PSH-24-0160

*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 29, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0160
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: January 8, 2025
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for 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 For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that
the Individual’s security clearance should not be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position that requires a security clearance.
Following a panic attack at work that resulted in the Individual being taken to the hospital by first
responders, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE Contractor Psychologist (the Psychologist).
The Psychologist opined that the Individual met the criteria for two mental health disorders that
could affect his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. The Local Security Office (LSO) began
the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual
informing him that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order 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 the 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. The LSO presented the testimony of the Psychologist. See
Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0160 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO
submitted ten exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 10 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual
submitted thirty-six exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through AJ.
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
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to Guideline I of the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold
a Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.
Guideline I states that certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a
concern under this guideline. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Conditions that could raise a
security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) Behavior that casts doubt on an individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness, not covered under any other guideline and that may indicate an
emotional, mental, or personality condition, including, but not limited to,
irresponsible, violent, self-harm, suicidal, paranoid, manipulative, impulsive,
chronic lying, deceitful, exploitative, or bizarre behaviors;
(b) An opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a
condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness;
(c) Voluntary or involuntary inpatient hospitalization;
(d) Failure to follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a diagnosed
psychological/psychiatric condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability,
or trustworthiness, including, but not limited to, failure to take prescribed
medication or failure to attend required counseling sessions; and
(e) Pathological gambling, the associated behaviors of which may include unsuccessful
attempts to stop gambling; gambling for increasingly higher stakes, usually in an
attempt to cover losses; concealing gambling losses; borrowing or stealing money
to fund gambling or pay gambling debts; and family conflict resulting from
gambling.
Id. at ¶ 28.
The LSO alleges that in December 2023, the Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with
Delusional Disorder of Paranoid Type and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, Persistent. Ex. 1 at
1. The LSO further alleges that the Individual’s symptoms result in emotional instability, poor
judgment, and problems with trustworthiness and reliability during times of high stress. Id. The
Psychologist is a duly qualified mental health professional contracted by the government to
3
evaluate individuals and, therefore, the Psychologist’s opinion falls within concerning condition
(b) of Guideline I. Ex. 9. Accordingly, the LSO’s security concern under 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 of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. 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.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. MEDICAL BACKGROUND
In early 2023, the Individual was transported from the DOE laboratory at which he is employed to
a local emergency room because he was having a panic attack. Ex. 8 at 3. This incident triggered
DOE to request that he undergo the evaluation by the Psychologist. Id. The Psychologist’s report
(Report) stated that the Individual had gone to the laboratory to complete a report he was writing
to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) regarding communications he had received that he
believed were suspicious, as well as a fire that occurred in his apartment complex and the presence
of a suspicious vehicle. Id. When he reached the laboratory, the Individual had a panic attack while
making a verbal report to security personnel and was then transported to the hospital by laboratory
employees for treatment. Id.
During the evaluation, the Individual discussed several events with the Psychologist, and the
Psychologist reviewed the Individual’s security clearance application investigative file. Ex. 8. The
Individual reported that he began receiving threats and harassing communications in 2018 when
4
he worked at a university laboratory after reporting ethics concerns about his research advisor to
the university administration. Id. at 4. He described multiple fires that happened in the area where
he lived at the time, one of which occurred at a laboratory in which he worked, and indicated that
he believed they were connected to events surrounding his dismissal from the university. Id. at 5.
He described receiving text messages twice from unknown numbers asking him if he was doing
ok after a fellow student committed suicide; the Individual believed the texts to be targeted
attempts to get him to commit suicide because he was a whistleblower. Id.
The Psychologist spoke to the Individual’s previous mental health treatment provider who told her
that the Individual had been overly suspicious but, as of the time of his treatment of the Individual,
the Individual was able to engage in reality testing with the help of a treatment provider. Tr. at 6–
7. The previous provider had recorded one instance of excessive alcohol consumption under stress,
which had occurred in response to the Individual’s concerns about being the target of foreign
espionage. Id. at 7. The former treatment provider told the Psychologist that in a national security
environment, the Individual would need access to a therapist and a psychiatrist, as well as someone
at work with whom he could discuss security threats. Id. He believed the Individual could function
appropriately in a national security environment if his anxiety was being treated. Id.
The Psychologist conducted a full mental status evaluation and administered several psychological
tests. Id. The testing showed an unwillingness by the Individual to admit to minor shortcomings.
Id. at 8. He also had elevations on validity scales assessing underreporting. Id. The Individual
endorsed several items indicating a level of suspiciousness and paranoia high enough to be at an
at-risk level. Id. In her report on the evaluation (the Report), the Psychologist wrote that “[w]hile
this was not technically at a clinically significant level, in the context of likely underreporting, it
is elevated enough to be of concern to DOE.” Id. Regarding the mental status exam, the
Psychologist wrote that the Individual had some insight into the maladaptiveness of his suspicious
and paranoid thinking and his emotional reactivity, but he had not adequately applied that insight
to get the psychiatric support he needed. Id. at 9. She further wrote that the Individual had
“questionable ability to engage in reality testing independently, evidenced by his making
connections between occurrences which, to most others, seem unrelated and implausible” and that
his reactions to those events were of “significant clinical concern.” Id. The Psychologist also wrote
that the Individual had been unable to regulate his emotions adequately at times and his inability
to discern between what is and is not real resulted in the Individual’s emotionally instability. Id.
The Psychologist noted that the Individual refused to provide consent for her to access the medical
records from his 2023 emergency room visit. Id.
The Psychologist concluded that the Individual had an emotional, mental, or personality condition
or conditions that could impair judgment, reliability, stability or trustworthiness. Ex. 8 at 9. Using
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-
TR), she opined that he had a Delusional Disorder of Paranoid Type and an Adjustment Disorder
with Anxiety, Persistent. Id. She wrote that his symptoms resulted in emotional instability, poor
judgment, and problems with trustworthiness and reliability during times of high stress. Id. She
gave the Individual a guarded prognosis that “would likely improve if he were to re-engage in
psychotherapy and medication management.” Id.
5
In preparation for the hearing, the Individual obtained an independent psychiatric evaluation from
a psychiatrist (the Psychiatrist); the Psychiatrist met with the Individual once and was not his
regular treatment provider. Ex. AC at 1. The Psychiatrist reviewed the Individual’s exhibits and
the Psychologist’s Report (DOE Exhibit 8) and interviewed the Individual for four hours. Ex. A at
1–2. She concluded in her report that the Individual was an anxious individual “who can become
more anxious and even paranoid during times of great stress,” but had never been “definitively
delusional.” Id. at 2. She stated that “his paranoid beliefs have always been non-bizarre and at least
remotely plausible.” Id. She opined that “whatever paranoia he may have is not clearly delusional
and is not impairing his functioning to the degree that a psychiatric diagnosis would be warranted.”
Id. at 3. She further wrote:
When I confronted him about these associations, [the Individual] acknowledged
that they probably seem strange, but said he couldn’t help wondering if there might
be a connection. Wondering is different than being certain, and while this type of
thinking might accurately be classified as suspicious and possibly paranoid (as [the
Psychologist] noted in her report), delusions are by definition false beliefs that are
firmly held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. So I do not believe
that these associations support a diagnosis of Delusional Disorder.
Id. at 11.
V. FINDINGS OF FACT
At the hearing, the Individual testified that in 2017, he began pursuing a PhD at a university
(University) with a well-known research program but became concerned about the ethics of certain
researchers, including those of his research advisor, due to misappropriation of research and
conflicts of interest. Tr. at 16–18; Ex. C at 1. At the time, the University’s research program was
under investigation by the National Institutes of Health. Id. at 18. In 2018, the Individual reported
his concerns to the University’s administration and was told that his research advisor had been
given a warning. Id. at 16, 18, 174. A few months later, the Individual learned information which
he believed constituted grant fraud. Id. at 23. He reported this to the University’s administration.
Id. The Individual testified that he was told the issues were “not egregious” and were “just
business.” Id. The Individual began reporting alleged misconduct to various Federal Agency
Inspectors General and to the FBI. Id. at 23–24. The Individual testified that he faced bullying and
verbal threats that his career would end if he did not stop reporting his concerns. Id. at 24. He was
moved to a new research advisor’s office. Id. at 21.
The Individual was required to complete a research milestone by a certain date in 2020, the third
year of his PhD program. Tr. at 24–25, 121. Several days before the deadline, the Individual
entered the laboratory and found that his desk had been cleared. Id. at 121–22, 137. He believed,
without evidence, that his original research advisor had cleared the desk. Id. at 121, 125. In
frustration, the Individual kicked the desk, damaging a drawer, and then ripped a touch screen off
6
a computer monitor and broke it. Id. at 122, 132.2 The Individual testified at the hearing that he
only damaged the drawer and did not destroy it. Id. at 122. He further testified that the touch screen
only cost twenty or thirty dollars. Id. at 132. He then changed his testimony, saying “it was actually
already broken, . . . , but I ripped it off and then broke that. I think it was in the trash or disposed
of.” Id. The Individual was asked to leave the laboratory, and when he returned a few days later,
he found that he had been locked out of the building and that multiple police reports had been filed
against him for vandalism, one with the local police and one with the University police. Id. at 122.
He testified that he apologized to the police for losing his temper and that he was not charged with
a crime. Id. at 123–24. The Individual was not allowed to return to the laboratory. Ex. 10 at 65. He
was later able to locate some of his belongings. Tr. at 125. He confronted his former research
advisor and asked where his belongings were. Id. The research advisor responded that he did not
know. Id.
The Individual did not complete his research by the deadline, and he was asked to leave the
program with a terminal master’s degree. Id. at 25, 134. However, he was removed from the
program without receiving a master’s degree; the Individual testified that official reason given was
that he had agreed to be removed from the program—which he stated was not accurate—but he
believed that the real reason was retaliation for his disclosures to the Inspectors General and FBI.
Id. at 25, 157–58.
Regarding the aberrant conducted noted by the Psychologist, the Individual testified that during
his time at the University, two fires occurred near the offices of his research advisors. Tr. at 135.
Also during that time, a fire occurred at a coffee shop near the laboratory. Ex. O. In January 2023,
a fire occurred in a different part of his apartment complex. Tr. at 72. In early 2024, the Individual
received a text message from an unknown number with an image of a gold star on a black
background surrounded by three fire emojis. Id. at 127, 129; Ex. Z. The Individual argued that the
image was threatening because he had experienced three fires. Tr. at 222. When reminded that the
Individual considered himself affected by four fires at the time the text message was received, the
Individual asserted that he had experienced three fires known to the sender, the identity of whom
is not known. Id. at 223.
The Individual testified to receiving threatening communications and interactions over the course
of the last few years, such as a text message from an unknown number that read “Did you find
your keys,” a car he did not recognize driving into his apartment complex as he was leaving, a
flyer addressed to Local Postal Customer for a free luncheon, a loud knock on his apartment door
in 2023, and a brochure for a local retirement community for Chinese-speakers which was not
addressed to him and was labeled Presorted Standard mail, a type of commercial bulk mail. Tr. at
30, 68, 71–72; Ex. AG at 1, 4–15. See also 200 Commercial Letters, Cards, Flats, and Parcels,
Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual, available at
https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/263.htm. The Individual stated that he found the knock on his
2 The Individual testified that he damaged property in anger one other time in adulthood. Tr. at 133. He testified that
he broke a keyboard when he was having computer issues. Id. To explain that incident, he testified, “at the time, I
contributed [the computer issues] to that just bad luck, and then in hindsight, I considered that later as, you know,
potentially cyber security issues. But I didn’t get that information until years later.” Id.
7
door in March 2023 threatening because it occurred in a “heightened threat environment . . . a
couple weeks after the fire that occurred at my apartment complex.” Tr. at 155–56. The Individual
also reported receiving a threatening text message in March 2023 that stated, “Excuse me, why
does your name appear in my contact list. We met before? . . . I am [woman’s name].” Ex. I at 2.
The Individual believed this was a threat because the woman’s name was part of the name of one
of the researchers at the University who he did not know personally and had not seen in years. Tr.
at 148–51. He acknowledged that there could be no connection but stated that he sent the text to
the FBI anyway because he believed it to be harassment or a threat. Id. The Individual stated that
he had not received a response from the FBI since 2020. Id. at 89.
During the background investigation for the Individual’s security clearance, investigators spoke to
a source who worked at the University with the Individual, who told them that the Individual had
e-mailed them proprietary documents related to their work that neither the Individual nor the
source should have had. Tr. at 139; Ex. 10 at 75–76. The source told the investigators that the
Individual sent them to her because “he felt it was information [the s]ource needed, as well as to
give it to someone just in case something was to happen.” Id. The same source recommended the
Individual for a security clearance with reservation, stating that she did not believe the Individual
could handle a high stress position. Ex. 10 at 74. While they were at the University laboratory
together, the source noticed that as the Individual experienced more stress, he became angrier and
more paranoid. Id. at 75. When asked about the source’s report that he had sent her proprietary
information neither of them should have had, the Individual testified that he did not “recall that
specific incident.” Tr. at 139.
The Individual submitted a number of exhibits to the record, many of which he had labeled CUI
(Controlled Unclassified Information) and LEI (Law Enforcement Information). Ex. G; Ex. H; Ex.
I; Ex. L; Ex. M; Ex. Q; Ex. R; Ex. U; Ex. Z. The Individual also provided many of these documents
to the Psychiatrist. Tr. at 141–42. The Individual testified that he believed CUI could only be
provided to persons within the government for a lawful government purpose. Id. at 142. He further
testified that a separate review and release process was required to release CUI outside the
government. Id. When asked why he did not attempt to get permission before releasing to a
member of the public information he believed to be CUI, he stated that he thought it was ok
because it was for his hearing. Id. at 143. When asked who controlled the CUI in his exhibits, he
stated, “I would say, I guess, me.” Id. at 144.
The Individual testified that he currently felt “threatened by some individuals.” Tr. at 127. He
testified that he currently felt harassed. Id. The Individual testified on the issue further:
A [Individual]: Not every day, but occasionally I will get either threatening
messages or threatening text messages or emails which I attribute to my
whistleblowing activity.
Q [DOE Attorney]: And these are the types of messages that we’ve discussed
before, like the, “Did you get your keys”?
8
A: Yeah. There’s another one that was essentially like three fire emojis. There was
like three fires with a star in the center of it. I interpreted that as threatening. But
again, I don’t know who that’s coming from. It’s just an unknown phone number.
Q: Do you currently feel that you are being targeted by people at [the University],
by Dr. [Research Advisor], by the companies, by the Chinese government?
A: I think I’ve dealt with some harassment and some bullying. I don’t think it’s a
super, massive coordinated effort by, like, the entire Chinese government. I think
I’ve provided some incredibly valuable intel to the U.S. Government regarding
intellectual property issues, and I think some of that is the blowback from some of
the faculty that are currently under investigation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean
they’re going to be charged.
So I don’t think – from like a psychological standpoint of what you’re asking, is
the entire Chinese government after me? I would say no.
Q: Do you currently feel that you are being targeted?
A: By some individuals that were under investigation, I would say yes.
Q: And you said not the whole Chinese government. Do you believe that anybody
from the Chinese government is currently targeting you?
A: I don’t, I think, know anyone specifically that works for like a Chinese military
agency, but I do have a postdoc that I know, who used to work in our laboratory,
he’s back in China, but I don’t think he’s targeting or is involved in any of that.
Q: Do you think – so who do you think is currently targeting you?
A: I think it’s individuals that were in the, again, in the FBI probe.
Q: And the FBI probe is when you reported stuff to the Small Business
Administration?
A: [Office of the Inspector General (OIG)]. [Department of Health and Human
Servies], OIG, yes, and then the FBI.
Q: And this is the probe that was in 2020[,] and you haven’t heard anything from
since?
A: I mean, if you look at, essentially, one of the last exhibits that we had, it lists a
summary. The National Institutes of Health list a summary of their—the summary
of their investigation so far, that 600—over 600 investigators throughout multiple
universities within the U.S. were targeted and I guess in their investigation, some
9
of those resulted in a [Department of Justice (DOJ)] or an FBI referral. Some of
them didn’t.
Q: DOJ referral would be through criminal prosecution, right, not an FBI probe.
So, what is the—okay. But you do believe that some people are currently targeting
you?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And then, when is the last time you received a harassing or threatening
text message?
A: I think the March text message was the one that I would say was harassment.
Q: March of 2023?
A: Sorry, 2023, yes. The one with the three fire emojis, yes.
Tr. at 128–29.
In February 2023,3 the Individual was attempting to make a report to the FBI regarding text
messages he had received from unknown numbers and an article he had seen about a classified
DOE document about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Tr. at 29, 159. While drafting his
report, the file on his computer became corrupted and disappeared. Id. He went to the DOE
laboratory to make his report. Id. at 30. As he was leaving his apartment complex, he saw a
“suspicious vehicle” entering the apartment complex and began “having a large amount of
anxiety.” Id. When he reached the lab, he made a suspicious activity report to the security guards
stationed at the front of the laboratory. Id. Due to his high level of anxiety, one of the security
guards asked if he wanted a health evaluation. Id. First responders at the laboratory asked if he
wanted to go to the emergency room and, when he agreed, transported him there. Id. at 30, 161.
The Individual testified that the first responders told him to “keep the information brief with the
healthcare professionals at the emergency room,” and to “tell them you had a stressful day at
work.” Id. at 30–31. The Individual was treated twice with Valium over a period of hours and
released. Id. at 31. The Individual was sent a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) by the LSO about the
incident that stated “Record information in the possession of the DOE reports the [DOE
Laboratory] First Responders transported you to the hospital in January 2023 after you experienced
a panic attack. Is this information accurate?” Ex. 7 at 1. The Individual responded that the
information was not accurate, but in his explanation did not contradict the facts as presented in the
interrogatory. Id. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he took issue with the word
“involuntary” and stressed that his visit to the emergency room was entirely voluntary and he was
not admitted to a psychiatric facility. Tr. at 31, 37. The Individual testified:
3 The information provided by DOE during its investigation stated that the incident took place in January 2023. Ex. 7
at 1. It actually occurred on February 26, 2023. Tr. at 159.
10
I received a letter of interrogatory saying that I was involuntarily hospitalized, I
believe it said in January of 2023, and that triggered, essentially, I think it’s a large
issue in my security clearance application that it said that it was an involuntary
hospitalization. That information was not
accurate. It was a voluntary visit to the emergency room.
Id. at 37. When told that the LOI did not refer to the voluntariness of his emergency room visit at
all, the Individual testified that he thought it said it was an involuntary hospitalization, that he
believed the LSO received information that he was involuntarily hospitalized, and that he believed
this information triggered the LOI. Id. at 40–41. He further testified, “I don’t see this currently on
this Exhibit 7, that it says involuntary. But I remember, and it’s possible I misinterpreted, but I—
I personally remember that it said ‘involuntary’ when I went through that—that process.”4 Id. at
43.
The Individual testified that he was treated by a mental health provider while in the PhD program,
but since moving to the area of the DOE laboratory, he has not seen a provider for therapy or
medication management. Tr. at 105–06. He testified that his former provider recommended
continuing counseling and medication management with a provider in his new state. Id. at 105. He
testified that he had not pursued treatment because he felt like he did not need it. Id. at 109–10.
The Psychologist testified that in her evaluation, the Individual declined to answer some of her
questions and declined to sign the document waiver that the emergency room administration asked
him to sign so his medical records could be released to her. Tr. at 177. She testified because of
these actions, she concluded that the Individual had showed poor judgment and a lack of
trustworthiness. Id. She was further concerned because the Individual provided the emergency
room medical records to the Psychiatrist in preparation for the hearing. Id. at 184–85.
The Psychologist testified that during the evaluation, the Individual named several events that were
seemingly unconnected and that when challenged, he would admit that it was possible that the
events were unconnected but would continue to believe they were connected and behave as if they
were. Tr. at 183. She testified that the Individual had significant anxiety when he thought about
the events and lost control of his behavior or lost his temper. Id. She testified that the Individual
reported information to the FBI that was trivial and unconnected and that he misinterpreted neutral
text messages as threats. Id. at 184.
The Psychologist defined “delusion” as a belief that a person has that stands in contrast to reality
and that they hold in spite of being presented with evidence to the contrary. Tr. at 181. She stated
that delusions can be “regular delusion”—such as believing a superstar actress is in love with them
or believing the government is spying on them—or “bizarre delusion”—such as believing someone
stole their internal organs, but they are still alive. Id. In diagnosing the Individual with Delusional
Disorder, the Psychologist considered several diagnostic criteria:
4 After seeing the notes in his medical file from the emergency room visit, the Individual attempted to have the
emergency room doctor change his medical file to correct what he perceived to be inaccuracies. Id. at 79–80.
11
1. The delusion must be present for a month or longer;
2. The criteria for Schizophrenia, Part A, have never been met—meaning the
subject does not have two or more of the symptoms of delusion, hallucination,
disorganized speech, grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior, or negative
symptoms such as diminished emotional expression or avolition;
3. Apart from the impact of delusions or their ramifications, functioning is not
markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre or odd;
4. If a manic or major depressive episode has occurred, it has been brief relative
to the period of delusion; and
5. The disturbance is not attributable to the psychological effects of a substance or
another medical condition and is not better explained by another mental
disorder.
Id. at 178–79. At the hearing, the Psychologist testified that she had mislabeled the type of
Delusional Disorder as Paranoid Type in her Report and that the Individual had Persecutory Type.
Id. at 178. She testified that the central theme of Persecutory Type Delusional Disorder involves
the subject’s belief that they are being conspired against and that small slights may become
exaggerated and become the focus of a delusional system. Id. at 180. She further testified that the
subject may engage in repeated attempts to obtain satisfaction by legal or legislative action. Id.
She quoted from the DSM-5-TR, stating “[o]ften people with a delusional disorder may be able to
factually describe that others view their beliefs as irrational, but are unable to accept this
themselves, that is, there may be factual insight, but no true insight.” Id.
The Psychologist testified that the Individual connected several events that happened at the
University and in the years after that were not logically connected and were, at best,
circumstantially related. Id. at 182–83. She testified that even when presented with information to
challenge his beliefs, the Individual would admit that it was possible that the events were not
connected but maintain his belief that they were. Id. at 183.
The Psychologist was concerned by the Psychiatrist’s report. Id. at 184. Her initial concern was
that the Individual had provided the Psychiatrist with information that he had expressly refused to
present to her. Id. at 184–85, 187. See also Ex. 8 at 33 (email from the Individual to the
Psychologist stating “[a]t this time, I am going to decline releasing medical information related to
the [emergency room] visit”). She was further concerned that the Psychiatrist dismissed the
seriousness of the Individual’s February 2023 emergency room visit, stating “people go to the ER
every day, but it’s not a common occurrence for a person to have to go to the ER because they
receive text messages and there’s a fire at their apartment [complex].” Tr. at 186. The Psychologist
disagreed with the Psychiatrist’s characterization of delusions as false beliefs firmly held despite
incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.5 Id. at 190. The Psychologist testified that even if the
5 The DSM-5-TR defines delusions as “fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.”
Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders, American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5-TR.
12
Individual did not meet the diagnostic criteria for Delusional Disorder, the Individual’s paranoia
still affected his behavior such that he demonstrates poor judgment, a lack of trustworthiness, a
lack of reliability, and a lack of stability. Id. at 196–97.
The Psychologist expressed concern that the Individual’s way of filtering what information he
takes in or what is important resulted in a lack of candor, and she listed ways in which the
Individual’s actions, taken based on his paranoia and suspicion, gave rise to concerns about his
judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. Tr. at 192, 233. She testified that the Individual becomes
“loose” (flustered, difficulty staying on track and following a clear train of logic, providing
circumstantially relevant information instead of answering questions directly), disorganized and
hostile when he is upset and confronted about his beliefs. Id. at 192. She testified that he has
withheld information from his security clearance investigation by actively refusing to provide the
medical notes from his emergency room visit. Id. She was concerned that the Individual has not
internalized what CUI is or the rules surrounding it, despite having attended training on the subject,
and testified that she believed his paranoia was “getting in the way of his being able to understand
that.” Id. The Psychologist testified that the Individual showed poor judgment when he came to
drastically different interpretations than most people as to what would constitute a genuine threat.
Id. at 193. She further testified that the Individual’s elevation of trivial matters to the FBI or DOE
laboratory security raised questions about his judgment and stability as well as questions about
whether elevation of a serious issue could be found credible. Id. The Psychologist was also
concerned that the Individual did not follow his former treatment provider’s recommendation to
continue with therapy and medication management. Id. at 193–94. She gave the Individual a
prognosis of guarded to poor. Id. at 203.
VI. ANALYSIS
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours
and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government places a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access authorization. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
The issue before me is whether the Individual, at the time of the hearing, presents an unacceptable
risk to national security and the common defense. I must consider all the evidence, both favorable
and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions
that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Because of the
strong presumption against granting or restoring security clearances, I must deny access
authorization if I am not convinced that the LSO’s security concerns have been mitigated such that
granting the Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
13
As an initial matter, I find that the Psychologist’s diagnosis is well-founded. The Individual holds
beliefs regarding allegedly threatening actions and communications that are unreasonable and
unsupported by evidence or facts. The connections are tenuous at best and barely circumstantial.
He continues to hold these beliefs while admitting that the support for them is minimal, which is
in line with the DSM-5-TR definition of delusion. The Psychiatrist incorrectly relied on the word
“incontrovertible” to describe the contrary evidence needed for a belief to be a delusion. As the
Psychologist confirmed in her testimony, the contrary evidence does not have to be
incontrovertible. Tr. at 190. The Psychiatrist also stated that the Individual’s lack of impaired
functioning was evidence that a psychiatric diagnosis was not warranted. However, as the
Psychologist noted in her testimony, lack of impaired functioning is one of the diagnostic criteria
for Delusional Disorder. Tr. at 179. Additionally, I find the Psychologist’s testimony regarding her
process in formulating her diagnosis supports giving greater weight to her opinion over that of the
Psychiatrist. For these reasons, I find the Psychiatrist’s report to have less evidentiary value than
that of the Psychologist.
Furthermore, I agree with the Psychologist that, even if the Individual could not be formally
diagnosed with Delusional Disorder, his behavior, thought process, and judgment still raise
concerns. At the hearing and at his psychological evaluation, the Individual was not forthcoming
in his answers to questions, choosing to testify about unrelated issues instead of answering the
question posed; on multiple occasions, the Individual had to be redirected several times before he
would answer yes or no questions. See, e.g., Tr. at 50–51, 56, 91, 126–27. He has also demonstrated
a clear lack of insight into his own mental health struggles by deciding that he does not require
treatment for paranoia and anxiety that cause him significant distress. Upon evaluation of the entire
record, I continue to find that the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I was appropriate.
Conditions that could mitigate Guideline I security concerns include:
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the
individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the
treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) 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.
14
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29. None of the conditions apply in this case.
Regarding conditions (a) and (b), the Individual is not currently undergoing treatment, and thus
the Individual has not satisfied these conditions.6 Regarding condition (c), the Psychologist did not
opine that the Individual’s condition is under control, in remission, or has a low probability of
recurrence or exacerbation. In fact, her testimony was the opposite. The Psychiatrist’s opinion is
not sufficient to make condition (c) apply. While the parties stipulated to the Psychologist’s
credentials as an expert in the field of psychology, the Psychiatrist was not a witness and, therefore,
was not offered as an expert witness. The Psychiatrist’s opinion was not subject to cross
examination and, therefore, holds less weight than the testimony of the Psychologist in the areas
where they disagree. Further, there is no evidence before me indicating that the Psychiatrist has
been employed or has been accepted or approved by the U.S. Government. Regarding condition
(d), the Individual continues to show indications of emotional instability, as evidenced by his
insistence that neutral communications and actions are threats and harassment arising from
incidents years ago. Even the Individual’s Psychiatrist opined that he is anxious and paranoid and
that high stress exacerbates these traits. Regarding condition (e), the issues initially identified by
the LSO continue to this day. As such, I cannot find that condition (d) or (e) applies to mitigate
the Guideline I concerns.
In reviewing this case using the “whole-person concept,” of particular concern in the context of
national security is the Individual’s history of not protecting controlled or proprietary information.
There is evidence that he has disseminated confidential information inappropriately in the context
of sending proprietary information to which he should not have had access to a former colleague.
He has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the most basic requirements of CUI protection.
He believes that he can mark documents CUI even though he is not qualified to do so under
government regulations. He provided information that he believed to be CUI to a private party
outside the government without requesting any review or permission, despite knowing that such
review and permission are required to disseminate CUI. However, when the DOE Psychologist
asked him questions, he refused to provide her with some of that very same information. At best,
the Individual had demonstrated carelessness and a lack of understanding of information security
procedures that raises grave concerns. Accordingly, using the “whole-person concept,” I cannot
find that the Individual’s judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability are sufficient for him to be
eligible to hold a security clearance.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns raised
under Guideline I.
VII. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization under Guideline I of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has not succeeded in fully resolving
those concerns. Therefore, I cannot conclude that granting DOE access authorization to the
6 The Psychiatrist was hired by the Individual to conduct a psychiatric evaluation and there is no evidence that the
Individual is currently being treated by the Psychiatrist. Ex. AC at 1.
15
Individual “will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the
national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should not grant access
authorization to the Individual.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kristin L. Martin
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals