PSH-24-0159

*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: July 25, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0159
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 8, 2024
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2009, the Individual was granted access authorization, which he has held continuously since
that time, in connection with his employment at a DOE site. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No.
PSH-24-0159 (Tr.) at 42. In a 2016 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP), the
Individual disclosed that he had been arrested for underage possession of alcohol in 2005. Exhibit
(Ex.) 20 at 68‒69.2 A background investigation revealed that the Individual was convicted on a
charge of reckless driving in April 2009. Ex. 21 at 71. In 2018, the Individual was cited for
speeding in a work zone. Ex. 22 at 72.
On January 11, 2024, the Individual submitted a Personnel Security Information Report (PSIR) to
the local security office (LSO) in which he disclosed that he had been arrested and charged with
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The local security office submitted a PDF exhibit notebook containing each of the exhibits. The exhibits contain a
variety of non-consecutive page markings relating to documents from which the exhibits were excerpted. This
Decision will refer to the pages in the order in which they appear in the exhibit notebook regardless of their internal
pagination.
- 2 -
Assault on a Family Member on January 8, 2024. Ex. 4 at 12. Through letters of interrogatory
issued to the Individual on January 17, 2024 (First LOI), and January 19, 2024 (Second LOI), the
LSO learned that the Individual consumed alcohol to the point of self-described intoxication at
least once every two weeks and that his arrest for Assault on a Family Member occurred as a result
of a dispute with his wife after they had both consumed alcohol. Ex. 8; Ex. 9; Ex. 10; Ex. 12. The
Individual also disclosed that the dispute with his wife concerned his having engaged in an extra-
marital affair. Ex. 9 at 24.
The LSO received the results of a continuous evaluation system report on March 8, 2024, related
to the Individual’s criminal record. Ex. 19 at 63‒64. The records indicated that the Individual had
committed a speeding offense in 2008, reckless driving offense in May 2009, and failure to obey
a stop sign offense in 2011. Id. at 64‒67.
On March 15, 2024, the Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist)
for a psychological evaluation. Ex. 16 at 41. The DOE Psychologist’s report of the evaluation
(Report) indicated that the Individual represented that the dispute with his wife prior to his arrest
for Assault on a Family Member concerned financial matters. Id. at 42. The Individual also
reported consuming six or more alcoholic drinks in a sitting on an at least monthly basis. Id. at 43.
At the request of the DOE Psychologist, the Individual provided samples for Ethyl Glucuronide
(EtG) and Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)3 testing, the results of which were positive at 7,575 ng/mL
and 217 ng/mL, respectively. Id. at 50. The DOE Psychologist subsequently issued the Report in
which he opined that the Individual habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment. Id. at 45‒46.
The LSO issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1.
In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E, G, and J of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Ex. 2.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 3. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted twenty-two exhibits (Ex. 1–22). The Individual submitted five exhibits (Ex. A–E). The
Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of a character witness. Tr. at 3, 9‒
10, 21. The LSO offered the testimony of the DOE Psychologist. Id. at 3, 49.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as one basis for its
substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 2 at 7–9.
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
3 PEth, a compound produced in the presence of ethanol, is a biomarker for alcohol consumption that can be used to
detect whether a subject consumed alcohol within several weeks of sample collection. Ex. 18 at 57–58.
- 3 -
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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. The SSC cited the Individual’s admission to having engaged in
an extra-marital affair, alleged representation to the DOE Psychologist that the dispute with his
wife that led to his arrest for Assault on a Family Member concerned financial matters rather than
his extra-marital affair, and his history of traffic infractions.4 Ex. 2 at 7–9. The LSO’s allegations
that the Individual deliberately provided false or misleading information to a mental health
professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to his eligibility for access
authorization, demonstrated a pattern of rule violations, and engaged in personal conduct that
creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, justify its invocation of Guideline
E. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(b), (d)(3)–(e).
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as an
additional basis for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access
authorization. Ex. 2 at 4–5. “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. The SSC alleged that
the Individual habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and cited
the Individual’s Underage Possession of Alcohol and Assault on a Family Member charges. Ex. 2
at 4–5. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual engaged in alcohol-related incidents away from
work and habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment justify its
invocation of Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c).
The LSO cited Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the final basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 2 at 6–
7. “Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By
its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules,
and regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. The SSC cited the Individual’s charges with
Assault on a Family Member, speeding in a work zone, reckless driving, and Underage Possession
of Alcohol. Ex. 2 at 6–7. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual engaged in numerous instances
of unlawful conduct justify its invocation of Guideline J. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 31(a)‒(b).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
4 The LSO additionally listed as security concerns under Guideline E the Individual having been charged with Assault
on a Family Member in 2024, speeding in a work zone in 2018, reckless driving on two occasions in 2009, and
Underage Possession of Alcohol in 2005. Ex. 2 at 7‒8. The LSO also cited these offenses as security concerns under
Guideline J. Id. at 6. Under the Adjudicative Guidelines, this conduct cannot be alleged under Guideline E if it was
alleged as presenting security concerns under another guideline. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(c)‒(d). Accordingly,
the LSO improperly raised these offenses under Guideline E, and I will consider them exclusively under Guideline J.
- 4 -
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
An individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of
evidence at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
In 2005, at which time he was a minor, the Individual was arrested and charged with Underage
Possession of Alcohol. Ex. 20 at 69. In 2008, the Individual received a traffic citation and paid a
small fine for following another vehicle too closely. Ex. 19 at 67. The Individual was charged with
reckless driving in April 2009 and May 2009. Id. at 64, 66. The Individual paid fines and fees to
resolve both charges. Id. In 2011, the Individual was cited for failing to obey a traffic sign and paid
fines and fees in connection with the citation. Id. at 64. In 2018, the Individual was cited for
speeding sixteen miles per hour in excess of the posted speed limit in a work zone. Id. at 67.
Beginning in approximately 2011, the Individual consumed alcohol three to four times weekly.
Ex. 12 at 29 (reflecting the Individual’s responses to alcohol-related questions on the Second LOI).
The Individual usually consumed two to four beers per sitting but consumed six to eight beers to
the point of self-described intoxication two to four times monthly. Id.; see also Tr. at 29 (testifying
at the hearing that he believed that those estimates were accurate).
On December 27, 2023, the Individual met a woman he had known for several years at a hotel to
engage in extra-marital sexual intercourse. Ex. 11 at 28; Ex. 16 at 42‒43. The woman’s boyfriend,
who was electronically tracking her whereabouts, contacted the Individual’s wife and the two of
them attempted to confront the Individual and the woman at the hotel. Ex. 16 at 42‒43. However,
the Individual observed his wife and the woman’s boyfriend and remained in the hotel room until
after his wife and the woman’s boyfriend departed to avoid a confrontation. Id. at 43.
The Individual was arrested on January 8, 2024, for Assault on a Family Member. Ex. 4 at 12; Ex.
5 at 15‒16. The Individual and his wife were outside of their home discussing their marriage and
his extra-marital affair when, according to the Individual, she slapped him. Ex. 4 at 12; Ex. 7 at
19; Ex. 9 at 24. The Individual then pushed his wife to the ground and, when she “came back at
[him]” he pushed her to the ground for a second time. Ex. 9 at 24; see also Tr. at 28 (testifying at
the hearing that he was “keeping her away” and did not intend to push her to the ground).
According to the Individual, his wife threw an object at him, and he went into the house to gather
- 5 -
things to leave. Ex. 9 at 24. The Individual’s wife summoned law enforcement, and he was arrested
before he could leave the home. Id. The law enforcement officers who arrested the Individual
reviewed footage from a doorbell camera which did not corroborate the Individual’s claim that his
wife struck him. Ex. 4 at 13. According to the Individual, he and his wife each consumed three
twelve-ounce beers before the altercation. Ex. 9 at 24; Ex. 11 at 28.
Following the Individual’s arrest, he and his wife entered marital counseling. Ex. C (containing a
letter from the counselor providing marital counseling to the Individual and his wife). The
Individual and his wife participated in approximately weekly marital counseling from January 23,
2024, through March 12, 2024. Id. Thereafter, the Individual’s and his wife’s attendance was
sporadic; they attended only three additional counseling sessions between March 12, 2024, and
the date of the hearing. Id. In a letter dated August 28, 2024, the counselor indicated that the
Individual and his wife had made “strides in conflict resolution and emotional regulation . . . [and
n]otably, there have been no emotional outbursts.” Id.; see also Tr. at 46 (reflecting testimony from
the Individual that he and his wife are still enrolled in marital counseling but that the frequency of
their sessions had decreased as they “learned to work through things better and come together more
as a couple”). The marital counseling did not address alcohol or how alcohol might have affected
the Individual’s and his wife’s relationship. Tr. at 47.
