PSH-24-0060

*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: February 6, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0060
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 21, 2024
___________________________
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 granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed with a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. As part of the clearance adjudication process, the Individual signed and submitted a
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in January 2023. Exhibit (Ex.) 9. In his
QNSP, the Individual disclosed that he was terminated from a position in September of 2022. Id.
at 84. He stated that he “was not really provided any details for the reason” behind why he was
terminated, “other than inconsistency.” Id. He indicated that his “[t]ermination letter stated” that
his former employer “can dismiss employees with little or . . . no reason at all during the
probationary period.” Id.
In March 2023, the Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI), which was
conducted by an investigator. Id. at 126. The Local Security Office (LSO) subsequently asked the
Individual to respond to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), which he signed and submitted in August
2023. Ex. 6. Following the LOI, the LSO asked the Individual to undergo a psychological
evaluation, which was conducted by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in
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
September 2023. Ex. 7. The DOE Psychologist issued a report (the Report) the same month, which
indicated that while the Individual did not meet the criteria for a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) diagnosis, he exhibited “a
constellation of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors suggestive of a mental condition that has
impaired his judgement, reliability, emotional stability, and trustworthiness.” Id. at 40.
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
a substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of Security
Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and I (Psychological
Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. 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 presented the testimony of five other witnesses. See Transcript of
Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0060 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual submitted one
exhibit, which was marked as Exhibit A. The DOE Counsel submitted nine exhibits marked as
Exhibits 1 through 9 and presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
A. Guideline E
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, 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
raise a disqualifying security concern is:
[c]redible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guidelines . . .
but which, when combined with all available information, supports a whole-person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that
the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. This
includes, but is not limited to, considerations of . . . [a]ny disruptive . . . or other
inappropriate behavior.
Id. at ¶ 16(d)(2).
Under Guideline E, the LSO alleged that the Individual was terminated from a previous position
because he violated organizational policies, despite being aware of those policies. Ex. 1 at 5. As
3
explained below, I find that the LSO’s allegations are insufficiently developed to raise a security
concerns under Guideline E.
B. Guideline I
Under Guideline I, “[c]ertain 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. Among those conditions set forth
in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “[b]ehavior
that casts doubt on an individual's judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, not covered
under any other guideline.” Id. at ¶ 28(a). Under Guideline I, the LSO alleged that the DOE
Psychologist concluded that the Individual displays distorted thinking and has shown poor
judgment in ways that suggest “a constellation of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors suggestive
of a mental condition that has impaired his judgement, reliability, emotional stability, and
trustworthiness.” Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline I is justified.
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
4
In September 2022, the Individual was terminated from his position with a former employer.2 Ex.
9 at 84. The Individual stated in his QNSP that he was “not provided with any details” about why
he was terminated. Id. The investigator’s report indicates that the Individual told the investigator
that he had not been issued any reprimands or warnings prior to his termination, and that he “had
no indication that anything was wrong with his employment[.]” Id. at 126. When he was handed
his letter of termination, he asked his supervisor why he was being terminated, and “all that she
would say is ‘inconsistency.’”3 Id.; Ex. 6 at 26; Tr. at 69–70. The Individual’s former supervisor
told the investigator that the Individual was terminated because he disclosed a “conflict of his
morals,” as he was not permitted “to preach during community outreach.”4 Ex. 9. at 141. Because
the Individual’s former employer was required to maintain the separation of church and state, the
Individual was terminated.5 Id.
The Individual indicated in his hearing testimony that he believed that he “was terminated due to
the expressions of [his] faith that [he] shared[,]” and for having expressed concern over working
on the sabbath. Tr. at 70–71, 82. The Individual clarified that he initially shared his concerns over
working on the sabbath, even though he was never ordered to do so, then “one time in particular”
he attempted “to share the gospel” with his management during a meeting. Id. at 82. He feels that
he was terminated because he shared the gospel in a manner “that [he would not] today[.]” Id. at
71, 142. The Individual testified that at the time, he “always [had] a desire to bring up [his faith]
somehow . . . just bringing God into conversation about things.” Id. at 142–43. He testified that he
never received a full explanation as to why he was terminated. Id. at 86. When asked what he
would do differently, if anything at all, while still in the employ of his former employer, the
Individual stated that he would seek “to find another work position” and to “seek more counsel
from friends and peers[.]” Id. at 98, 141.
In his LOI response, the Individual indicated that he violated “rules, regulations, and/or policies”
while working at the former employer. Ex. 6 at 26. When asked to explain, he did not specify
which rules, regulations, and/or policies he violated or say how he violated them. Id. Instead, the
Individual stated that his father had told him to refrain from mentioning “religion . . . in the
workplace” and that he was not referring “to any institutional rule, regulation, and/or policy of [his
former employer].” Id. Rather, he stated that he “only speaks of the parental institution that [he]
chose to disavow.” Id. Later in the LOI response, the Individual indicated that he did not
“knowingly violate the rule(s), regulation(s), and/or policy” of his former employer. Ex. 6 at 27.
After giving the matter thought at the hearing, the Individual stated that “in retrospect, [he] caused
confusion in answering this question because [he did not] place relevancy on the workplace
because [that is] something [he] actually [knew] much less about.” Tr. at 87. He clarified by
2 During his testimony, the Individual stated that his employment began in July 2022. Tr. at 69
3 He testified that his termination letter indicated that according to his employer’s policies, he could be terminated
“with little to no reason at all” during the probationary period. Tr. at 140. The probationary period was six months. Id.
4 The Individual testified that he neither asked to nor did he actually preach at a community event. Tr. at 81, 138–39.
He does not have any insight as to why his former supervisor would make such a statement to the investigator. Id.
5 The Individual’s former manager also stated that the Individual “had trouble regulating his emotional intensity when
interacting with coworkers and supervisors.” Ex. 9 at 141.
5
indicating that he does not know if he violated a regulation or policy prior to his termination. Id.
at 88–89.
When asked in the LOI whether his character for honesty or trustworthiness had ever come into
question, the Individual stated that it had in the context of past relationships, and that the “[l]ack
of trust [was] likely due to impurity[.]”6 Id. at 27. He went on to indicate that in order to assure the
DOE of his honesty, trustworthiness, and reliability, and general ability to protect classified
information, he indicated that he would “work to communicate and act on [his] ability,” that he
will “honor the sanctity[,] bidding to safety,” and that he would “acknowledg[e] past shortcomings
and learn[] after reproof to press on under the responsibility given to [him].”7 Id. at 28.
In September of 2023, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation.8 Ex. 7 at 36. The
Individual reported that his belief system had caused tension with his parents, who do not have the
same views as him.9 Id. For example, the Individual stated that his father discouraged him from
expressing his personal religious convictions at work meetings.10 Id. at 37. The Individual
disagreed with his father’s advice. Id.
The Individual also told the DOE Psychologist that he did not have any formal mental health
diagnoses but said he has struggled with anxiety since he was a teenager. Id. In 2019 and 2020,
the Individual stated that he had some “situationally based” suicidal ideation and thoughts of self-
harm, including a time when he considered harming his eye based on a biblical verse after having
thoughts about a woman he saw while out in public.11 Id. at 37–38. The Individual also reported
6 At the hearing, when asked what he meant by this answer, the Individual stated that he was “trying to go back to
what [he] was thinking at the time when [he] wrote that.” Tr. at 94. He later said that he was “even wondering why he
wrote” this answer. Id. When asked about his response again, the Individual could only surmise that he “was trying to
bring to light . . . how, when relationships get kind of messy, things get kind of confusing.” Id. at 95.
7 When asked what he meant by this response, the Individual indicated that he meant that if he is needed and he is
able, then he would “seek[] to communicate that and make [himself] known, in terms of reliability and actually being
there[.]” Tr. at 96. Regarding the use of his word “sanctity,” he stated that he meant “the sanctity of relations among
people internationally.” Id. at 97.
8 During the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist conducted the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3, the
results of which were “invalid,” as there was “evidence of excessive inconsistency because of variable responding to
the . . . . items.” Ex. 7 at 39.
9 The Individual’s mother testified that around 2020 or 2021, the Individual began questioning the faith tradition with
which he was raised, and incidents of friction and disagreement increased as he began evangelizing to his family. Tr.
at 59. She indicated that this tension decreased following his termination in 2022. Id. at 60. The Individual testified
that he has not argued with his family in some time, but that their conversations were frequent and “very intense.” Id.
at 92. He discusses these matters less frequently, as he found himself “a bit triggered in these arguments[.]” Id. at 92–
93.
10 The Individual’s mother testified that both she and her husband told the Individual not to discuss religion at work,
as they knew of his “history of evangelizing when . . . there was an opportunity.” Tr. at 64–65. The Individual indicated
that his parents were also concerned for his safety. Id. at 140–41.
11 The Individual refrained from harming himself on this occasion, because this particular verse was “hyperbolic[,]”
and he took his feelings “as a warning.” Ex. 6 at 31; Tr. at 107–08, 122. He denied any similar thoughts of harming
6
increased anxiety after an incident in 2021, where he spoke to a child he did not know while on a
walk in his neighborhood. Id. at 38. The Individual often walked around his neighborhood to
“spread the word of God.” Id. Another neighbor witnessed the interaction between the Individual
and the child, recorded it, and posted it on a community website.12 Id. The police were eventually
alerted but did not take any action against the Individual. Id. The Individual suffered harassment
online and in his neighborhood related to this incident, which increased his anxiety.13 Id.
The record indicates that the Individual engaged in some therapy in the past. Ex. 7 at 38; Ex. 6 at
28. In 2017, he saw a therapist for around three to four months, visiting the therapist for a total of
five or six sessions, after his mother expressed some concern about the Individual’s substance
use.14 Ex. 7 at 38; Tr. at 99. In 2022 and 2023, the Individual saw subsequently two different faith-
based counselors who he worked with to improve his communication skills and discuss his
identity.15 Ex. 7 at 38; Ex. 6 at 32.
Ultimately, the DOE Psychologist concluded that although the Individual did not meet the criteria
for a DSM-5-TR diagnosis, he displayed “a constellation of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors
indicative of an impaired mental condition.” Ex. 7 at 40. She specifically noted that he displayed
absolutistic distorted thinking and that this thinking has impaired his relationships, employment,
and personal well-being. Id. The DOE Psychologist also explained that she believes many of the
incidents described above were examples of the Individual displaying poor judgment. Id. She
opined that she believes there is a possibility that the Individual’s belief system “will continue to
affect his judgment, reliability (i.e., following the rules), stability (i.e., emotional modulation and
control) and/or trustworthiness.” Id. She recommended that the Individual engage in cognitive
behavioral therapy (CBT) to help him learn to control impulsiveness, be more aware of others, and
himself. Id. at 108–09. In later testimony, he indicated that he would take his eye out under specific circumstances.
Id. at 121–22.
12 The Individual’s mother testified that the neighbors have not complained about the Individual’s behavior since this
incident. Id. at 60–61.
13 The Individual testified that as he approached the child, he was wondering whether he should knock on the front
door to get the attention of an adult therein before speaking to the child. Tr. at 114. The Individual said that his mother
told him that following this incident, an online post identified him “as someone that was responsible for some sort of
assault or child abuse[.]” Id. at 115–16. He stated that although he does not “want to set limitations on” approaching
children, he now believes that he can take a “community” approach to speaking to children about faith. Id. at 116–17.
He later stated that he would not approach a child to discuss such matters. Id. at 117.
14 The Individual’s mother testified that she recommended that the Individual see a therapist, as he was “smoking”
and experiencing “issues with concentrating[.]” Tr. at 63. She recommended a therapist that could help him with
remaining mindful, as he had difficulty concentrating. Id. at 66. The Individual was not interested in exploring religion
at the time, so she was primarily concerned with the aforementioned matters. Id. at 63.
15 The first faith-based counselor he saw was in 2020 or 2022, following a breakup. Tr. at 76, 90. He stated that his
former girlfriend recommended that he seek therapy and that “[i]t might have” had something to do with his religious
proselytizing, as they may have had “some disagreements about certain things[.]” Id. at 90–91. He had only two to
three sessions with the therapist, as the conversations made him uncomfortable. Id. at 100–01. He indicated that after
his termination and before he accepted the position with the DOE contractor, he sought and received the services of a
faith based counselor “for a few months[,]” attending five or six sessions. Id. at 75, 101–02. Once he secured his
position with the contractor, he stopped seeing the counselor. Id. at 102. He did state that this counselor helped him
learn how to navigate the workplace as a person of faith. Id. at 103–05.
7
increase his coping skills. Id. She also suggested that the Individual would benefit from meeting
with a psychiatrist to evaluate whether medication could treat his anxiety. Id.
The Individual testified that his termination “was a big blow for [him,]” and it served as “a reality
check in terms of how [he was] approaching doing things.” Tr. at 73. He has been reaching out
and “receiving advice from peers, friends, [and] pastoral advice[.]” Id. As a result, he has changed
his approach to evangelizing, and he now knows that “[there is] a place and [there is] a time[.]” Id.
at 74. He stated that after he spoke to his friends and family, he realized that the Report contained
valuable information, especially when it came to “how [he] go[es] about paying attention to social
interactions in the workplace.” Id. at 77. Although he was initially resistant to obtaining therapy
per the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations, he ultimately decided to look for a therapist in
February 2024. Id. at 77–78. He heard back from a therapist in April 2024. Id. at 78. As he felt that
it was important to him, he wanted “to keep a faith-based factor as part of the selection” of a
therapist. Id. He was able to get an appointment in May 2024, and at the time of the hearing, the
Individual had completed one session of therapy.16 Id. at 79. He does intend to continue therapy
sessions, and although he was amenable to the recommendation that he seek therapy, he stated that
he is “kind of personally opposed to” taking medication. Id. at 119, 121. He may consider seeing
someone for medication if his therapist suggests it. Id.
The Individual’s current therapist, who was present for the testimony of every witness except that
of the DOE Psychologist, testified that he has been working as a therapeutic counselor since 2005
and that he has been a pastoral counselor for over thirty years.17 Id. at 125–26; Ex. A. He reviewed
the Report, determined that the DOE Psychologist’s assessment was “clinically accurate” and that
her analysis was “pretty solid[.]” Tr. at 128. However, he disagrees with the DOE Psychologist’s
assertion that the Individual “uses his religion to justify his behaviors.” Id. The therapist indicated
that based on his experience, the Individual was motivated by his beliefs, but he did not
“necessarily” use it to justify his behavior. Id. at 128–29. He believes that the Individual’s prior
behavior was “transitory and that it was behavior that came from an immature understanding of
how to interface . . . one’s sacred belief with the secular world[.]” Id. at 129–30. He believes that
there is “some room for . . . training or guidance on how to recognize distorted thought patterns
and finding out how these particular thought patterns can square better with his work environment
and his social interactions.” Id. at 132–33. He also wants to help manage the Individual’s anxiety.
Id. at 133. He wants to see the Individual on a weekly basis for six sessions, then determine if the
Individual should be seen on a biweekly basis. Id. at 133–34.
The Individual’s supervisor since 2023 testified that she sees and speaks to the Individual “maybe
four to five times a month[,]” but has determined that the Individual is “very respectful, very
professional[.]” Id. at 27–29, 31–32. She also described him as “very honest and very direct[,]”
and noted that he is responsible and trustworthy. Id. at 29–30. She noted that she has never
“personally witnessed, and . . . [has] not heard anyone complain about” the Individual
“evangelizing” at work. Id. at 30–31. The Individual’s work team lead testified that she interacts
16 The Individual told his therapist about the clearance process and that he “need[ed] help in gaining some support to
better understand how to facilitate conversations in the workplace[.]” Tr. at 106. He does not currently receive any
treatment for anxiety. Id. at 107.
17 The therapist testified that he had provided expert testimony in one prior hearing. Tr. at 131–32.
8
with the Individual on a “daily or weekly” basis, “depending on the project[.]” Id. at 37–38, 42–
43. She also described the Individual as “very trustworthy in terms of his work ethic[,]” and
indicated that he is “totally reliable” and honest. Id. at 38–40. With regard to his work-related
judgment, she indicated that his judgment is “spot on.” Id. at 40. She also indicated that she has
not witnessed the Individual “engage in religious advocacy” in the workplace. Id.
The Individual’s friend of thirteen years testified that he has “experienced evangelism” with the
Individual, and that since his termination in 2022, the Individual “understands that [he is] not the
junior holy spirit to be able to save people[.]” Id. at 47–49. Now, he can “stop conversations, rather
than force them” or “pursue them in a way that would make people uncomfortable.” Id. at 49. The
Individual can discern “when to speak to individuals and [when] not to.” Id. at 50. The Individual
has not said anything to his friend that would indicate that he is not willing to continue this behavior
in the future. Id. at 50–51. Prior to taking a different approach, although the Individual was not
aggressive with others, he would “continue to talk to [the person], prompt them” while
evangelizing. Id. at 51–52. The witness explained that the Individual “could continue the
conversation at times where it could become uncomfortable for some individuals.” Id. at 52. He
surmised that the Individual decided to alter his approach following “his experiences in the
workplace and some of the issues that [he has] had with colleagues and his family.” Id. at 53–54.
The Individual’s mother confirmed in her testimony that he has “definitely not been evangelizing”
and that he has “learned . . . from his experience” with his prior employer. Id. at 63–64.
The DOE Psychologist testified that her assessment was not made based on the Individual’s
religion or religious beliefs, but rather, “what happens as a result of . . . those beliefs.” Id. 147.
Although she recognized that the Individual has started making changes and has started maturing,
her opinion has not changed from what she expressed in the Report. Id. at 148–49. The Individual
has just started his therapy, and the “distorted thinking … really can impair how [one] think[s.]”
Id. However, she indicated that the Individual does now seem to exhibit “more flexible” thinking.
Id. at 149. She indicated that she would “need to see how [the Individual] responds to therapy”
prior to providing a prognosis, but based on the testimony, “there seems to be [an]
acknowledgment that . . . there could be potential concerns still[.]” Id. at 150–51. She also indicated
that she would need information regarding how the Individual is responding to therapy to know
whether the CBT modality would satisfy her recommendations. Id. at 152. She stated that she was
concerned that the Individual’s “strong emotions” would occasionally “overrule[] his reasoning
when [he was] making decisions.” Id. at 178. The DOE Psychologist confirmed that the
Individual’s “constellation of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors” are readily treatable through
CBT. Id. at 176–77. When asked about the approximate number of CBT sessions each individual
should undergo, the DOE Psychologist said that as different providers employ different methods
and patients respond differently, long-term CBT requires approximately twelve to twenty-four
sessions. Id. at 178.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline E
9
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,
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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
As the record indicates, the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual exhibits “a
constellation of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors suggestive of a mental condition that has
impaired his judgement, reliability, emotional stability, and trustworthiness” is based on, among
other things, the same behavior that gave rise to the Guideline E concern. Ex. 7; Ex. 1. Under the
Guideline E concern, an individual’s disruptive or inappropriate behavior may raise concerns if it
“is not explicitly covered under any other guideline[.]” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(d). Based
on a plain reading of the particular Guideline E concern, the LSO may not assert the facts that are
explicitly covered under a different guideline, in this case, Guideline I. Thus, I will address the
security concerns presented by the Individual’s behavior under Guideline I and not Guideline E.
B. Guideline I
10
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.
While I respect and understand the fact that the Individual’s current therapist has decades of
experience as a therapist, I cannot ignore the fact that at the time of the hearing, he had only seen
the Individual once and was informed by the testimony presented at the hearing. Notably, he also
did not hear the DOE Psychologist’s testimony at the hearing. Given the security concerns raised
by the individual’s behavior, this was not a well-established therapeutic plan or relationship
designed to address the specific concerns raised in this case. While I understand that the DOE
Psychologist also had only one session with the Individual, she reviewed the information contained
in the Individual’s personnel security file, conducted a psychological test, and issued the Report.
Because the record is bereft of any report authored and issued by the Individual’s therapist, I do
not have sufficient information to determine what the Individual’s therapist’s opinion was based
on. I have no information or evidence as to whether he conducted any testing, and I do not have
the benefit of a written report explaining the testing results, his observations, and his analysis.
Additionally, the Individual’s therapist agreed with the DOE Psychologist’s assessment, which
clearly indicated that the Individual has a condition for which he needs to receive treatment,
specifically CBT. I am somewhat concerned that the Individual’s therapist could conclude that the
Individual’s behavior was “transitory” after just one session, although he also agreed with the DOE
Psychologist that the Individual is in need of CBT, which could possibly take more than twelve
sessions to be effective. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that his opinion outweighs that of the DOE
Psychologist that the Individual continues to experience distorted thinking that can impair his
judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the
Individual has mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factors (b) or (c). Further, as
the Individual has had only one session of therapy, I do not have any evidence of any ongoing or
11
consistent compliance with a treatment plan or even how the individual is responding to the limited
therapy provided. The requirements of mitigating factor (a) have therefore not been satisfied.
There is nothing in the record, including a professional opinion, indicating that the condition was
temporary. Thus, mitigating factor (d) is not applicable. Further, the DOE Psychologist opined that
the Individual continued to demonstrate an impaired mental condition and therefore I cannot
conclude that there is no indication of a current problem. Mitigating factor (e) is not applicable.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline 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 concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that
granting 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 granted. 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