PSH-24-0036

*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 20, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0036
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 9, 2024
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (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 should be granted
access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual currently works for a DOE contractor, by which he was hired in December 2022.
Exhibit (Ex.) 7 at 36;2 Ex. 9 at 125. On December 18, 2022, the Individual signed and submitted
a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking access
authorization. Ex. 9 at 118. In the QNSP, the Individual disclosed that he was diagnosed with
Bipolar II Disorder in approximately April 2021. Id. at 110.
The local security office (LSO) issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning the
information provided by the Individual. Ex. 6 at 22–32. In his response submitted on August 17,
2023, the Individual admitted experiencing symptoms associated with his Bipolar II diagnosis and
to stopping treatment and medication without consulting with his healthcare provider. Id. at 28–
29.
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 The exhibits submitted by DOE were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each page. This Decision will refer
to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by DOE.
- 2 -
On October 2, 2023, the Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist)
for a psychological evaluation. Ex. 7 at 35. On October 11, 2023, the DOE Psychologist issued a
report of the evaluation (Report) in which he opined that the Individual met sufficient criteria for
a diagnosis of Bipolar II Disorder, most recent episode depressed, with rapid cycling, under the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5), and that this
condition can impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Id. at 35, 39.
The LSO issued the Individual a letter notifying him that it possessed reliable information that
created substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6. In a
Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted nine exhibits (Exs. 1–9). The Individual submitted seven exhibits
(Exs. A–G). The parties stipulated to the admission of each exhibit. The Individual testified on his
own behalf. The LSO offered the testimony of the DOE Psychologist.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) as the basis for its substantial doubt
regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5. “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. The SSC cited the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met
sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Bipolar II Disorder, most recent episode depressed,
with rapid cycling, under the DSM-5 and that this condition can impair his judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s citation of the DOE Psychologist’s opinion
that the Individual has a psychological condition that could impair his judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 28(b).
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 of 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
Dep’t 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
- 3 -
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).
An 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). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her 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
The Individual began experiencing depressive symptoms as a minor. Ex. 7 at 36. He began
experiencing hypomanic symptoms, such as “elation, high energy, [and] less of a need for sleep or
food,” while in college. Ex. 6 at 28; Ex. 7 at 36. In April 2021, he sought out mental health
treatment with Cerebral, an online mental health platform. Ex. 6 at 26. In a short period of time,
the Individual met numerous different psychiatrists via video conference. Id. at 38, 41 (reporting
the Individual seeing four to five different psychiatrists); Ex. 9 at 127–28. One of the psychiatrists
initially diagnosed the Individual with Major Depressive Disorder and prescribed him medication
for that condition which the Individual found to be ineffective for managing his symptoms. Ex. 6
at 27; Tr. at 17, 28–30. His diagnosis was later corrected to Bipolar II Disorder. Ex. 6 at 27; Tr. at
17, 28–30. The Individual also reported seven different medications that were prescribed to him at
varying dosages and times before late 2022. Ex. 6 at 28.
The Individual eventually stopped seeing the psychiatrists he met through Cerebral and
discontinued his medication without supervision from a healthcare provider. Id. at 27; Ex. 7 at 41;
Tr. at 31–32. The Individual expressed frustration regarding the lack of continuity of care through
Cerebral. Ex. 7 at 41; Tr. at 29 (testifying that one of his biggest complaints was “how frequently
[Cerebral] [was] changing the providers . . .” over “six or seven months . . .”). He also felt that the
medications he was prescribed impacted his work, was skeptical of their effectiveness, and
believed that “with the knowledge” of his “Bipolar [II] Disorder, [he] could accommodate
[himself] . . . .” Ex. 6 at 27. When asked in the LOI to provide a response as to how his Bipolar II
Disorder had a “negative impact on [his] employment [and] professional life[,]” the Individual
responded that he felt that “[t]he rapidly changing medication and dosages provided a much greater
challenge . . . .” Id. at 29. In particular, one prescribed sedative caused the Individual to sleep for
over 14 hours. Id. The Individual expressed that his episodes became “notably less common than
when [he] was on medication.” Id. at 30. He also expressed that he knows that he “always ha[s]
the option of starting treatment again” if he were struggling. Id. at 29. From 2021 to 2023, the
Individual attempted to manage his symptoms without medication. Ex. A at 3.
The Individual began employment for a DOE contractor sometime in December 2022. Ex. 7 at 36;
Ex. 9 at 125. On December 18, 2022, the Individual signed and submitted the QNSP in connection
with seeking access authorization. Id. at 118. The Individual disclosed on the QNSP his diagnosis,
- 4 -
his discontinuation of treatment without consulting a medical professional, and the fact he no
longer received treatment. Id. at 110–11.
Thereafter, the LSO issued the Individual an LOI to which the Individual responded on August 17,
2023. Ex. 6 at 32. In his response to the LOI, the Individual acknowledged presently experiencing
“hypomanic” and “depressive” episodes at frequencies ranging from one to two times per month
to one to two times across four months. Id. at 28. However, the Individual expressed his belief that
his hypomanic episodes increased his focus and productivity. Id. at 29. He noted that he had never
had a psychotic episode. Id. The Individual also indicated that his condition had little impact on
his personal life though he may become “a bit more irritable.” Id. He described his current mental
health as “better than it has ever been” and reiterated that he had the “skills to identify when
episodes were happening” and could accommodate them. Id.
Thereafter, on October 2, 2023, the Individual met with the DOE Psychologist for a psychological
evaluation. Ex. 7 at 35. As part of the psychological evaluation, the DOE Psychologist conducted
a clinical interview of the Individual; administered several psychological tests; and reviewed the
Personnel Security File from DOE. Id. The results of the psychological testing were all within
normal limits and did not provide clinically significant evidence of any psychological condition.
Id. at 37–38. However, the DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual had acknowledged an
approximate ten-year history of depression and an approximate three-to-four-year history of
hypomania. Id. at 39. The cycles of depression and hypomania were untreated and even persisted
within the last month of the examination. Id.
On October 11, 2023, the DOE Psychologist issued the Report in which he concluded that the
Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Bipolar II Disorder, most recent
episode depressed, with rapid cycling, under the DSM-5. Id. at 39, 41.3 The DOE Psychologist
noted the Individual’s “history of several years of depression and hypomania.” Id. at 41. Regarding
the symptoms of hypomanic episodes, the Individual admitted to episodically experiencing
inflated self-esteem, needing only four to five hours of sleep, being more talkative, and engaging
in increased goal-directed activity. Id. at 39–40. Regarding his symptoms of major depressive
episodes, the Individual admitted to experiencing depressed moods that persisted throughout most
of the day; markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day,
nearly every day; sleeping up to 10 to 14 hours per day; at times just “lay[ing] [sic] there[;]” fatigue
or loss of energy; on rare occasions, diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness;
and prior suicidal ideation, last present in the spring of 2022. Id. at 40. Furthermore, the Individual
“reported consistent cycling when he is not on psychiatric medication.” Id. at 41.
The DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual’s Bipolar II Disorder “denotes emotional
instability considering the fact that he continues to cycle on a consistent basis.” Id. The DOE
Psychologist recommended that the Individual see a psychiatrist in his community and receive an
assessment for medication, treatment, and subsequent medication management. Id. The DOE
Psychologist opined that the Individual’s prognosis would be “fair to good” with an assessment
for medication and appropriate treatment. Id.
3 The DOE Psychologist included in his Report the diagnostic criteria for Bipolar II Disorder. See Ex. 7 at 41–43. A
person must meet the criteria “for a current or past hypomanic episode” and the criteria for a “current or past major
depressive episode.” Id. at 41.
- 5 -
Between late November 2023 and early December 2023, the Individual sought treatment from a
psychiatrist (Individual’s Psychiatrist) and a psychotherapist (“Individual’s Psychotherapist”). Ex.
2 at 10; Ex. A at 4; Ex. G at 1; Tr. at 36–37, 46. He began meeting with the Individual’s Psychiatrist
between “every three weeks to every month or so” and meeting with the Individual’s
Psychotherapist weekly. Tr. at 36–37, 46; see also Ex. A at 4.
The Individual’s Psychiatrist prescribed him with Lamotrigine (25mg) in December 2023; varying
amounts of Duloxetine from January 2024 to present; and Topiramate (25mg) from February 2024
to present. Ex. A at 4; Ex. F at 1; Ex. G at 1; Tr. at 41, 44. The Individual’s symptoms have
improved since resuming treatment. Ex. A at 4. The Individual has been compliant with his
medications and confirmed that he planned on continuing to meet the Individual’s Psychiatrist on
a regular basis. Id. at 7; Ex. G at 1. During the hearing, the Individual described reaching out to
the Individual’s Psychiatrist regularly whenever he experienced notable symptoms of his Bipolar
II Disorder. Tr. at 22–24. The two actively and regularly communicate about his medication
regimen, and he specifically expressed, “if the [Individual’s Psychiatrist] says to do it, then we’re
doing it . . . .” Id. at 60–61. The Individual’s Psychiatrist indicated, via letter submitted to the
record, that “[the Individual] has been compliant with his treatment plan, been timely to his
sessions, and demonstrated integrity”—in addition to being “psychiatrically stable since the
beginning of treatment” and “show[ing] good insight into his symptoms.” Ex. G at 1; see also Ex.
A at 7 (describing the Individual as “stable, honest, and cooperative . . . ” based on the Individual’s
Psychiatrist’s experience).
Regarding their weekly sessions, the Individual’s Psychotherapist indicated that the Individual
“consistently[ ] fully engaged in his therapy during sessions[ ] and complied with all therapy
recommendations.” Ex. A at 7. During the hearing, the Individual explained that he and the
Individual’s Psychotherapist would discuss “mitigating strategies” or how to logically think and
work through stressors. Tr. at 46–47. The Individual has voiced his intent to continue participating
in psychotherapy and medication management with the Individual’s Psychiatrist. Ex. A at 7; see
also Tr. at 44–45, 49 (answering “absolutely” when asked if he intended to “indefinite[ly]” engage
with his Psychiatrist and medication management and testifying that he did not intend to stop
seeing his Psychotherapist).
On February 5 and February 20, 2024, the Individual met with another psychologist (Individual’s
Consultant) for a psychological evaluation in connection with this proceeding. Ex. A at 1; see also
Tr. at 51–52 (testifying that the Individual retained the Individual’s Consultant for a forensic
evaluation rather than treatment). The Individual’s Consultant conducted a background interview
and two structured clinical interviews; administered two psychological tests; reviewed a history
and background questionnaire and records provided by the Individual; and consulted with the
Individual’s Psychotherapist and Psychiatrist. Ex. A at 1. Consistent with what was reported to the
DOE Psychologist, the Individual provided background to the Individual’s Consultant regarding
the Individual’s history and symptoms of depression and hypomanic episodes. Id. at 6–7. On
February 26, 2024, the Individual’s Consultant issued a report based on his assessment. Id. at 1.
In the report, the Individual’s Consultant concluded that the Individual’s background and the
information gathered during the clinical interview supported his pre-existing diagnosis of Bipolar
- 6 -
II Disorder. Id. at 8. The Individual’s Consultant concluded that the Individual is “capable of an
exceptional level of occupational, academic, and social success.” Id. The Individual’s Consultant
recommended that the Individual continue individual psychotherapy; ongoing medication
management; and further diagnostic evaluation if his behavior were to escalate, if additional
relevant symptoms appear, or if symptoms worsen. Id. at 9.
The Individual provided for consideration three letters: one from his supervisor (Individual’s
Current Supervisor); one from a former supervisor from his last place of employment (Individual’s
Former Supervisor); and one from a friend he met in college (Individual’s Friend). Exs. B–D. The
Individual’s Current Supervisor indicated that he was unaware of the Individual’s Bipolar II
diagnosis, “highlight[ing] how little his condition has affected his career and the work he does.”
Ex. B at 1. Regarding the Individual’s behavior at work, the Individual’s Former Supervisor
acknowledged a “personality conflict” between the Individual and another manager but was
otherwise complimentary, recounting the Individual’s “solid judgment.” Ex. C at 1. Last, the
Individual’s Friend noted “minor instances” of excitable behavior in college, where the Individual
would binge watch television and have an irregular sleep schedule. Ex. D at 1. However, the
Individual’s Friend observed that those behaviors have been “noticeably absent in the last couple
years” and further observed that the Individual appears “normal.” Id.
As of the date of the hearing, the Individual maintained compliance with the medications
prescribed by the Individual’s Psychiatrist. Ex. G at 1. Furthermore, he remained in regular contact
with both the Individual’s Psychotherapist and the Individual’s Psychiatrist and testified as to the
benefit of their treatment, his intention to continue treatment with them, and his intention to comply
with their treatment recommendations. Tr. at 44–50. During the hearing, the Individual admitted
to what he described as a hypomanic episode about a week prior. Id. at 22. He also admitted to
experiencing a depressive episode about two weeks prior. Id. at 24–25. However, according to his
testimony, the Individual experienced significantly lessened durations of these episodes. Id. at 22,
25 (describing his hypomanic episode as having lasted for “about half a day . . .” and his most
recent depressive episode as having lasted for “four to five days”). Notably, a criterion for a
hypomanic episode pursuant to the DSM-5 is that the episode “last[s] at least 4 consecutive days
and presents most of the day, nearly every day[.]” Ex. 7 at 39. Furthermore, the Individual reported
that his hypomanic and depressive symptoms had been significantly lessened since resuming
treatment. Tr. at 23, 25–26.
After hearing the testimony of the Individual, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had
received appropriate treatment since the October 2023 clinical interview and that the Individual’s
condition had stabilized. Id. at 68–69. The DOE Psychologist expressed that the Individual’s
prognosis was “very positive” based upon the Individual’s treatment, though he acknowledged a
chance of his symptoms increasing if the Individual discontinued his medication. Id. at 71.
Regardless, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual had “insight” into his diagnosis
and had been “exhibiting good judgment[.]” Id. Regarding the Individual’s self-described
hypomanic and depressive symptoms, the DOE Psychologist noted that they had “lessened” and
opined that the “combination of his medication and therapy [were] effective.” Id. at 70. He was
also not worried regarding the ongoing adjustment of the Individual’s medications, as this was
normal in the course of treatment. Id. at 72. When asked whether “in [his] opinion . . . [the
- 7 -
Individual] [had] an illness or mental condition that may cause a significant defect in his judgment
and reliability[,]” the DOE Psychologist concluded “at this moment, no.” Id. at 70.
V. ANALYSIS
The opinion of the DOE Psychologist that the Individual has a psychological condition that could
impair her judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness justifies the LSO’s invocation of
Guideline I. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b). Conditions that could mitigate security concerns
under Guideline I include:
(a) the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) [a] recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government [indicates] 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;
and,
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Id. at ¶ 29.4
By all accounts, the Individual has fully complied with his clinicians’ treatment recommendations,
including continuing psychotherapy and medication management, since November or December
2023. While the record reflects the Individual discontinued his initial treatment for two years, the
Individual specifically described a Cerebral provider misdiagnosing him, Cerebral re-assigning the
Individual to numerous providers within six or seven months, and the adverse side effects of the
medications prescribed by those providers. Given those circumstances, the discontinuation of
treatment in 2021 detracts little from the Individual’s current period of compliance with his
treatment plan—with which he has actively engaged for approximately five months and which
consists of continuity of care from his treatment providers, regular scheduled sessions with the
same providers, and active communication regarding the management of his medication and
symptoms. Moreover, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s treatment regimen was
appropriate and could control his Bipolar II Disorder with continued compliance. Accordingly, I
find the first mitigating condition under Guideline I applicable. Id. at ¶ 29(a).
4 The fourth and fifth mitigating conditions under Guideline I are inapplicable in this case as it is uncontested that the
Individual has been diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder. Tr. at 37–39.
- 8 -
In addition to the Individual’s full compliance with his ongoing counseling and treatment, into
which he voluntarily entered, the Individual has favorable prognoses from each of his clinicians
and the Individual’s Consultant. Moreover, the DOE Psychologist also concluded that the
Individual’s prognosis for managing his condition in the future is good given that the Individual
has stabilized with treatment and that his Bipolar II Disorder symptoms have lessened. While the
DOE Psychologist noted the possibility of the Individual’s symptoms worsening without
medication, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual had been exercising good insight
and judgment and that it appears that the Individual has complied with his medication treatment.
For these reasons, I find the second and third mitigating conditions under Guideline I applicable.
Id. at ¶ 29(b)–(c).
In light of the Individual’s strict compliance with the treatment recommendations from his
clinicians, stabilization of his mood episodes since the Individual began receiving treatment, and
the positive prognoses from the DOE Psychologist and the Individual’s clinicians, I find that the
Individual has mitigated the security concerns related to his diagnosis with Bipolar II Disorder.
Accordingly, I find that he has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline
I.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, 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 brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns set
forth in the SSC. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual should be granted access
authorization. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10
C.F.R. § 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals