PSH-24-0148

*The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure under
5 U.S. C. § 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: June 27, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0148
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 4, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as
“the Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully
considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or
Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that
the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
I. Background
The Individual has a history of five arrests over a forty-two-year period. On May 11, 1982, police
charged her with Resist Obstruct Officer, after she was disrespectful to a police officer. Exhibit
(Ex.) 14 at 381. In March 1994, the Individual was cited for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI),
speeding, and possession of marijuana.2 Ex. 14 at 381. In March 1998, the Individual was charged
with Disorderly Conduct after an incident in which she pushed her ex-husband off a porch. Ex.
14 at 381. On May 12, 2020, police charged the Individual with Battery Against a Household
Member after she was involved in a physical altercation with her then boyfriend (JDoe) at their
home. Ex. 7 at 36; Ex. 14 at 275. The police report signed by the arresting officer states in
pertained part:
1 Under the regulations, “[a]ccess authorization means 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). Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2 During a March 20, 2018, interview with an Office of Personnel Management Investigator (the OPM Interview), the
Individual had stated that the marijuana and pipe discovered by the police’s search had belonged to her sister. Ex. 14
at 381.
-2-
ON MAY 12TH, 2020 I WAS DISPATCHED TO . . . A DOMESTIC
DISTURBANCE. WHILE EN ROUTE DISPATCH ADVISED A MALE
CALLED IN AND STATED HE WANTED HIS GIRLFRIEND TO LEAVE.
I SPOKE WITH THE MALE [JDoe] WHO IS THE CALLING PARTY. [JDoe]
STATED THAT HE AND [the Individual] HAVE BEEN DATING FOR
SEVERAL YEARS AND [the Individual] HAD JUST RECENTLY MOVED IN.
HE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD RECENTLY SPOKEN WITH AN
EXGIRLFRIEND AND [the Individual] ACCUSED HIM OF CHEATING ON
HER. . . . HE STATED [the Individual] HAS BEEN DRINKING AND DURING
AN ARGUMENT . . . [the Individual] ATTACKED HIM AND SCRATCHED
HIS NECK AND CHEST AREA. [JDoe] WAS ABLE TO SHOW ME HIS NECK
AND CHEST WHICH HAD SEVERAL SCRATCH MARKS. [JDoe] STATED
THAT HE PUSHED [the Individual] AWAY WHICH CAUSED HER TO FALL
AND HIT HER ARM ON A DRESSER. . . .
I THEN SPOKE WITH [the other arresting] OFFICER . . . WHO STATED [the
Individual] TOLD HER SHE HAD BEEN THROWN TO THE GROUND BY
[JDoe] AFTER SHE CONFRONTED HIM ABOUT CHEATING. SHE STATED
[the Individual] DOES HAVE SWELLING TO HER LEFT FOREARM. I THEN
SPOKE WITH [the Individual] AND ASKED WHAT HAPPENED. SHE
STATED SHE CONFRONTED [JDoe] ABOUT CHEATING ON HER AND HE
ATTACKED HER. SHE STATED THAT [JDoe] GRABBED HER BY HER
SHOULDERS AND [threw] HER TO THE FLOOR. SHE STATED THAT SHE
HIT A DRESSER AS SHE FELL WHICH INJURED HER FOREARM. AS I
SPOKE WITH [the Individual] SHE WAS CONFRONTATIONAL AND I
COULD SMELL THE ODOR OF ALCOHOL COMING FROM HER BREATH.
[The Individual] LATER ADMITTED TO DRINKING ALCOHOL. I DID SEE
SWELLING TO HER LEFT FOREARM, BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT HER
SHOULDERS I DID NOT SEE ANY FINGER MARKS OR BRUISING.
Ex. 7 at 30. There was no indication in the police report indicating that JDoe was arrested or issued
a citation because of this incident. Ex. 7 at 30. The police report indicates only that “[a] female
was arrested and transported to the . . . Detention Center.” Ex. 7 at 33.
On June 17, 2020, the Individual responded to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) issued to her by the
Local Security Office (LSO). Ex. 10 at 63. In her response to this LOI, the Individual provided
the following account of the May 12, 2020, incident, in which she stated in pertinent part:
I was involved in a confrontation with my boyfriend, [JDoe]. He and I recently
moved in together in March 2020. After we moved in together, I discovered he was
having an ongoing relationship with another women. When I confronted him about
this issue, and the possibility of ending the relationship, the interaction heightened
and I was instructed by [JDoe] to “Get out.” I refused, and [JDoe] insisted and
confronted me in a hostile manner. I defended myself and [JDoe] hit me and then
physically threw me against the wall and table where I suffered a head injury and
-3-
was momentarily knocked unconscious. After a while, I realized the situation was
not going to subside and I said, “Ok I’ll go, but I need my belongings.” [JDoe] said,
“No”, you’ll get nothing” and continued to physically assault me. I explained to
[JDoe] that I was willing to leave, but needed to collect some personal belongings.
[JDoe] continued to escalate the situation at that time I called my son, . . . and told
him [JDoe] was being violent against me and I was injured. My son instructed me
to get out of the house, and telephoned the [police] . . . I explained the situation
(described above) to the police officers. I told the office[r] I didn’t want to leave
and insisted they have [JDoe] leave because I was not feeling well. The [police]
summoned EMS to treat my injuries. I was reviewed by the EMS and told them I
didn’t want to be treated and/or leave my residence. The [police] insisted that I was
the one to leave the residence and both of us were being cited. It was at that time I
was detained by the [police] and transported to the . . . Detention Center for intake.
Ex. 10 at 64. The Individual admitted consuming two glasses of wine prior to this incident. Ex.10
at 64. Concerning her 1998 arrest, the Individual’s LOI response claimed:
Prior confrontation with former husband in 1998 regarding visitation. During this
time, [he] was under order of the court to only have contact with our two minor
children only after he provided a drug test and satisfied all the court orders. It was
at that time I refused him visitation and demanded he remove himself from my
home. He called the police and said I pushed him. I pleaded to the charge because
I didn’t have the funds for an attorney to represent due to the lack of child support.
Ex. 10 at 66.3
On December 28, 2023, police charged both the Individual and JDoe with Battery Against a
Household Member after they were involved in another physical altercation at JDoe’s home. Ex.
6 at 27; Ex. 11 at 71–72. In his police report, the arresting officer (Officer) noted that both parties
claimed the other party attacked first, and stated, “After hearing both statements, I was still unable
to determine who was the predominant aggressor.” Ex. 11 at 72. He further stated: “I advised
both parties they would be charged with battery against a household member.” Ex. 11 at 72. The
Officer described the Individual as “crying and emotional” and “yelling.” Ex. 11 at 71–72. The
Individual told the Officer that JDoe punched her and threw her to the ground. Ex. 11 at 71. The
Officer noted that the Individual had a small cut on her cheek and dirt on her jacket and pants. Ex.
11 at 71. JDoe accused the Individual of attacking him and scratching his neck. Ex. 11 at 71. The
Officer further reported that he observed “several scratches on both sides of [JDoe]” who further
“admitted he threw [the Individual] to the ground because she attacked him.” Ex. 11 at 71.
On March 18, 2024, the Individual responded to a second LOI issued to her by the LSO inquiring
about the December 28, 2023, incident. Ex. 9 at 47. In response to the LOI’s questions about this
incident, the Individual stated in pertinent part:
3 During the OPM Interview, the Individual stated she pushed her ex-husband off the porch that during this incident.
Ex. 14 at 381. She further reported during this interview that she “hired an attorney because she didn’t agree with the
charges” but ultimately pled guilty and paid a fine of $100. Ex. 14 at 381.
-4-
I was not arrested or taken into custody on December 28, 2023. I myself made a
call to 911 and summoned the [Police] on December 28, 2023 to . . . intervene in
an assault that was taking place againt myself. . . . I [had] arranged with [JDoe] to
pick up some personal property . . . that I had left at the residence. I arrived and
retrieved my property, however, [JDoe] would not let me leave and insisted I go
into the garage and taken additional items . . . it was at that time [JDoe] would not
let me go. He got into my car and refused to get out so I could leave. When I tried
to get into my car he pushed me to the ground and assaulted me. The police arrived
and took statements and could not determine or make a professional judgement on
the situation. During this time I sent a text [to my friend] and told her I would not
be [meeting her]. My friend came to the residence . . . to provide emotional support.
Her and I proceeded to [the] Hospital ER . . . . I was treated by a ER physician for
fractured rib and laceration. On . . . January 5, 2024, I received a letter from the . .
. court that charges we issued. . . . The case was dismissed in January 23, 2024.
Ex. 9 at 47.
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a Notification Letter to
the Individual informing her that it received derogatory information creating substantial doubt
regarding her eligibility to hold a security clearance. The Notification Letter further informed the
Individual that she was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the security
concerns. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21. The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded her
request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d),
(e), and (g), I took testimony from the Individual, her friend (Friend), and her therapist (Therapist).
See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0148 (Tr.). The DOE Counsel submitted
fourteen exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 14. The Individual submitted seven exhibits, which
she marked as Exhibits A through G.
Exhibit A is an After Visit Summary dated December 28, 2023. It indicates that the Individual
was examined in a hospital emergency room by a Certified Nurse Practitioner, who diagnosed the
Individual with a fractured rib, contusions of the right forearm and left thigh, and a facial abrasion.
Ex. A at 1, 6.
Exhibit B is a credit card statement indicating that the Individual purchased a computer on
December 28, 2023. Ex. B at 2.
Exhibit C is a court record indicating that the charges filed against the Individual on May 12, 2020,
have been dismissed by the prosecutor. Ex. C at 1.
Exhibit D is a court record indicating that the charges filed against the Individual on December 28,
2023, have been dismissed by the prosecutor. Ex. D at 1.
Exhibit E is a handwritten copy of notes taken by the attorney who represented the Individual in
the criminal proceedings arising from the December 28, 2023, incident. They are not legible.
-5-
Exhibit F is an order of expungement for arrest records pertaining to her May 12, 2020, arrest.
Exhibit G is a treatment summary dated July 21, 2024, signed by the Therapist. It states in
pertinent part:
Intakes:
Better Help platform: 7/17/24
Dates of service: 7/26/24, 7/31/24, 8/13/24, 8/17/24, 9/13/24, 9/24/24, 9/30/24,
10/15/24
Private Practice: 10/25/24
Next session: 11/1/24, scheduled weekly- Fridays
Diagnosis: Adjustment Disorder, mixed with anxiety and depression
Justification: Meets DSM criteria, related to stressors from previous relationship
and work clearance concerns.
Prognosis: Client's prognosis is Good, and my clinical recommendation is
continued therapy and consistent attendance while symptoms are present.
Recommended frequency of therapy is weekly.
Compliance: Client has verbalized commitment to therapy and is attending sessions
as scheduled.
Ex. G at 1.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns (SSC)
The SSC attached to the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE creates substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for a security clearance
under Guideline J (Criminal Activity) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Under Guideline J, the LSO
cited the Individual’s history of five arrests and citations. This information adequately justifies
the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J. Guideline J states that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt
about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness” and that, “[b]y its very nature, it calls
into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline J
include “[e]vidence . . . of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally
charged, prosecuted, or convicted[.]” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 31(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
-6-
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 their eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. Hearing Testimony
A. The Therapist’s Testimony
The Therapist testified that she is a licensed clinical social worker, who has been in practice since
2017. Tr. at 14. She has been treating the Individual since July 17, 2024. Tr. at 15. The Therapist
testified that she was not aware of any alleged criminal conduct on the part of the Individual. Tr.
at 16, 21–22. The Therapist testified that she was aware of “a very destructive relationship to the
[Individual].” Tr. at 16. When asked if she had discussed the Individual’s arrests with the
Individual, the Therapist testified: “No. No, we have not, other than a recent situation . . . where,
my understanding, both parties were questioned, but that’s the extent, that I’m aware of.” Tr. at
16. She further testified that she had only discussed this incident with the Individual briefly. Tr.
at 23. When questioned further about what she knew about that incident, the Therapist testified:
“Only what [the Individual] indicated, that she went to former partner’s [JDoe] home to pick up
an item and an altercation ensued, and it was very disturbing to [the Individual].” Tr. at 16. The
Therapist described this incident as “interpersonal violence in a current relationship that the client
has indicated to me was perpetrated towards her.” Tr. at 22. The Therapist testified that Exhibit
G was written on October 5, 2024. Tr. at 17. She diagnosed the Individual with “adjustment
disorder mixed with anxiety and depression” which the Therapist described as “just a difficulty
adjusting to a difficult time.” Tr. at 18. The Therapist ruled out more serious disorders for the
Individual. Tr. at 19–20. The Therapist testified that the Individual is responding to her treatment,
noting that the Individual “is verbalizing some acceptance of a difficult situation and ability to
work through it, good coping skills using available resources and positive words of affirmations
as well.” Tr. at 19. She opined that the Individual’s prognosis is “good.” Tr. at 20. When I asked
the Therapist whether she worked on the Individual’s emotional regulation issue, he answered that
the Individual’s therapy does involve some work on emotional regulation skills. Tr. at 24.
-7-
B. The Friend’s Testimony
The Friend testified that she has known the Individual for two or three years. Tr. at 29. On the
date of the Individual’s most recent arrest, the Individual was supposed to meet up with her to
practice tennis, but did not show up. Tr. at 29. The Individual contacted her and said she needed
help because “her then boyfriend had hit her and held her down.” Tr. at 30. The Friend then went
to JDoe’s house, where the police had already arrived. Tr. at 30. The Individual was very upset,
crying, and talking with the police when the Friend arrived at JDoe’s house. Tr. at 31. The
Individual looked as though she had been in a fight. Tr. at 37. The Individual was in pain when
the Friend arrived. Tr. at 31. After the incident, she took the Individual to the emergency room
for her bruised ribs. Tr. at 30. The Friend testified that she was aware that the Individual had her
own residence. Tr. at 37. The Friend does not think that the Individual was still in a relationship
with JDoe at the time of the incident. Tr. at 38. The Friend testified that the Individual told her
that the recent incident had begun when JDoe threw the Individual’s computer down and broke it
and wouldn’t let the Individual leave. Tr. at 39. The Individual told the Friend that JDoe had been
violent with her on a previous occasion. Tr. at 38.
C. The Individual’s Testimony
The Individual testified that her first arrest occurred when she was eighteen and talked back to a
police officer. Tr. at 45. She described her actions as “just being a child.” Tr. at 45. The Individual
testified that her 1994 DWI arrest occurred after she had taken a breathalyzer test showing that her
blood alcohol content was .08 percent. Tr. at 48. She claimed she had consumed three or four
drinks over the course of four hours prior to this arrest. Tr. at 48. The police also found marijuana
and a marijuana pipe in the car. Tr. at 51.
The Individual testified that the 1998 battery and disorderly conduct charges occurred when her
ex-husband came to her home and insisted on seeing their children. Tr. at 52. She claims she
refused and pushed him off a porch. Tr. at 52. The ex-husband was under court order to avoid the
children at the time, but he was not criminally charged following the incident. Tr. at 52–53. She
testified that she has resolved her differences with her ex-husband and that they now get along
well. Tr. at 53–54.
The Individual testified that the 2020 Battery Against a Household Member charge occurred when
she was living with JDoe and confronted him “about some things he was doing” and “he got
physical.” Tr. at 56–57. She called the police and when they arrived, they told her to leave. Tr.
at 57. She further testified: “I refused to leave the home, because it was my home.” Tr. at 57. She
was then arrested. Tr. at 57. She testified that she had two glasses of wine before this incident.
Tr. at 57. As a result of this 2020 arrest, her clearance was suspended. Tr. at 57. She testified
that she “should have learned my – from my lessons.” Tr. at 57. She “went through some
remediation with the DOE” as well as studying, taking self-improvement courses, and counseling
with a psychologist as a result of this arrest, for which the charges were dismissed. Tr. at 57–59.
Her clearance was restored as well. Tr. at 58. She described her relationship with JDoe as “toxic,”
and “intermittent.” Tr. at 58. She claimed that JDoe is “a narcissistic, either sociopath/psychopath
that feeds on people like me who are kind and nice.” Tr. at 60. She testified that she has “removed
-8-
him from my life completely.” Tr. at 60. The Individual did testify: “I would like to have my
clearance back, but I understand if it doesn’t come back, it’s a reflection of my behavior. And I
am – technically, I am the one who allowed this to happen, so I cannot blame anybody for where
I am.” Tr. at 61.
The Individual testified about the December 2023 Battery Against a Household Member charge.
She testified that she had left JDoe’s home in the morning after he had become abusive and
smashed her computer. Tr. at 67. She realized she had left her badge at JDoe’s home and returned
to get it. Tr. at 67. The Individual provided the following account of the incident that ensued:
When I went to leave, he insisted I start taking other things. I said, “I have to leave.
Some other time,” because there was stuff in the garage. And when I went to leave,
he refused to let me leave. At that time, an altercation – he assaulted me. He went
in my car. He wouldn’t get out of my car. When I tried get him out of the car, he
threw me to the ground. At that time I called – I summonsed the police. I just
wanted to leave. And he disappeared into the garage. And when the officers got
there, the first comment, he was asking me stuff and I said, “I really wasn’t
thinking.” He said, “You should have got your story straight before we got here.”
And I thought, I’m just – wasn’t thinking of what story I was getting straight. I just
needed to be somewhere, and he wouldn’t let me go. The officers came to there
and they couldn't figure out what to think because this guy’s very good liar, you
know. He said he had scratches on his neck and I asked – I said to the officer, I had
nothing under my hands. I didn’t wash my clothes. I didn’t do anything. I said, “I
think he did it to himself, ‘cause I don’t recall.” The officers said they didn’t know
what to do and they would get back to us, and they allowed me to leave . . . And
they offered to summons an ambulance and I said, no, I would go myself. And we
proceeded to leave. It was like four days later that I received a citation in the mail.
. . . And it was dismissed on the 22nd of January.
Tr. at 67–68. The Individual testified that, at the time of the recent incident, she was not living
with JDoe but was “trying to patch up the relationship.” Tr. at 69. After she received the
Notification Letter, the Individual began counseling with the Therapist. Tr. at 69. She has
removed JDoe from her life. Tr. at 70, 74. She now realizes, after counseling, that “toxic”
relationships don’t change for the better, they just get worse. Tr. at 74. The Individual concluded
her testimony by stating: “I understand if – why there’s major concerns because there is a history
and there’s a pattern. And the pattern has been broken. This will never happen again.” Tr. at 76.
V. Analysis
The Individual has exhibited a consistent long-term pattern of losing her self-control and domestic
violence. Four of the incidents (the non-DWI citations) involve the Individual’s loss of self-control
which led law enforcement officers to issue her citations. These incidents have demonstrated that
the Individual is vulnerable to moments in which her judgment is seriously impaired. Two of these
incidents occurred in the relatively recent past. While the Individual exhibits an understanding of
her role in these incidents, she has not yet demonstrated her ability to avoid future incidents. While
she has sought counseling, that counseling has not been focused upon addressing the Individual’s
-9-
propensity to lose her self-control. In fact, her therapist was unaware of the Individual’s history
of criminal citations. Finally, I note that three of the five criminal incidents cited in the SCC
occurred in the distant past. However, two of these incidents, which led to the 1998 and 1982
arrests, are part of a long-term pattern in which the Individual has exhibited a loss of judgment and
self-control requiring the response of law enforcement. Standing alone, the security concerns
raised by these two incidents would be mitigated by time. However, these incidents are clearly part
of a long-standing pattern in which the Individual lost her composure, resulting in criminal
conduct. If only one of these incidents had occurred, I could find that the Individual had made an
isolated mistake. However, there were four incidents. Moreover, I note that the Individual’s
recollection of the incidents seems to change over time and, in some cases diverges from the
information appearing in the police reports. Accordingly, I question the accuracy of the
information she has provided concerning these incidents. The Individual did take responsibility
for her actions at the hearing and indicated she realized she needed to avoid “toxic relationships.”
I remain concerned, however, because she never indicated she was addressing her inability to
manage her emotions in difficult situations. Nor did she exhibit any insight into her propensity to
lose control.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four conditions that can mitigate security concerns under
Guideline J. None of these four conditions are present in the instant case.
Paragraph 32(a) provides that security concerns raised under Guideline J may be mitigated when
the individual has shown that “[s]o 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 32(a). In the present case, the repetitive nature of the criminal activity and the short amount of
time since the 2023 arrest, show that not enough time has elapsed to mitigate the security concerns
raised by her criminal activity. The reoccurring nature of her criminal behavior across several
decades indicates that it did not occur under unusual circumstances. Therefore, I find that the
Individual has not shown that her criminal behavior is unlikely to recur or that the concerns about
her present reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment are resolved. Accordingly, the first
mitigating factor is not present in the instant case.
Paragraph 32(b) provides that security concerns raised under Guideline J may be mitigated when
the individual has shown that “[t]he individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act
and those pressures are no longer present in the person’s life.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(b).
In the present case, the Individual has not asserted that she was pressured or coerced into
committing the criminal acts. Accordingly, the second mitigating factor is not present in the instant
case.
Paragraph 32(c) provides that security concerns raised under Guideline J may be mitigated when
the individual has shown that there is no “reliable evidence to support that the individual
committed the offense.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(c). The Individual admitted her
involvement in the first three citations appearing in the SSC. While she casts herself as the victim
in the two most recent incidents and has shown that the charges resulting from both incidents have
been dismissed, she has not submitted sufficient evidence to show that the conduct attributed to
-10-
her in the police reports did not occur. Accordingly, the third mitigating factor is not present in
the instant case.
Paragraph 32(d) provides that security concerns raised under Guideline J may be mitigated when
the individual has shown that 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(d). In the present case,
there is some evidence of rehabilitation in the form of therapy. However, since her therapist was
unaware of her history of criminal conduct and her recent therapy was focused upon helping the
Individual cope with stressors including the present proceeding rather than to address the
Individual’s criminal behavior it cannot be said that that her counseling is evidence of “successful
rehabilitation” as required by the fourth mitigating factor. Accordingly, the fourth mitigating
factor is not sufficiently present in the instant case.
I therefore find that the Individual has not sufficiently established the presence of any of the four
mitigating conditions set forth at Guideline J. Accordingly, I find that she has not resolved the
security concerns raised under Guideline J.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline J of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve each of the security concerns raised under Guideline J. Accordingly, the
Individual has not demonstrated that restoring her security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore,
the Individual’s security clearance should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals