PSH-23-0132

*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: August 30, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0132
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 4, 2023
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, 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 restored.
I. Background
The Individual is currently employed with a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold
an access authorization. The Individual signed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) in January 2020 to obtain his “L” clearance; he submitted a second QNSP in
February 2021 to obtain his “Q” clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 3. The Individual indicated in the 2021
QNSP that he had never “been hospitalized for a mental health condition,” despite previously
providing information pertaining to a mental health hospitalization on the 2020 QNSP. Id. at 36,
136. When asked whether he had “been over 120 days delinquent on any debt” in the last seven
years, the Individual indicated “no” on the 2021 QNSP despite previously indicating that he had
one delinquent financial account in the 2020 QNSP. Id. at 44, 143. When asked whether he had
“illegally used any drugs or controlled substances” in the last seven years, the Individual indicated
“no” on both the 2020 and 2021 QNSPs. Id. at 40, 139.
The Individual did disclose on the 2020 and 2021 QNSPs that he had been charged with “felony
credit card fraud/theft” in April 2013 and that he received a suspended sentence of 11 months and
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
15 days. Id. at 37–38, 125. The Individual also disclosed in the 2021 QNSP that he was cited for
speeding in December 2018, for which he pled guilty and paid a fine. Id. at 38–39, 72.
In March 2021, the Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI), conducted by an
investigator. Id. at 53. During the ESI, the Individual answered questions and provided details
regarding his mental health, past criminal conduct, and financial state. Id. at 55–56. At the behest
of the Local Security Office (LSO), the Individual completed, signed, and submitted two Letters
of Interrogatory (LOI) in October and November of 2021. Ex. 5; Ex. 6. The LSO subsequently
instructed the Individual to undergo a psychological evaluation conducted by a DOE-consultant
psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in April 2023. Ex. 4. The DOE Psychologist relied on
information that he obtained in a clinical interview with the Individual, as well as his review of the
Individual’s Personnel Security File, and the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
5th Edition (DSM-V). Id. at 2–5. In May 2023, the DOE Psychologist issued a report (the Report)
containing his assessments and conclusions, which included the determination that the Individual’s
“emotional stability can be questionable at times when he experiences relationship stress.”Id. at
5.
Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding
by issuing a letter (Notification Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility for access
authorization. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained
that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct),
H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse), and I (Psychological Conditions) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1 at 4–7. The Notification Letter informed the Individual that he was
entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his
eligibility to hold a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf and submitted four exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through D. The DOE
Counsel submitted nine exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 9 and presented the DOE
Psychiatrist as a witness.2
II. Notification Letter
A. Guideline E
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgement, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could
2 The DOE Psychologist who conducted the clinical evaluation of the Individual and compiled the Report was not
available to provide testimony at the hearing due to ongoing health concerns. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No.
PSH-23-0135 (Tr.) at 11–12. However, a DOE-consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist) who examined the Report
was made available to testify. Tr. at 189–91, 193.
3
raise a disqualifying concern is the “[d]eliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
facts from any . . . personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . .
determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities[,]”
and “[c]oncealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator,
. . . or other official government representative[.]” Id. at ¶ 16(a) and (b).
With regard to these conditions under these Guideline E, the LSO alleged that the Individual failed
to report his 2018 mental health hospitalization in the February 2021 QNSP, and further, although
the Individual disclosed illicit substance use in his November 2021 LOI, he failed to report the use
in the 2020 and 2021 QNSPs. Ex. 1 at 4–5. The LSO also alleged that the Individual failed to
disclose three financial accounts that had been past due at least 120 days on his February 2021
QNSP. Id. at 5. It was also alleged that the Individual failed to disclose a 2017 citation for
“navigating lights/sunrise-sunset” on his 2020 and 2021 QNSPs. Id.
Another condition set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying concern
under Guideline E is “[c]redible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when
considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, [or] unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations[.]” Id. at ¶ 16(c).
As it pertains to this condition under Guideline E, the LSO alleged that the Individual had been
terminated by a previous employer in 2013 after he made two personal purchases on a company
credit card and was subsequently criminally charged with credit card fraud/theft and pled guilty to
a misdemeanor, resulting in a suspended sentence. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also alleged that the
Individual was “cited for speeding in December 2018[,]” and that he was cited for and pled guilty
to “no navigation lights/sunrise-sunset[]” in 2017. Id.
B. Guideline H
Under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) of the Adjudicative Guidelines,
“[i]llegal use of controlled substances . . . can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and
trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and
because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 24. Conditions that could raise a concern under
Guideline H include “[t]esting positive for an illegal drug[,]” and “[a]ny substance misuse.” Id. at
¶ 24(a) and (b).
As a basis for invoking Guideline H, the LSO alleged that hospital records from a 2018
hospitalization indicate that the Individual “tested positive for cannabinoid[]” and that the
Individual admitted that he smokes marijuana on weekends. Ex. 1 at 7. The LSO also alleged that
the Individual admitted in his November 2021 LOI that he used marijuana in 2018. Id.
C. Guideline I
4
Under Guideline I, “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. “A formal diagnosis of
a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline.” Id. Conditions that could
raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness[,]” “[v]oluntary or involuntary hospitalization[,]” and “[f]ailure to
follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a diagnosed psychological/psychiatric condition that
may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id. at ¶ 28(b), (c), and (d).
As a basis for invoking Guideline I, the LSO alleged that the DOE Psychologist indicated in the
Report that the Individual’s “emotional stability can be questionable at times when he experiences
relationship stress and that he needs ongoing support with his expression of anger.” Ex. 1 at 6. The
LSO went on to state that the DOE Psychologist stated in the Report that such stress can cause
“suicidal ideations and attention seeking behavior[]” and recommended that the Individual engage
in 12 weeks of weekly one-on-one therapy. Id. The LSO also alleged that the Individual received
inpatient treatment in 2018 and was diagnosed with Unspecified Mood Disorder. Id. at 6–7.
Treatment records from 2018 note that the Individual did not comply with his prescribed
medication. Id. at 7. Lastly, the LSO alleged that in 2008, law enforcement personnel responded
to a disturbance involving the Individual, at which time they observed the Individual holding a
firearm pointed at his own face. Id. The Individual was ultimately disarmed and taken to a hospital
for treatment. Id.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
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 so as 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.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
5
Regarding the answers that he provided in his 2021 QNSP, the Individual testified that a security
officer, who has since retired, called the Individual to his office, retrieved the Individual’s QNSP
form on a computer, and asked the Individual “a couple of questions” while he completed the
Individual’s QNSP for him. Tr. at 33–35, 38, 72–74, 78. The Individual stated that he was in the
office for approximately 20 minutes. Id. at 35–37, 166–67. The Individual also stated that he told
the security officer that “nothing [had] changed[]” since completing the 2020 QNSP to obtain his
“L” clearance,3 and accordingly, the Individual could not guarantee what the security officer
marked when answering the questions. Id. at 37–38, 73, 78, 83–84. He testified that the security
officer did not give him the opportunity to review the QNSP prior to its submission, and that he
does not remember whether he electronically signed the document. Id. at 38, 74–76, 167. He also
testified that the security officer never specifically asked him about the use of controlled substances
or delinquent accounts while he was completing the 2021 QNSP on behalf of the Individual. Id. at
41–42.
During the ESI, the investigator asked questions regarding the Individual’s 2013 termination and
criminal charge for credit card fraud/theft. Ex. 3 at 54–55. Regarding the matter, the Individual
indicated that he “used the company credit card for [two] personal purchases against company
policy.” Id. He told the investigator that he committed the act “for no specific reason” and that “he
was young and made a poor decision.” Id. The criminal charges were filed following the
Individual’s termination. Ex. 3 at 54–55; Tr. at 155. The Individual was convicted of Misdemeanor
Credit Card Fraud/Theft in 2014; the Individual was placed on probation, and he was sentenced to
12 months in custody but served 15 days in jail. Ex. 3 at 55; Tr. at 48–49, 115–16; 168–69. The
Individual also paid restitution. Ex. 3 at 55; Tr. at 49, 115–16.
The Individual was also confronted by the investigator regarding the charge of no navigating
lights/sunrise-sunset in 2017, which was omitted from the 2021 QNSP. Ex. 3 at 59. The Individual
indicated that he was charged because he did not have navigation lights on his boat, and that he
paid court costs and a fine to resolve the matter. Ex. 3 at 59; Tr. at 45–47, 112–13. He informed
the investigator that this information was not provided on the 2021 QNSP “due to inadvertent
error.” Ex. 3 at 59.
The investigator also confronted the Individual with the fact that he had omitted three delinquent
financial accounts from his 2021 QNSP. Ex. 3 at 56–57; Tr. at 72. The first account, which had a
balance of $0, was opened in 2016 and resolved in 2020. Ex. 3 at 56. The Individual paid the
account in full, but the account had been past due 120 days. Id. The second account, which was
also paid off in full and had a balance of $0, was resolved in 2020 but had been past due 120 days.
Id. The third account was opened in 2018 and was paid in full in 2020. Id. at 57. The Individual
told the investigator that he did not list these accounts on his 2021 QNSP due to “inadvertent
error.” Id. at 56–57. At the hearing, he went on to explain that he failed to list these debts on his
2021 QNSP because he had already resolved the debts at the time he completed the QNSP. Tr. at
42–45, 108–110. He could not articulate why he had listed a delinquent account on his 2020 QNSP
but failed to do the same on his 2021 QNSP when, as he stated, the information from the 2020
QNSP had transferred to the 2021 QNSP. Id. at 108–110.
3 The Individual confirmed that he had completed his 2020 QNSP without any assistance. Tr. at 73, 76–77.
6
After being confronted, the Individual admitted to the investigator that he had undergone
“voluntary health hospitalization” for his mental health in 2018. Ex. 3 at 55, 58; Ex. 7 at 2; Tr. at
31–32. The Individual indicated that his failure to list the hospitalization on the 2021 QNSP was
due to “inadvertent error.” Ex. 3 at 55. He told the investigator that he was hospitalized for “feeling
depressed” and he “wanted to hurt himself.” Id. at 58. The Individual had marked “yes” when
answering questions pertaining to hospitalization for a mental health condition on the 2020 QNSP
that was completed to obtain his “L” level clearance. Tr. at 31–33, 79–83; Ex. 3 at 136.
The Individual’s medical records obtained from the hospital where he received mental health
treatment indicate that the Individual was admitted to a hospital in 2018 for approximately six days
after his father called law enforcement because his parents felt the Individual was in danger of
harming himself.4 Ex. 7 at 2, 6–7, 21, 79; Ex. 6 at 1; Tr. at 125–26. In the October 2021 LOI, the
Individual stated that he was admitted because he had “[a]nger issues” which resulted in threats of
suicide. Ex. 6 at 4. Although the Individual was transported to the hospital by law enforcement, he
ultimately decided to voluntarily submit to treatment. Ex. 7 at 2, 16, 19, 57–59; Tr. at 127–29. The
treatment notes indicated that prior to his admission, he was noncompliant with his prescription
medication and that he “smokes a little weed on [weekends].” Ex. 7 at 5; Tr. at 94. The Individual
testified that he does not “really like taking pills per se” and stated that he discontinued taking his
medication only a few months after first being prescribed the medication in 2018, prior to his
hospitalization. Tr. at 118–22, 124–25. The Individual stated that he does not remember how he
was prescribed the medication but does remember the prescription medication was meant to help
him manage his anger. Id. at 120–21, 123. The Individual did not seek the assistance or advice of
a medical professional when he discontinued the prescription medication. Id. at 123–24. The
medical records from the Individual’s hospitalization note a diagnosis of ongoing depression,
Unspecified Mood (Affective) Disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder, and the discharge
notes indicate that the Individual was prescribed medication “for mood stabilization.” Ex. 7 at 6,
7, 12; Tr. at 143. The Individual stated that he took this prescription medication for about six
months following his discharge, and never consulted a medical professional when he discontinued
taking the medication. Tr. at 146, 149–51, 154.
Regarding his drug use noted in the 2018 medical records, the Individual testified that at the time
of his admission into the hospital, he had only “tried” marijuana twice in his life. Id. at 40–41, 95–
96. In later testimony, the Individual indicated that he first used marijuana in 2006, and that he
used the substance between two to five times by the time he was admitted to the hospital in 2018.
Id. at 96–98. The Individual tested positive for marijuana following a drug test conducted at the
hospital. Ex. 7 at 9. In the November 2021 LOI, the Individual stated that he first tried marijuana
in October 2018, and that his use consisted of “a hit of it every once in a while on various
weekends[.]” Ex. 5 at 1; Tr. at 95. He indicated that he last used marijuana “[t]he weekend before
4 The Individual testified that at the time, he was employed by his parents, and he had argued with them earlier in the
day. Tr. at 132–33. He decided to remove himself from the argument and write his parents a letter to communicate his
feelings. Id. at 33. The Individual’s father interrupted the Individual as he was writing the letter, and because the
Individual kept firearms in his home, the Individual felt that his father assumed that the Individual was going to harm
himself. Id. at 133–35. The medical records quote the Individual’s mother as recounting statements the Individual
made that suggested suicide. Ex. 7 at 7. The Individual testified that he made those statements “out of anger” and
because he was “seeking attention.” Tr. at 136–41, 159. The Individual stopped working for his family following his
hospital stay, resulting in improved mental health, and he testified that he no longer suffers from “bouts of rage.” Id.
at 147–48, 174–75.
7
[he] went” to the hospital in 2018, and that he does not intend to use marijuana again. Ex. 5 at 1;
Tr. at 61, 96, 98. He testified that he has been drug tested by his employer on a monthly basis for
the past three years, and further, he has a family, so he wants to “stay out of that scene.” Tr. at 61–
62, 98, 105. The Individual testified that he omitted information pertaining to his prior drug use
on his 2020 QNSP because he “maybe . . . just [did not] read it right or [he] was . . . just hazy from
reading all the questions.” Tr. at 104. He did not recall the security officer asking him about drug
use when the 2021 QNSP was being completed. Id. at 104–05. He testified that he never purchased
marijuana. Id. at 169.
In the October 2021 LOI, the Individual stated that his 2018 hospitalization was the only time he
had been hospitalized for mental health reasons. Ex. 6 at 4. However, the Individual’s arrest record
revealed that in November 2008, law enforcement was dispatched following “a report of a
disturbance between” the Individual and his father. Ex. 3 at 75, 86. Law enforcement was told that
the Individual had made threats of suicide, and when they arrived on the scene, they observed the
Individual holding “a rifle pointed at his face.” Id. Accordingly, the Individual was taken to a
hospital. Id. at 76, 92. The Individual testified that he had a firearm with him because he was
“going hunting[,]” and “before [he knew] it, [there was] a cop coming through the field” while he
was sitting in the pasture. Tr. at 87–91. He stated that upon being transported to the hospital, he
was discharged approximately one hour after his arrival. Id. at 57–58, 85.
According to the DOE Psychologist, during the psychological assessment the Individual did not
endorse any “significant problems with alcohol or drug abuse or dependence.” Ex. 4 at 2. The DOE
Psychologist noted discrepant information regarding the Individual’s past marijuana use, and that
the Individual indicated during the psychological assessment that he last used marijuana a month
prior to his 2018 psychiatric hospitalization. Id. at 3. The Individual told the DOE Psychologist
that his past criminal conduct, the credit card fraud/theft, was the result of being “young and
dumb.” Id. The Individual expressed the same sentiment regarding his 2018 psychiatric
hospitalization. Id. Addressing the psychiatric hospitalization, the Individual indicated that he
owned firearms at the time, and that his father became concerned that he would “do something
with [his] guns.” Id.
According to the Report, the DOE Psychologist conducted a Personality Assessment Inventory
(PAI) on the Individual. Ex. 4 at 3. Based on the results of the PAI, the DOE Psychologist
concluded that the Individual “will be quite reluctant to admit to minor faults,” and may “minimize
the negative impact that his behavior has on others and on himself.” Id. The DOE Psychologist
concluded that the Individual’s “emotional stability can be questionable[,]” especially when he
“experiences relationship stress.” Id. at 5. Accordingly, the Individual needs professional support
for his expressions of anger, as “suicidal ideation and attention seeking behavior are often the
result of anger turned inward.” Id. The DOE Psychologist noted that if the Individual is able to
obtain such professional assistance, his prognosis is “favorable.” Id. The DOE Psychologist
recommended that, to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, the Individual
should seek 12 “weeks of individual therapy, meeting once a week” and at the discretion of the
clinician thereafter. Id. The DOE Psychologist also recommended that therapy should focus on
“[a]ssertiveness [t]raining within stressful interpersonal relationships.” Id.
8
The Individual testified that following his meeting with the DOE Psychologist, he attempted to
contact the DOE Psychologist in July 2023 with the purpose of seeking continued treatment. Tr.
at 52–54, 155. As his attempts to make contact were unsuccessful, he ultimately sought treatment
with another provider. Id. at 54, 155. At the time of the hearing, he had been seeing a therapist for
individual sessions for approximately nine weeks and intended to continue receiving therapy. Tr.
at 54–55, 62, 64, 162–63; Ex. C. He indicated that his therapist has helped him “address [his]
anger” and confirmed that his circumstances have generally improved. Tr. at 63. He testified that
“everything got great after 2018[,]” and that absent the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations and
observations, he would not have sought therapy. Id. at 161–62, 178. The Individual’s current
therapist submitted a letter indicating that their weekly sessions primarily focus on
“communication and identifying current self-regulation skills.” Ex. D at 1; Ex. C at 1. She also
indicated in the letter that the Individual received low scores on his depression and anxiety
assessments, that the Individual has improved his ability to handle feelings of frustration, and that
he is able to process “feelings of irritation.” Ex. C at 1. In his testimony, the DOE Psychiatrist
noted that the Individual was given a diagnosis in 2018, and that “at some point[,] we [do not]
really know when[,] those symptoms dissipated or disappeared or if they really have.” Id. at 199.
The Individual’s current supervisor submitted a letter on the Individual’s behalf indicating that
while he has “no true knowledge of, nor can [he] judge or comment on, anything in [the
Individual’s] past[,]” the Individual “has carried himself in a manner indicative of a very
responsible individual.” Ex. A at 1. The Individual’s supervisor also spoke favorably regarding the
Individual’s work performance and asked that he be returned to work. Id.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline E
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E include:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically
concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to
cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
9
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Id. at ¶ 17.
As an initial matter, in completing both the 2020 and 2021 QNSPs, the Individual was under a
direct obligation to disclose truthful and complete information, as evidenced by the directions in
the signature block, where the individual affirmed that the “statements on [the] form . . . are true,
complete, and correct to the best of [the Individual’s] knowledge and belief.”
The Individual explained the omissions he made on the 2021 QNSP by indicating that he was, in
fact, not the person who completed the 2021 QNSP. Rather, as the Individual testified, a security
officer completed the 2021 QNSP. This testimony does not explain why information was omitted
from the 2020 QNSP. The Individual omitted his drug use from both QNSPs, and could only
explain the omission from the 2020 QNSP by stating that he “maybe . . . just [did not] read it right
or [he] was . . . just hazy from reading all the questions.” Tr. at 104. Furthermore, the Individual
explained that he omitted the 2017 citation for “navigating lights/sunrise-sunset” from the 2020
QNSP due to “inadvertent error.” These explanations do not mitigate the stated concerns pursuant
to any of the mitigating factors.
Regarding the omissions on the 2021 QNSP, the Individual maintained throughout his testimony
that he was not the person who completed the QNSP, but rather a security officer completed the
form in his presence. The security officer was not called as a witness for questioning, and the
Individual placed the blame for the omissions made on the 2021 QNSP squarely on security
officer’s shoulders. Further, there is no indication that the Individual reviewed the document before
signing and submitting it. Allowing another individual to complete a QNSP on one’s behalf
without completing a thorough review is not a “unique circumstance” that would mitigate the
stated security concerns. In fact, it casts serious doubt on the Individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and good judgment. As such, I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the
Guideline E security concerns related to his omissions on the QNSP under mitigating factor (c).
Id. at ¶ 17(c).
Furthermore, because the Individual allowed another person to complete his QNSP on his behalf
and failed to review the document before submitting it, he was unable to ascertain whether there
were any errors or omissions in the document in need of correction. Additionally, the Individual
10
omitted some information on the 2021 QNSP that he included on the 2020 QNSP, casting doubt
on the veracity of the Individual’s testimony that the security officer simply transferred
information from one QNSP to the other. As such, I cannot find that the Individual made prompt,
good-faith efforts to correct the omissions before being confronted with them.5 Id. at 17(a).
The Individual’s assertion that a security officer completed the 2021 QNSP on his behalf could
implicate the application of mitigating factor (b), if the security officer had “professional
responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security
processes.” However, as this security officer was not offered as a witness by the Individual, I have
no information as to what his actual job duties entailed. Additionally, assuming the security
officer’s duties did entail such responsibilities, the Individual never testified that the security
officer provided any advice preventing him from cooperating or providing complete and accurate
information. Accordingly, the Individual has not mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to
mitigating factor (b). Id. at ¶ 17(b).
Regarding the Guideline E allegations concerning a pattern of rule violations that support a whole
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, and unwillingness
to comply with rules or regulations, I cannot conclude that enough time has passed to mitigate the
stated concerns pertaining to the 2013 credit card theft/fraud conviction, the 2017 citation for no
navigating lights/sunrise-sunset, and the 2018 citation for speeding. While I understand the
incidents took place some number of years ago, in the context of the Individual’s lack of judgment
and omissions in completing the 2020 and 2021 QNSPs, it only seems as though the Individual’s
pattern of poor judgment has continued into the present, and accordingly, cannot be mitigated by
the simple passage of time. I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the stated concerns
pursuant to the mitigating factor at (c). Id. at ¶ 17(c).
Further, there is no indication before me that the Individual obtained counseling or took other
positive steps to correct his behavior, and the LSO never alleged that the Individual was susceptible
to duress, vulnerability, exploitation, or manipulation, and accordingly, the mitigating factors at
(d) and (e) are not applicable. Id. at ¶ 17(d), (e). I also have no indication that the information
regarding the Individual’s behavior came from an unsubstantiated source with questionable
reliability, and as the allegations do not pertain to association with persons involved in criminal
activities, the mitigating factors at (f) and (g) are not applicable. Id. at ¶ 17(f), (g).
B. Guideline H
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline H include:
5 I note that, despite the Individual’s testimony to the contrary, the report the investigator compiled following the ESI
does not recount a version of events in which another person completed the Individual’s 2021 QNSP. Instead, the
investigator noted that the Individual explained the omissions were inadvertent. If the Individual in fact completed his
own QNSP, he has misrepresented the events in this case during the hearing process, potentially raising additional
Guideline E concerns. Furthermore, if the Individual did complete the document himself, the security concerns still
would not be mitigated as the Individual failed to correct the omissions before being confronted with the facts.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(a).
11
(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of
abstinence, including, but not limited to:
(1) Disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) Changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and
(3) Providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement and
substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is grounds for
revocation of national security eligibility;
(c) Abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these
drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; and
(d) Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including, but not limited
to, rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable
prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 26.
In explaining his past drug use, the Individual contends that he last used any illicit substance in
2018, and that accordingly, his use was so long ago, that it does not cast doubt on his current
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. However, the Individual’s story regarding his drug
use throughout this administrative review process has contained contradictions. Specifically, the
Individual first stated that he “tried” marijuana only twice, but then, he stated in later testimony
that he had used marijuana between two to five times since 2006. Tr. at 40–41, 95–98. The
assertion that he “tried” marijuana twice was also inconsistent with the fact that he stated in the
November 2021 LOI that his marijuana use consisted of “a hit of it every once in a while on various
weekends[.]” Ex. 5 at 1. Thus, other than the Individual’s own contradictory testimony, I have no
evidence to support his assertion that he last used an illicit substance in 2018. He stated that he
submits to monthly drug tests as a term of his employment, but I have no such test results in the
record before me. In fact, the only drug test result in the record is from 2018, which was positive
for cannabinoids. The record also contains no corroborating evidence, like witness testimony or a
signed statement of intent to abstain, regarding any steps the Individual has taken to establish a
pattern of abstinence. Accordingly, the Individual has failed to mitigate the stated concerns
pursuant to mitigating factors (a) and (b). Id. at ¶ 26(a), (b).
The SSC does not allege that the Individual received and abused prescription drugs, and
accordingly, the mitigating factor at (c) is not applicable. Id. at ¶ 26(c). Additionally, I have no
12
information before me indicating that the Individual completed a drug treatment program.
Therefore, the mitigating factor at (d) is not applicable in this case. Id. at ¶ 26(d).
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the Individual mitigated the Guideline H security
concerns.
C. Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that 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 amendable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence
or exacerbation;
(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
In seeking individual therapy, the Individual has made strides “acknowledg[ing] the need for
support when he experiences relational stress.” Ex. 4 at 5. As indicated in a letter written by the
Individual’s therapist, the Individual is seeking treatment “focused on communication and
identifying current self-regulation skills.” Ex. C at 1. The Individual’s therapist also stated in her
letter that the Individual has “show[n] capability to state needs, ability to process feelings of
irritation, and has followed through on all clinical recommendations.” Ex. C at 1. Despite these
positive steps, I remain troubled by the fact that, when previously being treated for anger
management issues and Unspecified Mood (Affective) Disorder, the Individual stopped taking his
prescribed medication on two separate occasions without first consulting a medical professional,
resulting in his noncompliance with treatment recommendations. In fact, the Individual’s
hospitalization in 2018 occurred after once such instance of discontinuing prescribed medication.
The Individual’s willingness to comply with treatment recommendations is an important
consideration, especially because, at the time of the hearing, he had not yet completed the
recommended 12 weeks of therapy, which the DOE Psychologist indicated was necessary to show
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The fact that he had not yet completed the
13
recommended 12 weeks of therapy is only more concerning considering the severity of the mental
health episodes that resulted in the Individual’s hospitalization, which included alleged threats of
suicide and the presence of firearms. Because the Individual has a history of noncompliance with
medical treatment, I cannot be reassured that he will comply with current treatment
recommendations and that these episodes will not recur.
Additionally, the Individual was diagnosed with ongoing depression, Unspecified Mood
(Affective) Disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder in 2018, and while the Individual’s
therapist indicated in her letter that the Individual’s score on the depression assessment was low
and provided me with some understanding of the progress he has made in therapy, it remains
unclear whether the other diagnoses are still appropriate. As indicated in the record and noted by
the DOE Psychiatrist, the Individual suffered through mental health issues and received treatment
and diagnoses in 2018, and while the Individual testified that he no longer suffers from the same
mental health symptoms, it is unclear when and if the Individual truly improved and whether those
previous diagnoses still apply. Tr. at 199. Further, I have no assessment, either from the DOE
experts or the Individual’s therapist, of the Individual’s current prognosis. Accordingly, I cannot
conclude that the Individual has mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to the mitigating factors at
(a) and (b). Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(a), (b).
The record does not contain a recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional
employed or acceptable to the government indicating that the condition is under control or in
remission. Accordingly, the mitigating factor at (c) is not applicable. Id. at ¶ 26(c). The record
does not demonstrate there is no indication of a current problem or that the past psychological
condition was temporary. Therefore, the mitigating factors at (d) and (e) are not applicable. Id. at
¶ 26(d), (e).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E, H, and I
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable,
in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve the Guideline E, H, and I concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the
Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore,
I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be
appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals