Therapist observed that the Individual’s reactionary behavior is geared more toward individuals in an
interpersonal context rather than an entire system or environment. Tr. at 27. Accordingly, his ability to exercise good
judgement is situational, and his judgement may be affected if he is triggered. Tr. at 27, 38. The Individual may not
experience the same issues with a new supervisor, and further, the Individual’s issues with his prior supervisor could
be related to the Individual’s PTSD. Tr. at 27-28.
5
Individual testified that, as a result, he did not disclose information regarding the assault to the
DOE Psychologist as he should have. Tr. at 55-56. The Individual also testified that his PTSD had
affected his interactions at work and home. Tr. at 67-68. He admitted that he may have exhibited
an “attitude problem” toward his then supervisor and that some of his actions were wrong in
hindsight. Tr. at 62-63. The Individual asserted that at the time of his actions, he did not understand
that his behavior was the result of a trigger. Tr. at 63-64. He later connected his behavior at work
to his triggers, which consisted of certain behaviors exhibited by others. Tr. at 57-60, 64-65.
Although he was moved to another position at work, he does not feel that a return to his former
position would cause him increased stress. Tr. at 82-83 Further, he feels better equipped to identify
triggering situations. Tr. at 111-13. The Individual does not believe that his trauma has impacted
either his ability to make decisions or his judgement.5 Tr. at 99-101. Although he took no issue
with the accuracy of the facts in the DOE Psychologist’s report, he did disagree with the conclusion
that he suffers from narcissistic tendencies. Tr. at 109.
After hearing the Individual’s testimony, the DOE Psychologist changed her initial opinion from
the September 2021 report. Tr. at 117. At the time of the evaluation, she did not have information
pertaining to his trauma or prior PTSD diagnosis. Tr. at 117. Accordingly, she understood his
behaviors as “a personality disorder trait.” Tr. at 118. She summarized the diagnostic criteria of
PTSD that she believes the Individual meets and acknowledged that there was some improvement
in his symptoms and that some of the symptoms she had seen during the psychological evaluation
were no longer present. Tr. at 119-22. The DOE Psychologist opined that while, as of the time of
the hearing, the Individual did not meet all the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, he did have “a number
of symptoms associated with PTSD.” Tr. at 122-23, 125-26. In her testimony, the DOE
Psychologist described the Individual’s prognosis as “good” if he was addressing his issues.6 Tr.
at 126-27. Acknowledging the Therapist’s opinion that the Individual needs a few more months of
therapy, the DOE Psychologist was reluctant to state how many more therapy sessions the
Individual needs to resolve his PTSD symptoms, as progress is dependent on the Individual’s
needs. Tr. at 127-29. Although the Individual’s reliability had improved since the August 2021
psychological evaluation, the DOE Psychologist could not be certain about how the Individual’s
reliability and judgment would be impacted in the event he were triggered. Tr. at 131. Accordingly,
the DOE Psychologist feels she would “be able to speak more confidently [regarding the
Individual’s] judgement and reliability” once the Individual has engaged in additional therapy “to
[permit him to] be able to identify those specific warning signs [for triggering events] and then
[engage in] a specific plan for how to handle them.” Tr. at 132.
5 The Individual’s immediate supervisor indicated in a letter that the Individual is “positive and encouraging” and that
he “perform[s] his duties promptly without complaints.” Ex. A. Other supervisors and coworkers confirmed that the
Individual “perform[ed] the duties assigned to him in a timely and responsible manner[,]” and that the Individual “did
everything that was asked of him.” Exs. B, C, and D.
6 At the time of the hearing, the Individual was also participating in a 12-week group therapy program for Individuals
in his profession. Tr. at 86-87; Exs. F, G, and H. The Individual testified that the peer-led group has assisted him in
“dealing with [his] trauma[.]” Tr. at 88-89.
6
V. Analysis
Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines indicate that an individual may mitigate Guideline I concerns 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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(a)-(e).
Although the Individual initially sought treatment in 2019, he decided to discontinue treatment
when he felt the stressors in his life had resolved. This was despite his Therapist’s recommendation
that he continue treatment to address his PTSD. The Individual returned to therapy in 2021, and
through the therapy he received, he was able to connect his problematic behavior at work with the
PTSD triggers he was experiencing. Although the Individual has been engaging in individual
therapy and is on medication, the Individual has not progressed enough in his therapy to resolve
all his PTSD symptoms. Specifically, both the DOE Psychologist and the Therapist testified that,
while some of the Individual’s symptoms have been reduced or completely resolved, the Individual
continues to exhibit some PTSD symptoms. Accordingly, concern remains regarding the
Individual’s reliability and judgement in the event the Individual were to be confronted with a
triggering condition or circumstance.
I find that the only mitigating factor that possibly applies in this case is listed in paragraph 29(b).7
However, given the questions surrounding the Individual’s future conduct raised by the DOE
Psychologist, I cannot find that his prognosis is sufficiently favorable to invoke this factor or
determine that this factor, if applicable, alone would sufficiently resolve the security concerns
raised by the Guideline I derogatory information.
7 Regarding the other mitigating factors listed in paragraph 29, I cannot find that the Individual has “demonstrated
ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan,” given the relatively recent initiation of his current
treatment plan. See ¶ 29(a). Nor can I find that there is a “low probability of recurrence or exacerbation” of the
Individual’s PTSD symptoms or that the Individual’s condition is “temporary.” See ¶ 29(c), (d). Lastly, I cannot find
that there is “no indication of a current problem” regarding the Individual. See ¶ 29(e).
7
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline I of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both 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 concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, the
Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, the
Individual’s security clearance should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Richard A. Cronin, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals