PSH-24-0098

*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: April 4, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0098
)
_________________________________________ )
Issued: July 19, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”), to hold an access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s
(DOE) regulations, as set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully
considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or
Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that
the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In January 2023, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP), in which reported that he was “wrongfully arrested for criminal recklessness”
in June 2022.2 Exhibit (Ex.) 13 at 136–37.3 He indicated that alcohol was not involved. Id. On
February 13, 2023, the Individual reported that he had been arrested two days prior for Driving
While Intoxicated, Alcohol (DWIA). Ex. 9. In November 2023, the Local Security Office (LSO)
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for
access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a).
This Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 A report prepared by an investigator with the Office of Personnel Management reflects that the charges were
“recklessness committed with a deadly weapon felony” and “leaving the scene of an accident[,]” both of which were
later dismissed. Ex. 13 at 184. It further reflects that, during his encounter with law enforcement, the Individual was
tased and transported to the emergency room. Id. at 157.
3 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 -
issued the Individual a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) addressing his two prior arrests. Ex. 10. In
the LOI, the Individual reaffirmed that he “never drank th[e] evening” of the June 2022 arrest. Id.
at 57. However, he disclosed that prior to being arrested for DWIA, he had consumed “around 9
or 10 ounces” of “[h]ard liquor.” Id. at 56.
The Individual subsequently underwent a psychological assessment with a DOE consultant
psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in December 2023. Ex. 11. During the clinical interview (CI),
the Individual admitted that, prior to the June 2022 arrest, he had consumed two beers. Id. at 65.
As part of the evaluation, the Individual underwent a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test,4 which was
positive at a level of 263 ng/mL. Id. at 66. The DOE Psychologist ultimately concluded that the
Individual “drinks habitually and he binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment on
a regular basis.” Id. at 67. He further opined that the Individual had not established adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO informed the Individual in a Notification Letter that
it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a
security clearance. In the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter,
the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G
(Alcohol Consumption), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations to request an administrative review hearing. Id. The Director of the Office of Hearings
and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge in the case, and I subsequently
conducted an administrative hearing in the matter. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel submitted
thirteen numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–13) into the record and presented the testimony of the DOE
Psychologist. The Individual submitted one exhibit (Ex. A) into the record, and he presented the
testimony of a friend as well as his own testimony. The hearing transcript in the case will be cited
as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.
II. Regulatory Standard
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with
the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d
1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
4 “PEth accumulates when ethanol binds to the red blood cells membrane. PEth reflects the average amount of alcohol
consumed over the previous 28-30 days . . . .” Ex. 11 at 66.
- 3 -
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included the SSC, which sets forth the derogatory
information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The
SSC specifically cites Guideline E, Guideline G, and Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
Ex. 1.
Guideline E addresses conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or an
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. Such conduct
“can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect
classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful
and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.” Id. In citing
Guideline E, the LSO asserted that the Individual initially denied consuming alcohol prior to the
June 2022 arrest, but later admitted that he had during the CI. Ex. 1 at 5.
Guideline G relates to security risks arising from excessive alcohol consumption. “Excessive
alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control
impulses and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. In citing Guideline G, the LSO cited the Individual’s June 2022
arrest and charge for Felony Criminal Recklessness Committed with a Deadly Weapon and
Leaving the Scene of an Accident as well as the Individual’s admission during the CI that he had
consumed alcohol prior to the arrest. Ex. 1 at 5. It also cited the Individual’s February 2023 arrest
for DWIA. Id. The LSO additionally cited: the Individual’s positive PEth test result, which the
SSC indicated was “congruent with chronic excessive alcohol consumption”; the DOE
Psychologist’s December 2023 determination that the Individual habitually and binge consumes
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment; and the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual
had not established adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
Guideline J addresses criminal conduct. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. Such conduct “creates
doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness” as “[b]y its very nature, it calls
into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Id.
Pursuant to Guideline J, the LSO cited the Individual’s above referenced June 2022 and February
2023 charges and arrests. Ex. 1 at 6.
IV. Findings of Fact
- 4 -
As stated above, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation with the DOE Psychologist.
According to the report prepared by the DOE Psychologist (Report), the Individual stated that prior
to the DWIA “he had gone out drinking” to celebrate the Super Bowl as well as his new job.5 Ex.
11 at 65. He recalled that he began to consume alcohol at around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. and consumed
one Long Island iced tea, six shots, and two beers. Id. He then “laid down for a while after
consuming [the] alcohol”6 and later awoke around 11:00 p.m. to find everyone was leaving. Id. He
left the party, and on his way home, he crashed his car, after which police located and arrested
him. Id.
The Report also noted that the Individual recalled “a prior alcohol related incident,” where law
enforcement tased him, and “he hit his head on the concrete.”7 Id. at 65. The Individual stated that,
prior to this encounter with law enforcement, he had consumed two beers. Id. at 65–66.
The Individual reported to the DOE Psychologist that leading up to the DWIA, he would consume
three mixed drinks or six beers over two to six hours on his days off, and this would occur “two
times a week generally only every other week.” Id. at 65. However, since the DWIA, he reported
that his consumption changed to “one mixed drink or three beers, one night of the weekend over
two to six hours.” Id. Regarding the Individual’s alcohol consumption in the 30 days leading up to
the CI, the Report noted the following:
[The Individual] stated that he had 12 ounces of fireball over six hours on
Thanksgiving Day (11-25-23). The day prior (11-22-23) he had 12 ounces of
cognac . . . over six hours. He had the same amount on the day after (11-24-23) and
the following day (11-25-23) as well. He noted that this past Sunday (12-3-23) as
well as on 11-18-23 and 11-11-23, he had two shots of whiskey at one and a half
ounces that were actually measured drinks. He stated that he had 12 ounces of . . .
tequila over six hours on 11-21-23.8
Id. at 66.
As part of the evaluation, the Individual underwent a PEth test that was positive at a level of 263
ng/mL. Id. A psychiatrist who analyzed the PEth test results noted that research showed that the
Individual’s PEth level was indicative of significant alcohol use and cited a study in which
participants who consumed approximately three alcoholic drinks daily produced an average PEth
level of 225 ng/mL. Id.
5 Although it was not clear in the Report, at the hearing, the Individual clarified that he was attending a party at a
family member’s house. Tr. at 39.
6 The Report noted that it was unclear whether the Individual fell asleep or passed out. Ex. 11 at 65.
7 Although the Report does not include the date of the “prior alcohol related incident,” at the hearing, the Individual
confirmed that this was the June 2022 arrest. Tr. at 22.
8 At the hearing, the Individual testified that he consumed alcohol to this degree because “a lot of family was in town
and we were celebrating . . . .” Tr. at 53.
- 5 -
The DOE Psychologist ultimately concluded that the Individual “drinks habitually and he binge
consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment on a regular basis.” Id. at 67. The DOE
Psychologist opined that the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation
or reformation and noted that the Individual “should not consume alcohol again.” Id. He also
recommended that the Individual participate in a substance abuse treatment program and attend
weekly sessions for a period of twelve weeks. Id. The DOE Psychologist recommended that,
following the twelve weeks of treatment, the Individual should then attend “maintenance/relapse
prevention group therapy sessions at least twice a month for three months and then monthly for
the remainder of one year.” Id. Lastly, he recommended that the Individual attend support group
meetings, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, obtain a sponsor, and work the steps of the program.
Id.
V. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual’s friend (Friend) testified on his behalf. Tr. at 11. The Friend testified
that he has known the Individual since 2008 when they met in high school. Id. He testified that
they live in separate states, but they have a phone or text message conversation approximately
“every other week.” Id. at 12. Regarding changes in the Individual’s alcohol consumption, the
Friend testified that the Individual has told him that he is “taking it seriously and . . . the job is
important to him, so that he needs to continue on the discipline and hold himself to the discipline
that he’s laid out for himself.” Id. at 15–16. He stated that “as far as [he] know[s],” the Individual
does not continue to consume alcohol, and he has not observed the Individual consume alcohol
since 2022. Id. at 13, 15. According to the Friend, the Individual stated that he intends to use
alcohol with “[r]esponsibility” in the future. Id. at 15. The Friend testified that he believes the
Individual to be honest and reliable; he has only been concerned about the Individual’s alcohol
consumption when the Individual has shared stories “of the situations that he’s going through”;
and he believes that although the Individual has made “[d]umb decisions[,]” he is not concerned
that the Individual “engages in criminal activity[.]” Id. at 16, 17, 19.
The Individual testified regarding the June 2022 arrest. He stated that he does not fully recall the
night of the arrest because he was tased by law enforcement and “slammed to the ground.” Id. at
34. He stated that he did remember going out with a supervisor from his job and ended up going
to a stranger’s house for “a few drinks.” Id. at 35. He said he then remembers that “things got a
little hectic[,]” and he woke up in jail. Id. The Individual testified that he was “wrongfully
arrested.” Id. He explained that the “deadly weapon” was a car driven by the supervisor. Id. The
Individual elaborated, stating that the supervisor crashed the car into another person and blamed
the Individual, alleging that the Individual left the scene and returned to the house. Id. The
Individual asserted that he never drove the car, and a court eventually “threw the case out and all
charges were dropped.”9 Id. at 36.
9 The Individual submitted a court order granting the State’s motion to dismiss the case. Ex. A. However, the order
was silent as to grounds for dismissal. See id. The Individual argued that the June 2022 arrest was “an isolated incident
and really an unfair incident . . . [as he] shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place.” Tr. at 40. The Individual
elaborated stating, “whether or not [the court order] makes that clear, that’s what I truly believe. And that’s how my
lawyer explained it to me.” Id.
- 6 -
The Individual explained the discrepancy between his answer on the LOI that he had not consumed
alcohol prior to the June 2022 arrest and his later report to the DOE Psychologist that he had. Id.
at 22, 26. The Individual testified that the arrest was traumatic for him, and he “wasn’t able to put
all the pieces together” because he was tased by law enforcement, causing him to fall and hit his
head on the concrete. Id. at 23. He stated that “a lot of things about that night were blurry.” Id. The
Individual explained that the DOE Psychologist had “a way of asking things that ma[de] it easy to
track from point A to point B,” which he found easier than completing the LOI. Id. He stated that
his answer on the LOI was a “mistake.” Id. He elaborated and indicated that he was possibly being
“cavalier . . . just not really paying attention to the questions and just giving information[.]” Id. at
26.
Turning to the February 2023 DWIA arrest, the Individual testified that he went to a family
member’s house and “started drinking.” Id. at 39. He explained that he “overindulged”10 and “tried
to sleep it off and . . . the time [he] slept wasn’t enough, so [he] tried to drive home and hit” a road
sign. Id. The Individual stated that although he still felt intoxicated when he woke up, he decided
to drive because he “thought he could do it.” Id. at 39–40.
Regarding his recent alcohol consumption, the Individual stated that he last consumed alcohol
when he had three shots of tequila over the course of six hours at a family event in April 2024.11
Id. at 27, 30. He testified that he was not intoxicated by the three shots but was last intoxicated in
February 2024 when he went to a comedy show and consumed “a couple beers [and a] couple
cocktails.” Id. at 29. The Individual testified that these two incidents constituted the extent of his
alcohol consumption in 2024. Id. at 30.
The Individual testified that he had not participated in any formal therapy, group work, or
counseling for his alcohol use, but he had “been very dependent on friends.” Id. at 31. He explained
that he has “a few friends who struggled with alcohol in the past,” and he would call them when
he felt like he wanted to consume alcohol. Id.
Regarding the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations, the Individual testified that he did not know
they “were mandatory[,]” and if he “knew it would have set [him] with better graces [for the
hearing, he] definitely would have done it.” Id. at 32. However, he thought he had the alcohol
concerns “under control with just cutting back and getting to the point where [he does not] use or
drink alcohol at all.” Id. at 33. He explained that he felt that “what happened to [him were]
instances of a lapse of judgment that [he is] paying for[.]” Id. at 32.
The Individual testified that he has not had any issues with cutting back his alcohol use and he
only consumed the shots in April because he was with “a lot of family that [he] hadn’t seen in a
while[,]” and he “just got swept away.” Id. However, he stated that he was able to “be all right
with just having those three little shots.” Id. The Individual testified that he does not believe that
10 Regarding the amount he consumed, the Individual testified that he consumed “a lot[,]” and that “it was hard to
keep track.” Tr. at 40.
11 The Individual explained that he took the shots because he “wanted to after . . . a couple people asked[.]” Tr. at 51.
- 7 -
he has a problem with alcohol, and he has no intentions to consume alcohol in the future, planning
to “live a sober life[.]” Id. at 34.
The DOE Psychologist testified after hearing the Individual’s and the Friend’s testimony. He stated
that he did not believe that the Individual has shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation “from the substance use issues” as he has continued to consume alcohol and has not
participated in any kind of treatment. Id. at 58–59. The DOE Psychologist gave the Individual a
prognosis of “very guarded[,]” which he noted was “above poor, but . . . below fair.” Id. at 59–60.
VI. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses during the hearing. In resolving the question of the
Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors
prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have
determined that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns cited by the LSO under
Guideline E but has not mitigated the security concerns cited by the LSO under Guideline G and
Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be granted. The specific findings that I make in support of this decision
are discussed below.
A. Guideline E
Conditions that may mitigate a Guideline E security concern 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;
- 8 -
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.
I find that mitigating factor (c) is the only applicable factor here. The concern at issue is whether
the Individual demonstrated dishonesty or a lack of candor when he denied consuming alcohol
prior to the June 2022 arrest on the LOI and later admitted that he consumed two beers prior to the
arrest during the CI. At the outset, I note that the LOI was asking the Individual to recall details of
events that occurred prior to the Individual being tased by law enforcement and potentially
suffering a head injury. It is understandable that the Individual’s recollection of the events of that
night were perhaps imprecise. Furthermore, I note that there is neither an allegation nor indication
that the Individual was intoxicated during this incident or that alcohol played a role in the chain of
events leading up to the arrest. Therefore, whether the Individual consumed two beers on the
evening he was arrested appears to be a relatively minor fact. I find that the Individual was open
and candid with both the DOE Psychologist and throughout his testimony, including being notably
forthcoming about the amount and frequency of his alcohol consumption during the past year. As
such, I find that the omission was minor and occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely
to recur and does not cast doubt on the Individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.
Id. at ¶ 17(c). For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline E
security concern.
B. Guideline G
Conditions that may mitigate a Guideline G security concern include:
a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
b) The individual acknowledges his maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified alcohol consumption or abstinence in accordance
with treatment recommendations;
c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
- 9 -
d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
Here, the Individual was arrested for DWIA, and the DOE Psychologist subsequently determined
that the Individual habitually and binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.12 He
recommended that the Individual remain abstinent from alcohol and engage in treatment. At the
time of the hearing the Individual had been abstinent from alcohol for approximately two months
and had not engaged in any formal treatment. Given the short period of time that the Individual
has been abstinent from alcohol and and his lack of treatment, I cannot find that he has mitigated
the security concern pursuant to mitigating factors (c) or (d). Id. at ¶ 23(c), (d).
The Individual does not believe that he has a problem with alcohol, and although I have no reason
to doubt that the Individual has been abstinent from alcohol since April 2024, I cannot find that
two months is sufficient to establish a clear pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Thus, I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G security
concerns pursuant to factor (b). Id. at ¶ 23(b).
Finally, although the Individual’s DWIA occurred over a year prior to the hearing, he has not yet
adequately addressed the concerns related to his alcohol consumption that contributed to the
DWIA offense. Thus, for the reasons stated above, I cannot find that the DWIA or the Individual’s
problematic alcohol consumption occurred so long ago, so infrequently, or under such unusual
circumstances that they are unlikely to recur or do not cast doubt on the Individual’s current
reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. Id. at ¶ 23(a).
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G concerns.
C. Guideline J
Conditions that may mitigate security concerns under Guideline J include:
a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
b) the individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures
are no longer present in the person’s life;
c) there is no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense;
and
12 I will not address the LSO’s Guideline G allegation regarding the June 2022 arrest as I cannot find that the
Individual’s consumption of two beers at some point prior to the arrest makes this an alcohol related incident, and the
LSO has not cited any other basis for considering this arrest to raise alcohol related concerns.
- 10 -
d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with
the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment
record, or constructive community involvement.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
Regarding the June 2022 arrest, taking into account the Individual’s testimony and the court order
dismissing the charges, there is no clear evidence to support that the Individual committed the
offenses of Felony Criminal Recklessness Committed with a Deadly Weapon and Leaving the
Scene of an Accident as alleged in the SSC. That said, I cannot, on this basis alone, determine that
the Individual has mitigated the Guideline J concerns, as within one year of this arrest, the
Individual was again arrested for DWIA. Id. at ¶ 32(c). Regarding the DWIA, it is clear that alcohol
was the underlying cause of this criminal conduct. As explained above, the Individual has yet to
resolve the alcohol concerns. Although I have no reason to doubt that this Individual is now
abstinent from alcohol and thus not driving while intoxicated, given the short period of his
abstinence, I cannot find sufficient evidence of successful rehabilitation or that sufficient time has
elapsed to determine that the DWIA is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the Individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Id. at ¶ 32(a), (d).13
VII. Conclusion
After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I have found that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns associated with Guideline E; however, I have also found that the Individual has
not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated with Guideline G
and Guideline J. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access authorization should
not be granted. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth in 10
C.F.R. § 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
13 There is no indication that the Individual was pressured or coerced into committing criminal conduct, and as such,
factor (b) does not apply. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(b).