The Individual met with the DOE Psychologist on March 15, 2024, for a psychological evaluation.
Ex. 16 at 41. During the clinical interview portion of the evaluation, the Individual cited financial
matters as one basis for the argument with his wife which precipitated his arrest for Assault on a
Family Member. Id. at 42; see also Tr. at 25‒26, 41 (reflecting the Individual’s testimony at the
hearing that the argument concerned numerous issues and that he tried to communicate that but
“just worded it wrong when reporting it [to the DOE Psychologist”); Tr. at 65‒66 (containing the
DOE Psychologist’s testimony at the hearing that the Individual discussed his marital infidelity
during the clinical interview and that the DOE Psychologist perceived the causes of the dispute as
“intertwined” and “all mashed up together”). Regarding his alcohol consumption, the Individual
reported drinking alcohol at least four nights weekly and consuming six or more drinks in a sitting
at least monthly. Ex. 16 at 43.
In his Report, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual habitually or binge consumed
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.5 Id. at 45‒46. He recommended that the Individual
demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation by participating in twelve weeks of outpatient substance
use counseling and twelve weeks of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Id. at 46.
In April 2024, a judge issued an order finding sufficient facts to find the Individual guilty of
Assault on a Family Member but deferring adjudication for two years. Ex. 13 at 34. Pursuant to
the order, the Individual was required to pay fees and attend an anger management class. Id. at 31,
34. On July 29, 2024, the Individual completed the required anger management class. Ex. E. At
the hearing, the Individual testified that he had also paid court-ordered fines and fees and that the
5 The DOE Psychologist cited a Centers for Disease Control definition of binge drinking as monthly consumption of
five or more drinks in a single occasion to the point of intoxication for men. Ex. 16 at 48. For habitual consumption
of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, he inferred that “[b]ecoming intoxicated twice a month seems to anchor
the central tendency of this definition” under OHA cases interpreting the term. Id. at 49.
- 6 -
charges were eligible to be “wiped” from his record in 2026 if he did not commit any other
offenses. Tr. at 44.
The Individual testified at the hearing that his alcohol consumption “slowed down” following the
psychological evaluation with the DOE Psychologist and that, as of the date of the hearing, he
consumed twelve to sixteen beers weekly. Id. at 31‒32. The Individual denied that he was
“dependent” on alcohol and indicated that he did not believe that he needed to pursue alcohol-
related counseling or attend AA as recommended by the DOE Psychologist because he had “quit
[drinking alcohol] in the past” without help. Id. at 32‒33.
The Individual’s supervisor testified at the hearing that she had known the Individual for fifteen
years as a friend and colleague. Id. at 11. She has never observed any behavior on the part of the
Individual that caused her to doubt his honesty, trustworthiness, or reliability. Id. at 12. The
Individual’s supervisor testified that she had observed the Individual consume alcohol socially,
including sometimes to the point of what she perceived might have been intoxication. Id. at 14‒
16. However, she testified that the Individual was a diligent, reliable worker and that she had never
had reason to believe that alcohol affected him in the workplace. Id. at 18‒19.
The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had not demonstrated rehabilitation or
reformation because he had not followed the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations and denied
that he had an alcohol-related problem. Id. at 63‒64. The DOE Psychologist indicated that the
“first step” for the Individual would be to “just acknowledge[e] there’s a problem” with alcohol as
he had acknowledged problems in his marriage when he decided to pursue marital counseling. Id.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
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,
- 7 -
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.
Regarding the Individual’s alleged failure to disclose the role of his extra-marital affair in his
January 8, 2024, altercation with his wife, both the Individual and the DOE Psychologist testified
at the hearing that the Individual’s account of the causes for the dispute was intertwined with his
account of the infidelity. Supra p. 5. Moreover, the Individual was forthcoming about his marital
infidelity in response to the LOIs and in the clinical interview with the DOE Psychologist. Supra
pp. 2, 5. For these reasons, I find that the LSO’s allegation that the Individual provided false or
misleading information to the DOE Psychologist regarding the reason for the altercation with his
wife was erroneous and that the Individual’s statements to the DOE Psychologist do not present
security concerns.
The Individual and his wife pursued marital counseling following his extra-marital affair, and the
marital counselor opined that the Individual and his wife had made positive progress. Moreover,
the Individual’s wife is fully aware of his conduct and the Individual was forthcoming with the
LSO about his infidelity. In light of the Individual’s positive actions to resolve this issue through
counseling, and the improbability of the Individual being exploited or manipulated by the threat
of revealing his marital infidelity given that it is known to his wife and the LSO, I find that the
fourth and fifth mitigating conditions are applicable to the Individual’s extra-marital affair.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(d)‒(e).
Turning to the Individual’s alleged rule violations, after omitting those offenses improperly alleged
by the LSO under both Guideline E and Guideline J, the only remaining offenses are two traffic
violations that occurred in 2011 and 2008. Supra note 4. As the offenses occurred at least thirteen
years ago, and each of them was a relatively minor traffic offense, I find that the offenses are
mitigated under the third mitigating condition. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(c).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has resolved each of the security
concerns properly alleged by the LSO under Guideline E.
- 8 -
B. Guideline G
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline G 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 or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear
and established pattern of modified 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; or,
(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.
The Individual’s alcohol misuse was neither infrequent nor happened under unusual
circumstances; rather, by his own admission, he consumed alcohol to intoxication on an at least
monthly basis for approximately thirteen years. The Individual asserted at the hearing that he had
recently reduced his alcohol consumption slightly, but he provided no corroborating evidence to
support this claim. Even had he done so, a brief, slight reduction in his alcohol consumption would
not be sufficient to resolve the security concerns presented by his frequent intoxication over such
a lengthy period. Accordingly, I find the first mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(a).
In his hearing testimony, the Individual denied that his alcohol use was problematic. Moreover, as
noted above, he failed to produce any evidence to corroborate that he has modified his alcohol
consumption practices. For these reasons, the second mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at
¶ 23(b). As the Individual has not pursued any alcohol-related treatment, the third and fourth
mitigating conditions are likewise inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(c)‒(d).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns
alleged by the LSO under Guideline G.
C. Guideline J
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline J include:
- 9 -
(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) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
(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.
Id. at ¶ 32.
While some of the unlawful conduct cited by the LSO occurred over fifteen years ago, at which
time the Individual’s youth and immaturity likely contributed to his imprudent decisions, the
Individual’s speeding in a work zone offense in 2018 and Assault on a Family Member offense
in 2024 occurred more recently when he was a mature adult who had possessed access
authorization for a lengthy period of time. In light of the recurrence of unlawful conduct casting
doubt on the Individual’s judgment and reliability, even after lengthy periods without being
cited for criminal offenses, I find that the Individual’s conduct did not occur under unique
circumstances and that the passage of time alone is inadequate to establish the applicability of
the first mitigating condition. Id. at ¶ 32(a).
The second mitigating condition is irrelevant to the facts of this case because the Individual
did not assert that he was pressured or coerced into committing any unlawful conduct. Id. at
¶ 32(b). The Individual represented that he acted in self-defense when his wife struck him and
did not intend to push her to the ground during the altercation that led to his arrest for Assault
on a Family Member. In light of the April 2024 judicial order stating that there were sufficient
facts to find the Individual guilty of Assault on a Family Member, there is ample basis to
conclude that the Individual committed the offense. The Individual does not dispute that he
committed any of the other offenses cited by the LSO. Thus, the third mitigating condition is
inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 32(c).
Less than one year has passed since the Individual’s most recent unlawful conduct. While the
Individual has provided evidence that he is complying with the court order deferring
adjudication of his Assault on a Family Member offense, he will be subject to that order until
April 2026 and it is too early to conclude that he will refrain from committing additional
offenses until that time. The testimony of the Individual’s supervisor provides some evidence
that he has a good employment record, but his positive workplace conduct predated his recent
criminal conduct and therefore cannot establish a sufficient change in the Individual’s life to
show rehabilitation. In light of the passage of a relatively short amount of time since the
Individual’s most recent offense, and his failure to bring forward evidence of rehabilitation, I
find the fourth mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 32(d).
- 10 -
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns
alleged by the LSO under Guideline J.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines E, G, and J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-
sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I
find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline E, but not the security concerns under Guidelines G and J.
Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals