PSH-22-0109

*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: June 28, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0109
)
______________________________________)
Issued: November 9, 2022
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s
(DOE) regulations, as 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 Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In July 2021, the Individual was subject to a five-day suspension due to “unacceptable
and unprofessional conduct in the workplace.” Exhibit (Ex.) 5. In October 2021, the Local Security
Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual, which sought information
about the Individual’s personal conduct regarding his employment. Ex. 7. The Individual
subsequently underwent a psychological evaluation by a DOE consultant psychologist
(Psychologist) in January 2022. Ex. 8. The Psychologist determined that the Individual had
“features of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder which [led] him to exhibit poor judgment,
emotional instability, and untrustworthiness.” Id. at 6.
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 -
Due to unresolved security concerns related to the Individual’s psychological condition, the LSO
informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable information that created
substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. In an attachment to the
Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns
under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations by requesting an administrative review hearing. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge in the case, and I
subsequently conducted an administrative hearing in the matter. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel
submitted ten numbered exhibits (Ex. 1-10) into the record and presented the testimony of the
Psychologist. The Individual introduced three lettered exhibits (Ex. A-C) into the record, and
presented the testimony of four witnesses, including himself. The hearing transcript in the case
will be cited as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.
II. Regulatory Standard
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 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.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
As previously stated, the Notification Letter included a statement of derogatory information that
raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The information in the
letter attachment specifically cites Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Guideline I relates
to certain emotional, mental and personality conditions that can impair judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. An opinion by a duly qualified mental health
- 3 -
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). As support for citing
Guideline I, the LSO cited the Psychologist’s Evaluation Report (Report), which concluded that
the Individual has an emotional, mental, or personality condition that can impair judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 1.
IV. Findings of Fact
The LSO alleged that, in August 2020, Individual twice engaged in an “unprofessional” verbal
exchange with a Protective Force Officer (PFO) when entering his worksite, once
“expressing…frustration with the delay” in the amount of time the PFO was taking to process entry
onto the worksite, and once regarding whether the Individual came to a full and complete stop at
the entry point of the worksite. Ex. 7 at 2. The Individual used an expletive during the second
incident. Id. The Individual explained in the LOI that he was feeling pressure due to deadlines that
resulted from the “COVID shutdown, [and he] was anxious to get to [his] workspace to address
ongoing work obligations.” Id. at 2-3.
The LSO asserted that, in June 2021, several employees in the Individual’s workspace reported
that, during a network shutdown, the Individual became “very agitated, angry, aggressive,
accusatory, demeaning, and in some cases used inappropriate language” while seeking help from
information technology (IT) personnel. Id. at 1. According to the LSO, a coworker alleged that the
Individual additionally “used his fists to pound on [three] office doors” of IT personnel. Ex. 5 at
1. As a result of the incident, the Individual received a five-day suspension. Ex. 6. In the LOI, the
Individual attributed the incident to “the stress of management-imposed urgent deadlines” as well
as his “then-underdiagnosed and uncontrolled Type-2 Diabetes.” Ex. 7 at 2. The Individual
explained that he “realized [he] needed anger management counseling to learn better how to
manage [his] emotions in a more productive and professional manner.” Id. at 5. As such, he
voluntarily entered individual counseling in early July 2021, which he attended “weekly for about
one month, biweekly for about two months, and continuing monthly” up through the date of the
hearing. Id. He additionally sought medical care for his “uncontrolled Type-2 Diabetes.” Id. at 6.
In January 2022, the Psychologist evaluated the Individual and issued her Report. Ex. 8. During
the evaluation, the Individual stated that his 2021 “outburst” at work was “atypical,” and he felt
that it was due to a medical condition. Id. at 2. The Individual explained that, following the
incident, he visited his physician and was diagnosed with diabetes. Id. He stated that he was
prescribed medication and was counseled on altering his diet and exercise.2 Id. The Individual told
the Psychologist that he had not experienced another incident like the 2021 outburst since that
time. Id.
The Psychologist reported that there were “notable inconsistencies” between how the Individual
described his behavior during the August 2020 and June 2021 incidents and how witnesses to the
2 The Psychologist noted that she contacted the Individual’s physician, who indicated that increased irritability would
have been a rare symptom for the Individual’s condition. Ex. 8 at 3. The physician also told the Psychologist that the
Individual had not reported “any psychiatric problems.” Id.
- 4 -
incidents described his behavior, stating that the Individual recalled his behavior as “much less
intense” and “much less aggressive that the descriptions provided by others.”3 Id. at 3. She further
noted that the Individual showed limited insight regarding the impact of his actions on others. Id.
The Psychologist opined that the Individual’s interview revealed that “he continues to have
difficulty recognizing the seriousness of his actions and understanding how others might feel in
response to such behavior.” Id.
In addition to contacting the Individual’s physician, the Psychologist also spoke with the
Individual’s personal therapist (Therapist). Id. The Therapist told the Psychologist that he had
diagnosed the Individual with an “Adjustment Disorder Unspecified” and had conducted 11
sessions with the Individual. Id. He stated that they initially met once per week, decreased to bi-
weekly sessions, and at the time of the January 2022 evaluation, they were meeting monthly.4 The
Therapist stated that the goals of their treatment were to “improve anger management, learn skills
to prevent and manage stress, and have greater acceptance when things were outside of [the
Individual’s] control.” Id.
The Therapist reported that the Individual did not disclose that he had banged on doors during the
June 2021 incident and noted that the Individual had “not been very forthcoming about the
incidents other than to say that he was embarrassed because he had become frustrated in response
to what others had done or not done.” Id. at 3-4. According to the Psychologist, the Therapist
revealed that “issues” similar to the June 2021 incident had occurred at home in response the
Individual’s frustrations with his wife.5 Id. at 4. When the Psychologist sought the Therapist’s
opinion regarding any features the Individual may display of obsessive-compulsive personality
disorder, the Psychologist reported that the Therapist “conceded that [the Individual] did set
exceedingly high expectations for himself and tended to be rigid and inflexible in attempting to
achieve his goals.” Id.
Ultimately, the Psychologist opined that the Individual:
exhibited some symptoms of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, specifically,
being overly devoted to work and productivity to the point that leisure activities and
social relationships were excluded, over conscientiousness and inflexibility about his
values, and rigidity or stubbornness. He may have also shown perfectionism and an
unwillingness to delegate unless he maintained control; insufficient information was
obtained to support those characteristics. He showed a tendency to minimize his
shortcomings. He took his work very seriously, perhaps too seriously at times. A focus
3 The Psychologist noted that she used the Individual’s personnel security file, including case evaluation sheets, emails,
the LOI, and an enhanced subject interview of the individual, to gather information regarding the Individual’s behavior
in the workplace. Ex. 8 at 4.
4 The Therapist did not provide the Psychologist with specific scheduling details. Ex. 8 at 3.
5 It should be noted that, during the hearing, the Individual, the Individual’s wife, and the Therapist disputed the
accuracy of this statement. See Tr. at 32, 41, 122, 186. The Individual and Therapist pointed to additional inaccuracies
in the Report as well. See id. at 29, 186.
- 5 -
of therapy had been recognizing the value of family, suggesting that he had
deprioritized social relationships over work achievement. He had exceedingly high
expectations of himself. He persisted at tasks rigidly and became frustrated when
things were not done as he would have wanted. These traits had been present for most
of his adult life. Although there was inadequate evidence to diagnose a personality
disorder, these character traits made him vulnerable to emotional instability under
conditions of stress.
Id. at 5. As such, the Psychologist concluded that the Individual had an emotional, mental, or
personality condition that could impair his judgment, reliability, stability, or trustworthiness. Id.
at 6. She recommended that the Individual attend psychotherapy for 50 minutes each week with
goals of improving distress tolerance and emotional regulation, increasing flexibility when facing
challenging situations, and improving work-life balance. Id. The Psychologist suggested weekly
therapy for at least one year and until the therapist and Individual agreed that the treatment goals
were met. Id.
At the hearing, four witnesses testified on the Individual’s behalf: a colleague (Colleague), his
therapist (Therapist), his wife (Wife), and the Individual himself. The Colleague testified that he
had known the Individual for over 20 years in both a professional and personal capacity. Tr. at 75-
76. The Colleague described the Individual as creative in fashioning solutions to problems and
passionate about his work, in which he “takes great pride.” Id. at 80. He explained that the
Individual is diligent, focused, has a strong work ethic, and maintains an “encyclopedic
knowledge” of his craft. Id. at 78-79. The Colleague noted that the Individual has consistently
maintained a strong work-life balance and is involved in his community as well as outdoor
recreational activities. See id. at 82-83, 106. He additionally testified that the Individual had
apprised him of the June 2021 incident, including the banging on the doors, and he noted that, due
to the frustration present in the line of work that he and the Individual perform, his has seen
“cursing and banging” from various employees “on more than one occasion.” Id. at 84-85.
The Wife testified that she had been married to the Individual for 36 years. Id. at 115. She described
the Individual as “someone people like to be around,” having a “gentle heart,” and being “very
strongly opinionated.” Id. at 139-140. The Wife testified that the Individual is highly active in his
church and community, engaging in various volunteer programs. See id. at 129-133. She further
explained that he enjoys outdoor activities and frequently engages in outdoor outings with friends
and family. Id. at 130.
Regarding the time prior to the June 2021 incident, the Wife noted that the Individual “had a lot
of demands made on him, and he was constantly getting phone calls and demands to work long
hours.” Id. at 118. She observed that the Individual was “having a hard time…because there were
so many demands,” to a level of which she had never seen him subjected to previously. Id. at 118,
120. The Wife observed that, because of the demands that were placed upon him, he did not have
time for his outdoor activities or typical stress relievers. Id. at 141. Additionally, she noted that the
Individual was not eating or sleeping well. Id.
- 6 -
The Wife testified that despite the pressures she saw him feeling from work, the Individual’s
behavior remained stable at home. Id. at 120. She stated that, following the June 2021 incident,
the Individual came home “very sad.” The Wife testified that he told her, “I shouldn’t have handled
it the way I did. I really feel that…I was just too strong, and I…have to apologize.” Id. at 123. She
noted that since the Individual has been in counseling, she has noticed that he is not “internalizing”
his frustration anymore. Id. at 128. The Wife stated that his body language is calmer, and the
Individual has gained tools that have helped him manage frustration. Id. at 128-129.
The Individual testified that, for several months leading up to the June 2021 incident, he had “been
under increasing pressure to complete a number of projects,” both his own and those of others. Id.
at 161. He explained that due to disagreements related to the projects, there was a “collision of
demands and stress and priorities all being intertwined.” Id. The Individual stated that he went to
his managers to express his concerns, “but they were not being heard,” and due to a number of
factors, the Individual felt that “the stress that was put upon [him] during that time period was
unlike the normal stress associated with [his] job prior to that time.” Id. at 163. As such, he
explained that it was unlikely that he would ever have that level of stress again, and given the tools
that he gained through therapy, he stated that he would not “allow [himself] to be placed back into
that kind of pressure situation.” Id. at 164. The Individual testified that, since the June 2021
incident, he has not engaged in any problem behavior in the workplace. Id. at 155.
The Individual testified that, after a “few days of reflection” following the June 2021 incident, he
realized that he needed counseling for anger management and stress. Id. at 154. The Individual
testified that he began counseling with the Therapist in early July 2021, and he and the Therapist
engaged in weekly sessions for several months. Id. at 156-157. Eventually, the Individual stated,
the sessions became bi-weekly, until the Therapist stated that he had seen progress in the
Individual’s therapy and asked the Individual if he would like to continue with the sessions.6 Id. at
157. The Individual testified that he told the Therapist that he wanted to continue with counseling,
and the Therapist suggested that they meet monthly in order “to continue to put into practice what
[the Individual had] been learning.” Id. at 158. The Individual testified that the Therapist told him
that he had gone beyond meeting the goals and objectives of therapy, and the monthly meetings
were “icing on the cake.” Id. at 197.
The Individual noted that when he received the Psychologist’s Report in approximately April of
2022, he showed the Report to the Therapist and asked if they should increase the frequency of
their sessions to weekly. Id. The Individual stated that the Therapist told him that they “had met
the goals and objectives” and the Therapist “didn’t see anything to be gained that [they] were not
already gaining with [the] monthly schedule.” Id. The Individual stated that he has continued in
therapy as of the date of the hearing and has a session scheduled following the date of the hearing.
Id. at 192.
6 The Individual could not recall any specific dates or timeframes for the change in frequency of his counseling
sessions. Tr. at 157-158.
- 7 -
The Individual testified that, upon beginning therapy, he “had a hard time admitting to [himself]
the severity of what [he] had done” during the June 2021 incident, but through “counseling and
reflection,” he was able to articulate “how much of a jerk” he had been during the incident. Id. at
153-154. He explained that he can now articulate his culpability, recognize how it impacts others,
and know that it will not happen again. Id. at 167. The Individual additionally stated that he had a
hard time sharing the details of the incident as he was embarrassed and did not want to admit what
he had done. Id. at 158. He noted, however, that, through therapy, he became more “self-aware,”
and he and the Therapist were able to focus on ensuring that a similar incident would not occur
again. Id. at 159.
In addressing the specific tools he learned in therapy, the Individual explained that he and the
Therapist discussed the “escalatory ladder” that occurs when a person becomes angry and how to
recognize and mitigate it. Id. He detailed six actions that he takes to control his anger and explained
how he is working on setting boundaries and expectations for those around him. Id. at 160. The
Individual also explained that, through therapy, he now realizes that although he can “perform at
a very high level,” he cannot “do everything.” Id. at 164. He noted that one of the “biggest”
techniques he has learned is taking a deep breath, counting to ten, and then counting again. Id. at
165-166. The Individual stated that “it’s just taking a moment to let” the stressor pass, and when
it passes, he can think constructively about alternatives to the situation, whether he can resolve the
situation, or whether the situation is out of his control and something he must accept. Id. at 166.
The Individual provided an example of a stressful situation in his personal life in which he
implemented the tools he had learned in therapy to successfully and calmly managed a frustrating
and difficult situation. See id. at 168-171.
The Therapist testified that he began meeting with the Individual, on a weekly basis, for therapy
in early July 2021. Id. at 18. He explained that, when he saw the Individual making progress,
sessions became bi-weekly, and once the Therapist felt that the therapeutic objectives had been
met, the Individual requested that therapy continue monthly. Id. The Therapist noted that, initially,
the Individual did not provide specific details regarding the June 2021 incident, but the Therapist
explained that he did not feel that details were “necessary.” Id. at 19.
The Therapist described the Individual as “very receptive” to therapy. Id. at 22. He explained that
the Individual did not want to continue to function in a manner that was leading to detrimental
incidents in his life, and as such, he was “very compliant” and successfully utilized the tools he
learned in therapy. Id. at 22. He noted that the Individual has become less guarded since they first
met and has been “more open” through the progression of therapy. Id. at 33. Although the Therapist
noted that he still is unaware of everything that transpired during the June 2021 incident, he noted
that this information is not important to him as the focus of treatment was not what happened in
the past, but, rather, learning how to mitigate stress and anger. Id. at 34.
The Therapist testified that he diagnosed the Individual with “an adjustment disorder unspecified.”
Id. at 20. In order to help the Individual cope with stress, the Therapist explained that he and the
Individual worked on meditation, breathing exercises, progressive relaxation, and other techniques
that would aid the Individual in dissipating rising tension. Id. at 21. He added that he helped the
- 8 -
Individual learn to advocate for himself and implement boundaries when stressors were becoming
too invasive. Id. The Therapist opined that if the Individual continues to utilize the tools and
strategies he learned in therapy, it is “not likely” that the Individual will experience “an event
cascading into something big.” Id. at 36.
In turning the Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual had features of obsessive-compulsive
personality disorder, the Therapist opined that it is not unusual for these characteristics to be
“found in people that are high-achieving individuals,” but he did not feel that the Individual
displayed these features with “severity.” Id. Overall, the Therapist expressed that he felt that the
Psychologist perhaps misinterpreted his observations and overstated the degree to which the
Individual displayed any features of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. See id. at 28-31.
Nonetheless, he testified that he felt that the Individual had successfully met each of the treatment
goals recommended in the Psychologist’s Report. Tr. at 37.
The Psychologist testified after observing the hearing and listening to the testimony of the
witnesses. The Psychologist clarified that she did not diagnose the Individual with obsessive-
compulsive personality disorder, but she “pointed out that he had traits of that.” Id. at 200. She
explained that her reasoning for not reaching a diagnosis was because the Individual did not meet
of the criteria for a diagnosis, but also because she had only performed one interview with the
Individual and felt she needed more information to reach a diagnosis. Id. She additionally noted
that she relied on information provided to her by the Therapist, “the person who knew him better,”
and when she “put all that information together,” it appeared to her that the concerning
characteristics “had been long-standing, and [were] appearing not just at work, but also at home.”
Id. at 202.
Based upon what she heard from the Therapist and the Individual during the hearing, the
Psychologist felt that the Individual was “able to articulate the…kind of changes that [she] would
want to see.” Id. at 204. However, the Psychologist expressed concern regarding the Individual
not being as forthcoming as she would like to see. She felt that she had not “heard a very thorough,
detailed description” of why the Therapist opined that the Individual had made progress toward
treatment goals. Id. at 205. Additionally, the Psychologist expressed concern regarding the
Therapist’s approach to treatment. Id. at 206-207, 211. Ultimately, the Psychologist opined that
the Individual had not yet met the treatment goals she recommended in her Report, and she
concluded that her original assessment regarding that the Individual’s features of obsessive-
compulsive personality disorder impacting his judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness
had not changed. Id. at 209-211.
V. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. In resolving the question of
the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors
prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have
determined that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by the LSO
- 9 -
under Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Accordingly, I find that restoring the Individual's
DOE security clearance will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly
consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). Therefore, I have determined that the
Individual’s security clearance should be restored. The specific findings that I make in support of
this decision are discussed below.
Certain personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 27. An opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual
has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness may raise a
security concern and disqualify a person from holding a security clearance. Id. at ¶ 28(a).
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline I include:
(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 that an individual’s previous
condition is under control 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 show indications of emotional instability;
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Id. at ¶ 29.
Here, the Psychologist determined that the Individual had features of obsessive-compulsive
personality disorder, which led him to exhibit poor judgment, emotional instability, and
untrustworthiness. Id. at ¶ 28(b). Additionally, the Individual was diagnosed with an adjustment
disorder by the Therapist. Id. The Individual voluntarily entered counseling, which he attended for
more than a year, and continues to participate in therapy sessions. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶
29(a), (b). According to the Therapist, the Individual was compliant and receptive to the
Therapist’s treatments and recommendations, and the Individual was able to explain the tools and
techniques he gained through therapy and how he uses them in his life. Id. at ¶ 28(a); Tr. at 22.
According to the Therapist, the Individual has met all treatment goals and objectives, and
furthermore, the Individual requested that therapy continue, even after the Therapist concluded
that the Individual had met the treatment goals and objectives and issued a favorable prognosis.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(b), (c).
However, the Psychologist concluded that the Individual has not resolved the concerns related to
her assessment that the Individual has features of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder,
- 10 -
which led him to exhibit poor judgment, emotional instability, and untrustworthiness. I am
unconvinced by the Psychologist’s opinion, for the following reasons. First, it appears that the
Psychologist may have misinterpreted some of the information relayed to her by the Therapist, as
the Therapist felt that she had overstated some of his observations, and at times, incorrectly
documented certain details. Furthermore, the Psychologist herself, pointed out that the Therapist
knows the Individual better, as she had only conducted one interview with the Individual and the
Therapist had a relationship with the Individual extending over a year. Although the Psychologist
disagrees with the Therapist’s treatment approach, given the Therapist’s continual and consistent
relationship with the Individual, I accept his opinion that the Individual does not exhibit features
of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder to the degree that the Psychologist found concerning
and has successfully met his treatment goals and objectives.
Additionally, the Individual’s progress in therapy appears to be evident, not only to the Therapist
and the Individual, but also to the Wife, who testified to the manner in which the Individual is now
able to better cope with his stress and frustration. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the
Individual has engaged in any concerning behavior in the workplace since beginning his therapy,
and based upon the testimony of the Individual, the Wife, and the Therapist it appears that the
Individual has successfully met the treatment goals articulated by the Psychologist. Although the
Individual has not engaged in weekly therapy for the span of a year, as the Psychologist suggested,
the record indicates that he has been actively engaged with the Therapist for approximately 16
months. Furthermore, the Psychologist recommended that the Individual continue with therapy
until the Therapist and the Individual agreed that the treatment goals had been met. In this case,
not only did the Therapist testify that the treatment goals had been met, but the Individual continues
to express a desire to continue the sessions. As such, I find that the Individual has successfully
mitigated the security concerns associated with Adjudicative Guideline I.
VI. Conclusion
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 have found that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns associated with Guideline I. Accordingly, I find that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals