PSH-23-0088

*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 6, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0088
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 11, 2023
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX(the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. In September 2022, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP). Exhibit (Ex.) 10. In response to questions about his financial record, the
Individual disclosed that, since September 2019, he had been delinquent on several debts. Id. at
126–129.
In late September 2022, the Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI). Ex. 11 at
194. During the ESI, the Individual disclosed that he had additional delinquent accounts, including
credit cards, medical bills, a car loan, a cell phone, and personal loans. Id. at 195–199. The
Individual further explained that he received letters from collection agencies, but he “threw the
collection letter[s] away.” Id. at 195. The Individual also disclosed that, in July 2011, he was
involved in a car accident, in which his friend was the driver. Id. at 199–200. He explained that,
after having consumed “about five shots of hard liquor or less” and becoming intoxicated, he fell
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 -
asleep in the passenger seat. Id. After the accident, he woke up in jail the following day, with no
memory of leaving his friend’s home or how he got into the car. Id.
In January 2023, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual, which sought additional information about his “financial issues” and the alcohol-
related incident. Ex. 6. Subsequently, in February 2023, the Individual underwent an evaluation
by a DOE consultant psychologist (Psychologist), who issued a report of his findings (the Report).
Ex. 8. Based on the evaluation, the Psychologist opined that the Individual “heavily and habitually
binge drink[s] [alcohol] multiple times a month.” Id. at 58. However, the Psychologist noted that
the Individual’s “use of alcohol has not resulted in the personal, social or legal problems which
would lead to a [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition, Text
Revision (DSM-5-TR)] diagnosis of substance abuse.” Id. at 57. The Psychologist also opined that
the Individual did not demonstrate adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 58.
He additionally concluded that the Individual’s “lack of urgency/effort about fulfilling his financial
responsibilities . . . a mental condition that impairs his reliability and judgment.” Id. at 59.
Due to security concerns related to the Individual’s finances, psychological condition, and alcohol
consumption, 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
the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) that accompanied the Notification Letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1 at 5–7.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations to request an administrative review hearing. 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
eleven numbered exhibits (Exs. 1–11) into the record and presented the testimony of the
Psychologist. The Individual introduced four lettered exhibits (Exs. A–D) into the record and
testified on his own behalf. 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).
- 3 -
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.
II. Notification Letter and Associated 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 Guidelines F, G, and I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
Guideline F relates to security risks arising from financial distress. It provides that a “[f]ailure or
inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor
self-control, lack of judgment, or [an] unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect
classified information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 18. Conditions that could raise a security
concern under this guideline include the “inability to satisfy debts,” an “unwillingness to satisfy
debts regardless of the ability to do so,” and “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Id. at
¶ 19(a)-(c).
In citing Guideline F, the LSO noted that the Individual had the following collection accounts
totaling $16,893: (1) $315 with Creditor A, (2) $198 with Creditor B, (3) $649 with Creditor C,
(4) $865 with Creditor D, (5) $11,312 with Creditor E,2 and (6) $3,554 Creditor F. Ex. 1 at 5. The
LSO also indicated that the Individual had two “charge-off accounts totaling $10,419.” Id. at 6.
The LSO noted that, during his September 2022 ESI, the Individual stated he would pay Creditor
B within two weeks. Id. However, when the Individual submitted his LOI in January 2023, he
admitted that the account “slipped his mind,” and he had not paid it. Ex. 1 at 6. Finally, the LSO
cited the Individual’s admissions that he threw away collection notices after reading them and that
he was “financially incompetent” and “not financially able to pay” his debts. Id.
Guideline G relates to security risks arising from excessive alcohol consumption. “Excessive
alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control
impulses and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline G
include the “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless
of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(c). In citing Guideline
G, the LSO relied upon the Psychologist’s determination that the Individual was “found to heavily
and habitually binge drink to the extent that he regularly drinks past the level found to impair
2 The SSC indicated that the Individual held three separate accounts with this creditor in the amounts of $5,950,
$4,630, and $732. Ex. 1 at 5.
- 4 -
judgment.” Ex. 1 at 6. It additionally cited the Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual had
not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
Guideline I relates to security risks arising from one’s psychological condition. “Certain
emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.
A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Conditions that raise a security concern under Guideline I include
“behavior that casts doubt on an individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, not
covered under any other guideline and that may indicate an emotional, mental, or personality
condition, including, but not limited to, irresponsible . . . behaviors.” Id. at ¶ 28(a). Further, “an
opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that may
impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness” may give rise to a Guideline I security
concern. Id. at ¶ 28(b). In citing Guideline I, the LSO relied upon the Psychologist’s determination
that the Individual’s “lack of urgency/effort about fulfilling his financial responsibilities is a mental
condition that impairs his reliability and judgment.” Ex. 1 at 6–7.
III. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
A. Findings of Fact
1. The Individual’s Delinquent Debts
In the September 2022 QNSP, the Individual disclosed that he was delinquent on various accounts
for “failing to pay as agreed.” Ex. 10 at 127. He disclosed that he: owed $315 on a credit card
account, owed $865 on a second credit card account, and owed an estimated $11,231 in medical
bills. Id. at 126–129. The Individual indicated that each account was in “collection” and that he
was “planning on working on” paying them. Id.
During the September 2022 ESI, the Individual was confronted with various delinquent accounts
that he did not report on his QNSP. Ex. 11 at 195–199. These additional delinquent accounts
included credit cards, medical bills, a car loan, a cell phone, and personal loans. Id. at 195–199.
Regarding a delinquent car loan of $7,125, the Individual stated that he did not list the account on
the QNSP because “he did not know the account information.” Id. at 196. He explained that the
car was “totaled” in an accident, and he became unemployed as a result of injuries sustained during
the accident. Id. When confronted with the accounts related to the medical bills, the Individual
acknowledged that they had been sent to collections. Id. at 196–197.
The Individual explained that he owed $3,554 on a collections account with a credit union for a
personal loan he obtained “because he needed money.” Id. at 197. The Individual could not
explain, however, “why he needed the extra money.” Id. When confronted with collection accounts
related to a $649 credit bill and a $315 personal loan, the Individual denied having knowledge of
either account, but he stated that he intended to contact the collection agencies to repay the debts
within a year. Id. at 198. Regarding a $198 delinquent cell phone bill, the Individual explained that
he did not list the account of his QNSP because he “did not have knowledge of the account.” Id.
Further, he “could not explain what led to [his] financial delinquency.” Id. The Individual told the
investigator that he would “make payment in full and take care of this account within two weeks.”
- 5 -
Id. Lastly, the Individual explained that he owed $2,600 on a third delinquent personal loan that
he obtained because “he needed money to get by.” Id. at 198. The Individual told the investigator
that he received letters regarding his debts from collection agencies, but he would read the letters
and throw them away. Id. at 195. The Individual represented that he would take courses “to help
him understand his finances better.” Id. at 199.
In the January 2023 LOI, the Individual reported that he was delinquent on ten accounts, and he
was “[f]inancially not able to make payments” on the debts. Ex. 6 at 23–28. Although he stated
that he had not yet taken any steps to resolve the delinquent debts, he expressed his intent to resolve
certain debts “within the next 6 months,” and to resolve other debts “within the next 2 years.” Id.
Regarding the $198 cell phone debt, he disclosed that he was “actively trying” to resolve the debt
and would do so “within the next 2 weeks.” Id. at 28. The Individual reported that his QNSP did
not include delinquent accounts discovered by the DOE because he was “irresponsibly unaware”
of the delinquencies. Id. at 30. The LOI asked the Individual to explain the circumstances that led
to his financial issues, and the Individual reported that he was “financially incompetent and
irresponsible from a young age.” Id. at 28. He stated that he did not have “guidance on being
financially responsible” and that he was “actively trying to be better.” Id. The Individual reported
that he always makes sure his “more pressing bills” are paid, and his overall financial situation
was “slowly getting better.” Id. at 28–29.
2. The Individual’s Alcohol Consumption
During the ESI, the Individual told an investigator that he was in a car accident, around July 2011,
in which alcohol was involved. Ex. 11 at 199–200. He stated that, prior to the accident, he
consumed “about five shots of hard liquor or less,” while at a friend’s house. Id. The Individual
explained that he was intoxicated at the time of the crash, but he was a passenger in the vehicle
and was not driving. Id. He stated that he did not remember leaving his friend’s house, did not
remember how he got into the car, and only remembers that he woke up in jail the following day.
Id. at 199. The Individual told an investigator that he typically consumed “about a 12 pack of beer
beverages a week” and “about a shot or two of hard liquor” while at home and at friends’ homes.
Id. at 200. The Individual also explained that he consumed alcohol to intoxication “about three
times a year on special occasions,” did not feel that he had “a problem with alcohol,” and
“continues to consume alcohol once a week.” Id.
In the LOI, the Individual reported that, since he was twenty-one years old, he would consume
“about 12 beers one day out of the week” and “some weeks [he would not] consume any” alcohol.
Ex. 6 at 34. The Individual reported that he last consumed alcohol on January 1, 2023, when he
consumed “18 beers and 2 or 3 shots. Starting at 3pm til about 1am.” Id. at 35. The Individual
again reiterated that he did not feel as though he had a problem with alcohol. Id. at 36.
3. The Psychological Evaluation
Regarding his alcohol consumption, the Individual told the Psychologist that, during the past five
or six years, he typically consumed twelve beers and “a shot or two of hard liquor over four to five
hours, once a week.” Ex. 8 at 55. According to the Report, the Individual stated that he did not feel
intoxicated after consuming that amount of alcohol, but “18 to 20 beers to cause him to feel
- 6 -
intoxicated.” Id. The Psychologist opined that the Individual had a “substantial alcohol tolerance.”
Id. According to the Report, the Individual stated that he last consumed alcohol on January 28,
2023, when he had “12-light beers and two shots of whiskey over four hours.” Id. at 56–57. As
part of the evaluation, the Individual underwent a Phosphotidylethanol (PEth) test to detect his
alcohol consumption. The Report indicated that the Individual’s PEth test was positive, at a level
of 141 ng/mL, which was “consistent with significant alcohol consumption.” Id. The Psychologist
opined that the Individual “uses alcohol in a heavy binge pattern, to the extent that he regularly
drinks past the level found to impair judgment.” Id. at 57. The Psychologist also noted that the
Individual’s consumption was “not a pattern suggestive of alcohol dependence, but because it
[was] associated with years of socializing, it [would] likely be a difficult pattern for him to break.”
Id.
The Psychologist concluded that the Individual “heavily and habitually binge drink[s] [alcohol]
multiple times a month,” but “his use of alcohol has not resulted in the personal, social or legal
problems which would lead to a diagnosis of substance abuse.” Id. at 57–58. The Psychologist also
opined the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
at 58. He recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol for a minimum of six months to
evaluate whether the Individual was willing and able to control his alcohol use. Id. at 58. The
Psychologist also noted that the Individual’s abstinence should supported by negative monthly
PEth tests. Id. The Psychologist additionally recommended the Individual participate in an
intensive outpatient program (IOP), followed by weekly aftercare meetings. Id.
In addition to his alcohol use, the Individual discussed his finances with the Psychologist. Id. at
56. The Individual reported that he “weigh[s] things and pay[s] for the things that take care of [his]
family” and noted that his financial situation was “slowly getting better.” Id. However, he told the
Psychologist that he had not “made any payments on the smaller debts” discussed during the ESI
or in the LOI, and he had “not consulted companies about developing payment plans for his larger
obligations.” Id. The Psychologist concluded that the Individual had a history of financial
difficulties and had “shown a weak concern about his debts.” Id. at 55–56. He opined that “[t]he
lack of urgency/effort about fulfilling his financial responsibilities [did] not warrant [a DSM-5-
TR] diagnosis but is a mental condition that impairs [the Individual’s] reliability and judgment.”
The Psychologist noted that “[i]t is not possible to know whether this tendency extends beyond
the financial area but counseling which addresses this tendency is recommended.” Id. at 59.
B. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf. Regarding his finances, he stated that
several of his collection accounts had been paid in full. Tr. at 11–13. The Individual testified that,
in May 2023, he contacted Creditor A and entered into a payment arrangement for $315. Id. at 12.
The Individual submitted documentation showing that Creditor A had agreed to a payment plan
that consisted of six payments. Ex. A. The Individual submitted a second document showing that
the debt was paid in full in August 2023. Ex. B. The Individual also stated the $198 account with
Creditor B, which was for a cell phone, was paid in full. Id. at 13. The Individual submitted
documentation showing that, as of August 2023, the account was paid in full. Ex. C. The Individual
acknowledged that, during his ESI, he told an investigator that he would pay off the cell phone
- 7 -
debt in two weeks, but he testified that he “just wasn’t able to pay it at the time” due to a move to
a new city. Id. at 23–24.
The Individual testified that the debts with Creditors C–F remained unpaid, and he stated that he
had not contacted these creditors to resolve the debts. Id. at 13–17. The Individual explained that
the $649 debt to Creditor C and the $865 debt to Creditor D were associated with credit cards that
he used to pay his bills when he did not have other funds.3 Id. at 15, 22. He elaborated that the
$11,312 he owed to Creditor E was attributable to medical bills. Id. at 15–17. He stated that this
debt resulted from an emergency room visit that was not covered by his health insurance. Id. at 21.
The Individual indicated that he thought the visit would have been covered by his medical
insurance, but he never contacted his insurance to determine if the bills were accurate. Id. at 21.
Lastly, he explained that the $3,554 debt owed to Creditor F was attributable to a loan he obtained
approximately six years prior. Id. at 17.
Turning to the charge off accounts, the Individual testified that, despite showing that differing
amounts were due, the first charge off account was the same debt due for the loan to Creditor F.
Id. Regarding the second charge off account, the Individual testified that that this was attributable
to the loan on the car that he totaled. Id. at 17–18.
The Individual explained that he wanted to resolve his “smaller” debts first and then, attempt to
pay the larger debts at a pace at which he was still able to provide for his family. Tr. at 13–14, 18.
He stated he is the sole provider for his family and is having difficulty “doing it all at the same
time.” Id. at 18. The Individual noted that he had not created a monthly budget, but he estimated
that he has $400 to $500 after his bills are paid that he can use to pay down his debts. Id. at 18–19.
The Individual testified that his financial issues began early in his life, and he was not taught to be
“financially competent.” Id. at 20. However, now, as an adult, he stated that he has had to teach
himself and is trying to “clean up [his] mistakes.” Id. The Individual stated that he has maintained
steady employment, but he has never made enough money to pay his daily expenses and pay off
his debts. Id. He noted that he has not received any financial counseling, but he would like to get
counseling if he was able to find a program. Id. at 24.
Regarding the alcohol use, the Individual testified that he last consumed alcohol two weeks before
the hearing, when he drank six beers over a “couple of hours.” Id. at 24–25, 27. He stated that he
recalled that the Psychologist recommended that he abstain from alcohol for six months, but he
believed he was to abstain only if it was necessary as a result of this hearing. Id. at 25. The
Individual noted that, in the past, he was able to abstain from alcohol for a month, as part of a
“fast.” Id. at 30–31.
The Individual reiterated that he does not think his alcohol use is problematic, and he stated that
he disagrees with the Psychologist’s opinion that he is a binge drinker. Id. at 26. The Individual
noted that he “drink[s] a lot” when he consumes alcohol, on “either Fridays or Saturdays [when
3 Following the hearing, the Individual submitted documentation showing that, approximately one week after the
hearing, the Individual contacted Creditor C to establish a payment plan, consisting of six payments, beginning in
mid-September 2023. Ex. D.
- 8 -
he] always get[s] together with [his] family.” Id. He stated that he enjoys drinking with his family
because “that’s the way [they] were raised.” Id. at 27.
The Psychologist testified that, after hearing the Individual’s testimony, he still holds the opinion
that the Individual is not addicted to alcohol but consumes alcohol heavily and habitually. Id. at
33, 40. The Psychologist explained that, during the evaluation, the Individual reported that, when
he drinks, he typically consumes 12 beers and two shots, but the Individual noted that he would
not feel intoxicated until he had about 18 beers. Id. The Psychologist stated that, although the
Individual testified to typically consuming alcohol once or twice a weekend, that level of
consumption was “a very significant, very heavy amount of alcohol.” Id. at 33–34.
The Psychologist opined that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation because he did not attempt to abstain from alcohol and did not undergo the alcohol
testing that was recommended to him. Id. at 34. The Psychologist concluded that, because the
Individual does not have a compulsion to drink alcohol, “it’s going to be a decision for him to cut
back, and that decision [is] probably not going to be supported . . . by his social family context”
given that he consumes with his family. Id. at 34, 40. The Psychologist felt that limiting his
consumption “would be hard for him to maintain . . . in the context of his family, which is very
important to him.” Id. at 40.
Regarding the Individual’s financial issues, the Psychologist testified that the Individual still
displays a lack of urgency in fulfilling his financial obligations. Id. at 35. He stated the Individual’s
indebtedness is not caused by a significant psychological condition, diagnoseable by the DSM. Id.
at 35, 38–39. However, he opined that the Individual has a “mental condition,” “a behavior that in
itself does not have the underpinnings of a lot of other problems . . . but he does have a behavior,
mental behavior that is going to continue to cause him to be financially, probably, irresponsible.”
Id. at 37–38.
The Psychologist elaborated that he believed that the Individual had developed a “comfort with
not having to pay the debts,” arising from the way he was raised with his family, where others took
care of things for him. Id. at 36. He stated that he understood the Individual’s testimony to be that
he would pay his debts, “if it doesn’t intrude very much into his family.” Id. at 35. As such, the
Psychologist expressed concern that the $400 to $500 he allots to paying his debts may be allocated
to other family expenses when emergencies or unexpected needs arise. Id. at 35–36. The
Psychologist noted that the Individual is “in a position to learn that he has to be the one who takes
care of his own debts,” but he felt that the Individual was not “quite there yet.” Id. at 36. As such,
he recommended that the Individual seek financial counseling. Id. at 36, 40. He stated the
Individual’s financial choices have been acceptable in his family, and the Individual needs to
“transition to meeting expectations that are outside of the way he was raised.” Id. at 39.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline F
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F though the following
conditions:
- 9 -
a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
c) The individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem
from a legitimate and credible source . . . ; and there are clear indications that the
problem is being resolved or is under control;
d) The individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts;
e) The individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt
which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate
the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue;
f) The affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and
g) The individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or
pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
First, I recognize that the Individual has begun to take steps to repay his debts through the
establishment of payment plans with his creditors. Id. at ¶ 20(d). The Individual resolved his debts
with Creditors A and Creditor B, and he has established a payment plan with Creditor C. However,
there is no evidence in the record that he has made any payments towards this plan. Ultimately,
the Individual has paid $513 out of over $25,000 in delinquent debts, less than 2% of his
obligations. As such, I cannot find that the Individual’s payments, thus far, are sufficient to resolve
the Guideline F security concerns. See id.
Furthermore, the Individual acknowledges that he has struggled to responsibly manage his finances
from a young age. See id. at ¶ 20(a). It appears that he is beginning to take action to resolve his
finances and learn to better manage them though the repayment of small debts and the desire to
learn better financial management. However, despite knowing that the DOE had concerns about
his finances as early as September 2022 and offering reassurances that he would begin to pay his
debts, the Individual only began taking such actions in May 2023, approximately three months
before the hearing. See id. As such, there is not sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that
his financial irresponsibility is unlikely to continue or recur. See id. Similarly, although the
Individual expressed a desire to take financial management courses, he has not yet done so, and
he chose not to undergo financial counseling despite the recommendation he received from the
Psychologist in the February 2023 Report. See id. at ¶ 20(c).
- 10 -
Although I recognize that there were unfortunate events out of the Individual’s control that
contributed to his financial difficulties, I cannot find that the Individual always responded
responsibly. Id. at ¶ 20(b). For example, regarding the approximately $11,000 in medical debt that
resulted from an emergency room visit, the Individual acknowledged that he did not attempt to
contact his insurance company to question the charges nor did he dispute or attempt to repay the
debt in anyway. Similarly, there is no evidence in the record that the Individual has disputed or
attempted to dispute any of the past due debts at issue in this case.4 Id. at ¶ 20(e).
B. Guideline G
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline G based on the
following conditions:
a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
b) The individual acknowledges his maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified alcohol consumption or abstinence in accordance
with treatment recommendations;
c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
The Individual admitted to a pattern of heavy drinking—as many as 12 or 18 beers on the
weekends, plus a couple shots—and as of the date of the hearing, had not taken any action to
reduce his alcohol consumption. As such, the Psychologist concluded that the Individual consumed
alcohol heavily and habitually and had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. The Individual asserted that he does not have a problem with alcohol, and as such, he
does not acknowledge his maladaptive alcohol use. Id. at ¶ 23(b). Furthermore, he chose not to
abstain pursuant to the recommendations of the Psychologist and, therefore, has failed to
demonstrate a pattern of modified alcohol consumption in accordance with treatment
recommendations. See id. In fact, he testified that he continues to consume alcohol during weekend
days with his family and did so as recently as two weeks prior to the hearing. Id. at ¶23(a)-(b). As
such, the Individual has not demonstrated that his heavy consumption of alcohol is infrequent or
4 There are no allegations of unexplained affluence or tax liabilities in this case. As such, mitigating factors (f) and (g)
are not relevant to this case, and I do not consider them. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20(f)-(g).
- 11 -
occurred under unusual circumstances such that it is unlikely to recur. Id. at ¶ 23(a). I cannot find
that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G security concerns.5
C. Guideline I
The Psychologist concluded that the Individual’s “lack of urgency/effort about fulfilling his
financial responsibilities . . . is a mental condition that impairs his reliability and judgment.” Ex. 8
at 59. The Psychologist additionally noted that the Individual’s choice to pay the “commitments
he feels are important enough for him to fulfil could be problematic.” Id. First, I do not disagree
with the Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual’s financial choices could be problematic;
however, those concerns are fully encompassed within Guideline F. See Adjudicative Guidelines
at ¶ 28(a) (indicating that behaviors may be raised as security concerns under Guideline I only if
they are “not covered under any other guideline”). Furthermore, the Psychologist did not provide
a sufficient basis for his conclusion that the Individual’s concerning financial situation constitutes
a “mental condition that impairs his reliability and judgment.” The most the Psychologist was able
to offer in this regard was that the Individual has a “mental behavior that is going to continue to
cause him to be financially, probably, irresponsible.” Tr. at 37-38. I am not persuaded that merely
exhibiting irresponsible financial behavior—behavior that is already addressed by another
adjudicative guideline—is sufficient to constitute a mental condition for the purposes of Guideline
I. As such, I find that Guideline I was not properly invoked by the LSO.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that although the LSO properly invoked Guidelines F
and G of the Adjudicative Guidelines, it did not properly invoke Guideline I. 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 Guideline F and Guideline G
security concerns. Accordingly, I find the Individual has not demonstrated that granting his
security clearance would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with
the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be
granted. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
5 As the Individual has not undergone and treatment or counseling related to his alcohol use, I do not consider
mitigating factors (c) or (d). Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(c)-(d).