PSH-23-0040

*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 23, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0040
)
______________________________________)
Issued: July 3, 2023
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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 not be granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In May 2022, during a Triggered Enhanced Subject Interview, conducted as part of the
application for a security clearance, the Individual revealed that, in April 2022, he voluntarily
hospitalized himself for a mental health condition. Exhibit 7 (Ex.) at 53. As a result of this
disclosure, the Individual underwent an evaluation by a DOE consultant psychiatrist (DOE
Psychiatrist) in September 2022. Ex. 5. Based on the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist determined
that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, text
revision (DSM-5-TR), criteria for Schizophreniform Disorder, with good prognostic features. Id.
at 8. Due to security concerns related to the Individual’s psychological condition, the Local
Security Office (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
the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) that accompanied the Notification Letter, the LSO
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 -
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 to request 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 seven numbered exhibits (Exs. 1–7) into the record. The Individual introduced two
lettered exhibits (Ex. A–B.) 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. Id. § 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 mentioned, the Notification Letter included the SSC, which sets forth the derogatory
information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The
SSC specifically cites Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. Guideline I addresses
certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions that can impair a person’s judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27.
Regarding Guideline I, the LSO cited the DOE Psychiatrist’s report of his evaluation (Report),
which determined that the Individual met the DSM-5-TR criteria for Schizophreniform Disorder
with good prognostic features. Ex. 1. It also cited the DOE Psychiatrist’s conclusions that this
condition can impair the Individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness; the
- 3 -
Individual’s recurrent psychotic episodes have impaired his judgment in the past; and the prognosis
regarding the absence of future episodes was “only fair.” Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Psychological Evaluation
In September 2022, the Individual underwent an evaluation with the DOE Psychiatrist. Ex. 5.
Following the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a Report, detailing his findings. Id.
According to the Report, the Individual disclosed that he has a family history of schizophrenia,
and around 2013, before the Individual was 20 years old, he began having “strange thoughts.” Id.
at 2. When asked about the contents of the “strange thoughts,” the Individual told the DOE
Psychiatrist that he thought that “aliens could read [his] mind, if they saw [his] calves.” Id. The
Individual stated that the “strange thoughts” lasted for approximately two weeks, but he refused to
wear shorts for around a year thereafter. Id. at 2–3. According to the DOE Psychiatrist, the
Individual described his two weeks of “strange thoughts” as a “psychotic state.” Id. at 3. The
Individual recalled that he sought the help of a school counselor at the time, who recommended
that he see a psychiatrist. Id. at 2. He told the DOE Psychiatrist that, although he did not refuse to
see a psychiatrist, he never attended an appointment with a psychiatrist, nor did he take “any
psychiatric medications.” Id.
During the evaluation, the Individual stated that he began working for a DOE contractor in early
2022, and shortly thereafter, he experienced a second “psychotic episode.” Id. at 4. He told the
DOE Psychiatrist that, leading up to the second psychotic episode, he was experiencing stress,
which included worrying about DOE learning about “his ‘history of this stuff’ [i.e. his initial
psychotic episode]. [sic]” Id. The Individual elaborated, stating, “if I lose this job, it will be even
harder to get a next one.” Id. According to the Report, in March or April 2022,2 the Individual
“began having his life’s second psychotic episode, experiencing both hallucinations and
delusions.” Id. The Individual revealed that the voices he heard were telling him that people were
making plans to kill his loved ones. Id. He was also “having paranoid delusions that ‘[people] were
stealing [his] identity and framing [him].’” Id. The Individual explained to the DOE Psychiatrist
that, by the end of the month, he feared that people were gathering outside his home with weapons,
and he called the police. Id. At the recommendation of law enforcement, he went to the hospital to
“seek help.” Id.
During the evaluation with the DOE Psychiatrist, the Individual disclosed that, around 5:00 A.M.,
he sought help at a local psychiatric urgent care facility, where he was evaluated and treated. Id.
He recalled that the medical providers prescribed seven days of five milligrams of Abilify, an
antipsychotic medication, and made him a follow up appointment with a psychiatrist (Personal
Psychiatrist). Id. at 4–5. The Individual was unable to recall if he was given a diagnosis at that
time. Id. at 5.
According to the Individual’s disclosure during the evaluation, he saw his Personal Psychiatrist
approximately one week after he was treated in the psychiatric urgent care facility. Id. The
2 The Report is unclear as to whether the second psychotic episode occurred in March or April of 2022. Ex. 5 at 4.
- 4 -
Individual recalled that after one week of Abilify, “the voices tapered off,” and his Personal
Psychiatrist gave him a 30-day prescription for five milligrams of Abilify. Id. He noted that,
although the Personal Psychiatrist did not give him “any definite diagnosis,” the Personal
Psychiatrist “suspected schizophrenia.” Id. He also began attending a psychiatric program at the
local medical university, where he saw a therapist for individual education and counseling sessions
on a weekly basis. Id. at 6.
The Individual told the DOE Psychiatrist that he began meeting with his Personal Psychiatrist
“every couple weeks,” and although he “took his medications regularly, . . . after approximately
three weeks, occasionally ‘the voices were still loud.’” Id. at 5. The Individual relayed that, around
early May 2022, the voices began telling him that his Abilify pills were sugar pills and that he
should take all the remaining pills. Id. The Individual did so, taking approximately ten Abilify pills
and then called Poison Control, which recommended that he seek emergency medical attention.
Id. After seeking emergency medical treatment, the Individual recalled that he was transferred to
a psychiatrist center, where he remained overnight. Id.
The Individual told the DOE Psychiatrist that, following his discharge from the psychiatric facility,
he continued to see his Personal Psychiatrist on a biweekly basis and continued taking his
five-milligram prescription of Abilify. Id. He noted that by, July 2022, he saw a “noticeable
improvement” as he “could tell real sounds from hallucinations.” Id. At the time of the evaluation,
the Individual stated that he was not having any “hallucinations, delusions, or any other psychiatric
symptoms,” and he continues to see his Personal Psychiatrist on a monthly basis. Id. at 6.
Following the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist determined that the Individual “suffers from a
recurrent psychotic disorder,” which he specified as Schizophreniform Disorder, with good
prognostic features. Id. at 7. He explained that a Schizophreniform Disorder diagnosis “is given if
there is a symptomatic presentation equivalent to that of schizophrenia except that its duration is
less than 6 months and there has been no decline in overall functioning.” Id. The DOE Psychiatrist
noted that, given that the Individual suffered from delusions and hallucinations and had an episode
of the disorder which lasted at least one month, but less than six months, the Individual met the
DSM-5-TR criteria for Schizophreniform Disorder. Id. at 8. Regarding his prognosis, the DOE
Psychiatrist determined that the Individual fulfilled two features of the diagnostic specifier of “with
good prognostic features”: (1) onset of prominent psychotic symptoms within four weeks of the
first noticeable change in usual behavior or functioning and (2) experiencing confusion or
perplexity about the psychotic symptoms. Id. Given this diagnosis, the DOE Psychiatrist found
that the Individual has an emotional, mental, or personality condition that can impair his judgment,
stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Id. at 9. He additionally noted that the Individual’s
“recurrent psychotic episodes have impaired his judgement in the past, and the prognosis regarding
absence of future episodes is only fair.” Id.
B. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, a coworker (Coworker) testified on the Individual’s behalf. The Coworker testified
that he first met the Individual through work in September 2022, and they worked together for four
months. Tr. at 51. The Coworker noted that, during those four months, he and the Individual would
see each other at work three times per week and would “talk for 30, 45 minutes a day,” but they
- 5 -
did not have any social contact outside work. Id. at 51–52. According to the Coworker, beginning
in January 2023, he and the Individual began working in separate locations. Id. at 50–52. At that
time, they would have in person contact approximately once every other week, but they would
speak through a virtual platform two or three times per week. Id. The Coworker testified that he
found the Individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness to be “good” and noted that he
never questioned the Individual’s judgment or reliability. Id. at 52–53. He also stated that the
Individual had never displayed any behavior in the work environment that the Coworker found to
be concerning. Id. at 56–57.
The Individual’s therapist (Therapist) also testified on his behalf. She testified that she works in a
specialized mental health program (Program) that provides “intensive, comprehensive, team-based
services for young people experiencing . . . a first episode of psychosis.” Id. at 28. In describing
the Program, the Therapist explained that it provides early intervention to people at onset or “as
close to onset as possible of a psychosis experience.” Id. at 44. She noted that the Program is
available for an individual for approximately two years, and “after the first couple of years of
intervention,” the path forward “will depend on [an] individual’s interests.” Id. at 44–45. The
Therapist stated that at the Program “often work[s] with folks to refer them out for continuing care,
and [the providers] often recommend . . . continued treatment or some level of formal mental health
support.” Id. at 44–45.
The Therapist stated that she works on a multidisciplinary treatment team, which in the
Individual’s case, is in conjunction with the Personal Psychiatrist. Id. at 14. She testified that her
role “specifically is around supporting folks in developing skills for recovery,” which may include
processing a “first episode experience,” reflecting on the episode, developing skills for insight
building and wellness planning, exploring the factors that may precipitate an increase in symptoms
and addressing them, and developing stress management tools and coping mechanisms. Id. She
stated that she also provides “psychoeducation to help people learn about psychosis and the
specifics of their diagnosis.” Id.
The Therapist recalled that she first began working with the Individual on a weekly basis in April
2022. Id. at 13. She stated that the Individual is “exceptionally consistent” regarding attendance of
his therapy appointments, and he has “done wonderful work” in the Program. Id. at 14–15. The
Therapist testified that, after beginning the Program, the Personal Psychiatrist diagnosed the
Individual with schizophrenia. Id. at 31. She described the Individual’s progress in the Program as
“exceptional.” Id. She explained that, after beginning with the Program, the Individual’s psychosis
symptoms “resolved pretty quickly with . . . appropriate supports and intervention,” and since that
time, the Individual has “continued to do really significant therapeutic work . . . around building
skills for long-term recovery.” Id. at 15.
The Therapist testified that, despite following all treatment recommendations, at the beginning of
November 2022, the Individual experienced “breakthrough symptoms.” Id. at 15, 17–18. She
explained that breakthrough symptoms are “mental health symptoms that occur even in the
presence of otherwise effective treatment.” Id. at 17. The Therapist noted that the breakthrough
symptoms are a “normative part of recovery” and occur even when people “are on effective
medication, where folks are stable, where they're compliant with treatment and otherwise doing
really well.” Id. at 17. She explained that she learned of the Individual’s breakthrough symptoms
- 6 -
during a therapy session when the Individual disclosed that he was hearing voices. Id. at 19. The
Therapist testified that the Individual indicated that the breakthrough symptoms were caused by
the stress of the upcoming holiday season, along with family obligations. Id. at 22. She stated that,
as a result, she and the Individual addressed symptom management and stress reduction, and she
additionally encouraged the Individual to engage with the Personal Psychiatrist. Id. at 21. The
Therapist explained that the Personal Psychiatrist made a change to the Individual’s medication,
and the symptoms resolved following the medication adjustment. Id. at 21–22.
The Therapist testified that she felt that the Individual’s disclosure of his breakthrough symptoms
was significant because it demonstrated that the Individual was able to differentiate between the
voices and reality.3 Id. at 20. She noted that it also showed that the Individual “is engaged and
committed to his treatment and recovery, that he's doing the work of recovery, reflecting on what's
going on in his life, where he's at, building insight, and then reaching out for help and support as
needed.” Id. She further stated that the disclosure indicated the Individual’s “commitment to his
wellness and his treatment and recovery and he had the insight to recognize that something in his
experience had shifted.” Id. at 19.
The Therapist stated that, in her time with the Individual, they have focused on expanding the
Individual’s social engagement and deepening the quality of his social relationships. Id. at 23. She
explained that the Individual has begun dating, started a new relationship, and is developing a new
friend group. Id. at 23. The Therapist noted that, although the clearance process has been stressful
for the Individual, he has “been able to manage the stress surrounding his clearance without having
any breakthrough symptoms.” Id. at 25–26. She testified that she felt that the Individual’s
engagement in the Program and his insightfulness “reflects well on his prognosis,” which she
described as “quite good, given how well he’s responded to treatment.” Id. at 19–20, 36. The
Therapist noted, however, that there is a possibility of recurrence or exacerbation of breakthrough
symptoms. Id. at 35. She stated that she does not “know exactly what will happen . . . moving
forward” but her “impression is” that the Individual has “the skills to navigate” any breakthrough
symptoms, which are a “very normal part of [the] illness.” Id. at 36.
The Personal Psychiatrist testified that he first met the Individual in the psychiatric outpatient
clinic in approximately May 2022. Id. at 78. He stated that he diagnosed the Individual with
Schizophrenia, pursuant to the DSM-5, and confirmed this diagnosis over time.4 Id. The Personal
Psychiatrist explained that he started the Individual on a psychiatric medication, monitored his
response, and adjusted the dosage as needed. Id. He noted that the Individual was initially taking
five milligrams of Abilify, but due to the breakthrough symptoms that the Individual experienced
toward the end of 2022, the Personal Psychiatrist decided to increase the Individual’s dosage to
3 The Therapist testified that “psychotic symptoms exist in the absence of an ability to really reality test or self-generate
doubt around one's experience of the psychotic symptoms.” Tr. at 21.
4 The Personal Psychiatrist explained that he made a diagnosis of Schizophrenia, rather than a diagnosis of
Schizophreniform Disorder, as was made by the DOE Psychiatrist, because based upon the history he gathered from
the Individual, he believed that the Individual had experienced “a continuous episode of psychosis” for years, rather
than two distinct episodes as noted by the DOE Psychiatrist. Tr. at 83. The Personal Psychiatrist opined that the
psychosis never remitted until the Individual started receiving treatment from the Program. Id.
- 7 -
seven-and-a-half milligrams in December 2022. Id. at 80. He testified that medication
modifications are a typical part of the Schizophrenia treatment process, and the Individual’s
symptoms “gradually” resolved, within two to three months of the increase in medication “as
expected.” Id. at 80, 86.
The Personal Psychiatrist stated that the Individual has kept all appointment and followed all
treatment recommendations. Id. at 78–79. He noted that he has observed a “steady improvement”
in the Individual’s condition and opined that the Individual’s schizophrenia is now in remission.5
Id. at 79. He elaborated, stating that when he first saw the Individual, the Individual was
experiencing delusions and hallucinations; however, those symptoms “have completely subsided.”
Id. The Personal Psychiatrist noted that remission is “not common” and occurs in “10 to 20 percent
of patients, particular patients who are compliant, who are just lucky that the medicine works for
them, who are very insightful, who are not using substances.” Id. at 85. The Personal Psychiatrist
also testified that the Individual’s social functions “also improved significantly,” evidenced by the
Individual developing a “circle of friends,” dating for the first time, and entering “a loving
relationship for four or five months.” Id.
The Personal Psychiatrist explained that Schizophrenia is a condition that can impair judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness when psychotic symptoms are “present and obvious.” Id. at 88. He
explained that the goal of medication is to both reduce the likelihood of symptoms occurring but
also to manage symptoms should they arise. Id. at 89–90. The Personal Psychiatrist acknowledged
that “it’s hard to tell” what the Individual should expect with regard to the probability of symptom
recurrence; however, he testified that “it's very encouraging that [the symptoms] have completely
stopped and that [the Individual’s] function has improved and that he's doing everything he can do
so that there's not a recurrence.” Id. at 90. As such, he gave the Individual a “good” prognosis and
explained that this is due, in part, to the Individual’s “very good insight,” meaning that the
Individual “acknowledges that he suffers from a serious mental illness and that illness can impair
his judgment and . . . when the illness is not managed[,] affects his ability to assess reality.” Id. at
90, 92–93.
Both the Therapist and the Personal Psychologist testified that that: (1) the Individual’s condition
is a readily manageable or controllable condition with treatment; (2) the Individual has
demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with his treatment plan; (3) he voluntarily
entered the Program he is in; (4) he has a favorable prognosis; and (5) there is no indication of a
current problem. Id. at 27, 82.
The Individual testified and reiterated much of what he told the DOE Psychiatrist during the
evaluation. See id. at 61–75. The Individual clarified, however, that the stressor that preceded the
early April/May 2022 episode was the Individual’s realization that the romantic feelings he had
toward a person in his life were not mutual. Id. at 65, 135. He further added that he did not reach
out for help during that episode as his condition made him believe that his friends were plotting
against him and his phones were tapped, so he felt that he “would not be able to communicate with
anyone.” Id. at 141. Turning to the overdose of his medication, the Individual stated that, although
5 The Personal Psychiatrist explained that remission occurs “when the psychotic symptoms and the other symptoms,”
such as lack of drive and lack of interest in socializing “subside completely and consistently.” Tr. at 84-85.
- 8 -
he was seeing the Therapist and the Personal Psychiatrist at the time, he did not reach out for help
because his condition made him believe that his medication was sugar pills. Id. at 142.
The Individual then went on to address the November 2022 breakthrough symptoms. See id. at
122–123. He testified that the November 2022 episode of hearing voices was different from
previous episodes because he was able to “reality test” the situation. Id. at 122. He elaborated,
stating that if he could “force the voices to say what [he] was thinking” then he knew that the
voices were not based in reality. Id. The Individual noted that this process was “easier” when the
voices were “especially loud.” Id. The Individual stated that the reality testing process was “a skill
that [he] developed over time” and through his work with the Therapist. Id. at 123. He also stated
that the November episode was different because his increased sense of connection to other people
made him more comfortable in reaching out for help. Id. at 131–132. The Individual testified that
he had not experienced any additional breakthrough symptoms since the November 2022 episode.
Id. at 125.
Regarding his time in the Program, the Individual stated that it had changed his life “pretty
substantially and for the better.” Id. at 73. He noted: “I've started dating. I've learned a lot about
how to emotionally express myself.” Id. He also stated that he has been “talking with new friends”
and “working on issues with childhood trauma.” Id. The Individual found that the Program has
helped to improve his self-confidence “fairly substantially,” and it “addressed the main stressors
in [his] life that led to the psychotic symptoms . . . in March of 2022.” Id. He explained that he and
the Therapist also discussed “keeping track of [his] state of stress and whether or not [it] grow[s]
or decrease[s] as stress levels increase or decrease.” Id. at 123–124. The Individual noted that
understanding the correlation between stress and symptoms has been particularly important to him.
See id. at 131.
The Individual testified that he feels that he has a support system outside of the Personal
Psychiatrist and the Therapist. Id. at 131. He indicated that his support system consists of his
romantic partner, “friends that [he has] been spending time with,” and “people [he] met” at the
“very end of March” 2023.6 Id. at 131, 141. The Individual acknowledged that a new and first-
time relationship with a romantic partner can be stressful, and he stated that he copes by engaging
in his hobbies, spending time with friends, speaking with the Therapist, and placing a high value
on communication with his romantic partner. Id. at 143–144.
Turning to the future, the Individual testified that he would like to continue seeing the Personal
Psychiatrist “indefinitely if possible.” Id. at 71. Similarly, he indicated that, once his time in the
Program comes to an end, he intends to seek counseling elsewhere and continue “indefinitely.” Id.
at 72. He further added that he is aware that his condition necessitates that he take psychiatric
medication for the remainder of his life, and he is “okay with that.” Id. at 134.
The DOE Psychiatrist was the final witness to testify. He explained that Schizophrenia is a
“gradually worsening disease,” and although it can be managed, “it's a difficult disease in that it's
typically a lifelong issue.” Id. at 157. The DOE Psychiatrist estimated that, with Schizophrenia,
6 When asked whether he felt comfortable opening up to the “people [he] met,” the Individual stated, “I'm developing
a relationship where I'll be able to open up.” Tr. at 141.
- 9 -
“the five-year relapse rate is 80 percent for having another episode.” Id. at 152–153, 156. He noted
that, even if a patient is consistent with medication and counseling, the “tendency” of the disease
is that another episode will occur. Id. at 157–158.
The DOE Psychiatrist recognized that the Personal Psychiatrist was an expert in Schizophrenia,
but despite hearing the Personal Psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Schizophrenia, the DOE Psychiatrist
indicated that he would stand by his original diagnosis of Schizophreniform Disorder with good
prognostic features as it was more consistent with the history the Individual provided to him. Id.
at 147–148. Despite recognizing the Individual’s good prognostic features,7 the DOE Psychiatrist
explained that he only gave the Individual a fair prognosis because he felt that the Individual’s
“prognostic features [were not] strong enough.” Id. at 151. The DOE Psychiatrist explained that
his prognosis of “fair” was justified by the fact that the Individual had a psychotic episode in the
form of breakthrough symptoms after beginning treatment in the Program. Id. at 153.
Elaborating further on prognosis, the DOE Psychiatrist stated, “the main indicator of what's going
to happen in the future is what's happened in the present.” Id. at 152. He explained that when he
evaluated the Individual, the Individual had already experienced “a couple episodes,” which
indicated that “he might have more [as the] nature of the disease generally is recurrent . . . It doesn't
tell you that 100 percent, but it gives you clues.” Id. He also noted that the more recurrences of
breakthrough symptoms that one has, “the worse the prognosis.” Id. at 155.
In discussing the Individual’s ability to “reality test” his auditory hallucinations, the DOE
Psychiatrist explained that reality testing is the management of a psychotic episode. Id. at 154.
Although the Individual’s ability to manage his psychotic symptoms is a “good” indicator, the
DOE Psychiatrist noted that the need to manage symptoms indicated that the Individual was
experiencing a psychotic episode, and it is “a very troubling symptom . . . when [one] is out of
touch with reality.” Id. at 155. He additionally pointed out that “the stressors that precipitated his
psychotic episodes were the sorts of stressors that he's likely to experience again in his life,” such
as relationship or family troubles. Id. at 158.
The DOE Psychiatrist ultimately testified that, although in theory, there is a level of treatment that
an individual with Schizophrenia can receive such that the condition will not impair judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness, “in actuality,” due to the difficulty of the disorder and the severity
of the symptoms should an episode occur, he is not “optimistic” that an individual would be able
to receive such treatment. Id. at 161. He elaborated, stating, “if the symptoms come back, you are
out of touch with reality. You're hearing voices and maybe are going to do what the voices tell
you. So those are very high consequence symptoms to worry about.” Id.
V. Analysis
7 As noted in the Report and detailed above, the DOE Psychiatrist testified that the Individual’s good prognostic
features were: (1) his psychotic symptoms started within four weeks of the most notable change (i.e., the Individual
did not gradually deteriorate over a long period of time,), and (2) he experience confusion or perplexity with his
hallucinations (i.e., the Individual knew the voices were not “quite normal.”). Tr. at 148–150.
- 10 -
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the Individual and other witnesses during 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 not sufficiently mitigated the security
concerns cited by the LSO under Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Therefore, I find that
the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. The specific findings that I make in
support of this decision are discussed below.
Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline I include “[b]ehavior that casts
doubt on an individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness,” including, but not
limited to, irresponsible, violent, self-harm, suicidal, paranoid, manipulative, impulsive, chronic
lying, deceitful, exploitative, or bizarre behaviors. Id. at ¶ 28(a). Additionally, “an opinion by a
duly qualified mental health professional that an individual has a condition that may impair
judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness” may also raise a security concern under this
guideline. Id. at ¶ 28 (b). An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns raised pursuant
to 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) 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.
Id. at ¶ 29.
In this case, the Individual was diagnosed with Schizophreniform Disorder by the DOE
Psychiatrist and Schizophrenia by the Personal Psychiatrist. There is no doubt that the Individual
has taken positive steps to manage his condition. He voluntarily enrolled himself into the Program;
he is compliant in taking his medications; and he is following all treatment recommendations.
Additionally, he is working hard to expand his support system and work through stressors and
other life challenges in therapy. Although the Individual’s providers testified that the Individual
- 11 -
had a “good prognosis,” his condition is in remission, there is no indication of a current problem,
and it is readily controllable with treatment, I cannot find that these factors alone are sufficient to
mitigate the Guideline I security concerns.
I must note that, although the Individual has shown ongoing and consistent compliance with his
treatment plan thus far, as of the date of the hearing, the Individual has been asymptomatic for less
than six months, and he has only been in treatment approximately one year and has experienced
two psychotic episodes in that time. The Individual testified that his previous psychotic episodes
had been brought on by relationships, career, and family stressors, and, as the DOE Psychiatrist
noted, these types of stressors are common in everyday life. At this time in his life, the Individual
is undergoing many changes. He is learning to navigate his condition; he is in a serious romantic
relationship for the first time in his life; and he is working on developing a new friend group. All
of these changes, while positive, are likely to be stress inducing over time. As such, I cannot find
that this factor is mitigated at this time.
Furthermore, as the record demonstrates, Schizophrenia is not a temporary disorder. It is a lifelong
condition that, according to the testimony of the Individual’s own Personal Psychiatrist, can impair
the Individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. The Therapist, the Personal
Psychiatrist, and the DOE Psychiatrist all made clear that Schizophrenia is a difficult condition in
that, even with treatment, they cannot guarantee the Individual’s condition will not recur or
exacerbate. In fact, as demonstrated by the testimony of the DOE Psychiatrist, the probability of
the Individual suffering another psychotic episode is quite high, around 80 percent, and the risks
that arise from an episode is also quite high in that the Individual is out of touch with reality. I
must resolve any doubts I have about the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance in favor
of national security. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the
Individual sufficiently mitigated the Guideline I security concerns.
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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve
the security concerns associated with Guideline I. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. 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