PSH-24-0162

*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-24-0162
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 9, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (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
The Individual is employed with a DOE Contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. In 2002, the Individual sought inpatient care following a mental health crisis,
resulting in an Anxiety Disorder diagnosis. Exhibit (Ex.) Ex. 5 at 1; Ex. 6 at 1–3; Ex. 7 at 1. In
2003, the Individual was diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder. Ex. B at 1. In July 2017, the
Individual went on disability due to an ongoing struggle with anxiety and depression, and he was
diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder the same year. Id. at 1–2; Ex. N at 8–10. In March
2020, the Individual signed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP)
to maintain his access authorization. Ex. 21. In the March 2020 QNSP, the Individual indicated
that he had been previously hospitalized for a mental health condition, and when asked whether
he had ever “been diagnosed by a physician or other health professional . . . with . . . bipolar mood
disorder,” he marked “[n]o.” Id. at 2–3. In February 2023, the Individual began inpatient
psychiatric treatment, followed by outpatient psychiatric treatment in July 2023. Ex. B at 1–2. The
Individual failed to report his 2023 inpatient hospitalization to DOE. Id. at 3.
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
At the behest of the Local Security Office (LSO), the Individual completed and submitted several
Letters of Interrogatory (LOI), answering questions regarding his mental health diagnoses,
treatment, and his failure to report his 2023 hospitalization. Ex. 18; Ex. 19; Ex. 20; Ex. 22; Ex. 23.
He signed and submitted the LOIs in August 2023, November 2023, and March 2024. Id. Also at
the behest of the LSO, the Individual saw a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for
a psychological evaluation, which was conducted in January 2024. Ex. 24. The DOE Psychologist
issued a report (the Report) of his findings in February 2024 and determined that the Individual
met the criteria for a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, as set forth in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition – Text Revision (DSM-5-
TR). Ex. 24 at 4. The DOE Psychologist opined that the aforementioned diagnosis, combined with
the Individual’s vulnerability to suicidality, “can impair” the Individual’s “judgment, stability,
reliability, and trustworthiness.” Id.
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a letter (Notification
Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed reliable information that created
substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of
Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guidelines I (Psychological Conditions) and E
(Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter informed the
Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the
substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his wife and colleague. See Transcript
of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0162 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual also
submitted twenty-three exhibits, marked Exhibits A through W. The DOE Counsel submitted
twenty-five exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 25 and presented the testimony of the DOE
Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
A. Guideline I
Under Guideline I, “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Conditions that could
raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness[,]” and “[v]oluntary or involuntary hospitalization[.]” Id. at ¶ 28(b),
(c). Under Guideline I, the LSO alleged that:
1. Because of the Individual’s diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe,
and the fact that the Individual is “acutely vulnerable to suicidality,” the DOE Psychologist
determined that the Individual suffers from an “emotional, mental, or personality condition
. . . that can impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Ex. 2 at 1.
3
2. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual “continue his present treatment
at the direction of his providers for as long as they feel necessary.” Id. The DOE
Psychologist also “felt [that] after three . . . months, [the Individual’s] present treatment
would have a continuing beneficial impact on his condition, and he should then be in full
remission from his major depression and suicidality.” Id. at 1–2.
3. The Individual voluntarily sought outpatient psychological hospitalization in July 2023, as
he experienced “worsening symptoms of depressions, suicidal ideation, and poor overall
functioning[.]” Id. at 2. The Individual’s provider suggested the Partial Hospitalization
Program (PHP), and at discharge, the Individual was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder,
Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) and Bipolar II Disorder. Id.
4. The Individual indicated in his August 2023 LOI response that he had been hospitalized in
February 2023 for nine days as a result of “a severe episode of depression and anxiety.” Id.
He “was discharged with diagnoses of Bipolar II Disorder and Anxiety Disorder[]” after
exhibiting such symptoms as “suicidal thoughts with a plan to use knife[,]” “negative self-
talk,” and feelings of “worthlessness and hopelessness.” Id. Although the Individual
returned to work in May 2023 following treatment, he “continued to struggle with
concentration and completing tasks.” Id.
5. The Individual’s access to the worksite was restricted in July 2017 “due to psychological
concerns.” Id. at 3. The Individual was referred for a psychiatric consultation in August
2017, during which he was diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder,
Recurrent, Moderate, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Id.
6. The Individual’s access to the worksite was restricted in October 2002 “due to his
enrollment in an outpatient program.” Id. Earlier the same month, the Individual entered
inpatient psychiatric treatment after endorsing “thoughts of hurting himself,” resulting in a
diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder. Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline I is justified.
B. Guideline E
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could
raise a disqualifying concern is the “[d]eliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . or similar form used to conduct investigations
. . . determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness[,]” and “[d]eliberately . . . concealing
or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer . . . or other official government
representative[.]” Id. at ¶ 16(a), (b). Under Guideline E, the LSO alleged that the Individual failed
to disclose his Bipolar II Disorder diagnosis in the March 2020 QNSP. Ex. 2 at 4. Further, although
the Individual indicated in the August 2023 LOI response that he had received inpatient care for
4
anxiety and depression in February 2023, he failed to report this information to his LSO at the time
he received the inpatient care. Id. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline E is justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting their eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
Medical and Reporting History
Prior to his October 2002 inpatient treatment, the Individual sought emergency assistance due to
“sleep deprivation” that resulted in “panic attacks and anxiety.” Ex. 7 at 1; Ex. 8 at 2; Ex. 10 at 8;
Ex. R at 1; Ex. T at 42. The Individual’s condition then worsened over the next few days, as he
experienced feelings of hurting himself. Ex. 7 at 1–2; Ex. 8 at 2. He was, accordingly, placed in
an inpatient treatment program and discharged three days later. Ex. 7 at 2. The Individual next
attended an outpatient treatment program for five days and upon his discharge, he was diagnosed
with Anxiety Disorder. Ex. 7 at 2; Ex. 5 at 1; Ex. 6 at 1–3. The Individual was prescribed
medication, and his treatment included psychotherapy, with “both individual and group”
counseling components, and his prognosis was “good.” Id. Although the Individual had been
placed on a worksite restriction, a late October 2002 letter from the medical director of the
outpatient facility indicated that the Individual could return to work, and that “his judgment and
reliability [were] not impaired.” Ex. 4 at 1–2; Ex. 6 at 3; Ex. N at 14–15; Ex. 10 at 5. The Individual
was interviewed by a DOE employee to assess his readiness for return to work, and at that time,
the Individual stated his intent to seek treatment at the first sign of symptom recurrence. Ex. 7 at
3.
5
Regarding his 2002 hospitalization, the Individual indicated in his request for a hearing that he
“was not aware that [he] was supposed to” and he was not “instructed to” notify DOE at the time
of his hospitalization. Ex. B at 1. He notified his manager, his employer’s medical clinic, and
Human Resources (HR). Id. However, he believes that a colleague reported the matter to DOE, as
he was interviewed by a DOE employee prior to his return to work.2 Ex. B at 1; Tr. at 57–58, 77.
In 2003, the Individual began seeing a new provider who diagnosed him with Bipolar II Disorder,
and at some point, the same year, he discontinued psychotherapy.3 Ex. B at 1; Ex. 8 at 2–3.
The Individual’s felt that his medication “seemed to stop working” in early July 2017, and he was
placed on a worksite restriction due to “psychological concerns.” Ex. 9 at 1; Ex. B at 1. The
Individual “went on disability because [he] was really struggling with depression and anxiety.”
Ex. B at 1–2. He indicated in a sworn declaration submitted in July 2024 that he “notified [his
manager] shortly after going out[,]” and that he also notified HR, as well as his employer’s medical
clinic. Id. at 2. In July 2017, he was referred to a provider for “cognitive/behavioral treatment to
address his depression.” Ex. P at 1. This provider’s notes indicate that the Individual had been
previously diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder and that he was on medication to manage symptoms.
Id. The provider’s notes also indicate that he was “confused” by this diagnosis, as it did not appear
to him that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria. Id. at 2. The Individual was returned to work
in August 2017, and the accompanying return to work paperwork indicated the Individual was
compliant with his medication and that he saw his therapist and primary care physician. Ex. 11 at
1; Ex. B at 2; Ex. N at 10–13. The Individual was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder in
2017 by two separate providers. Ex. B at 1–2; Ex. N at 8–10.
Starting in February 2018, the Individual went out on leave to attend transcranial magnetic
stimulation (TMS) sessions, a mental health treatment used to “stimulate the brain,” every
weekday. Ex. B at 1–2; Ex. D at 3; Ex. J; Ex. O at 1–7. At that point, he alerted his manager, HR,
and his employer’s medical clinic.4 Ex. B at 2. The Individual asserted that he “was not aware that
[he] was supposed to” and he was not “instructed to” report the matter to DOE. Id. The Individual
was returned to work in May 2018 and eventually discontinued the TMS treatment in 2022, as it
was no longer effective. Id. As a result, the Individual began a new medication in June 2022, which
“worked quite well[,]” allowing him to “come off most of [his] other medications.” Id.
In February 2023, the Individual presented to the hospital due to worsening of symptoms and
suicidal ideation with a plan to use a knife to harm himself. Ex. 12 at 1; Ex. B at 2–3; Ex. L at 1;
Ex. 14 at 2, 6; Ex. T at 9, 45. He received inpatient treatment for approximately nine days. Ex. D
at 3; Ex. L at 1; Ex. 19 at 1. Medical notes indicate that at the time of his February 2023
hospitalization, the Individual attended therapy “several times per week[,]” focusing on things like
“coping skill[s.]” Ex. 12 at 1. The Individual told providers that he had been “stable for about
2 At the hearing, the Individual did “not recall asking” the DOE employee about proper reporting protocol. Tr. at 89–
90.
3 The Bipolar II Disorder diagnosis was restated in treatment notes from 2015. Ex. 8 at 4, 18.
4 The Individual indicated in his request for a hearing that he believes that reporting the matter to HR met the reporting
requirement imposed upon those who hold an access authorization. Ex. B at 2.
6
[twenty] years[,]” and that his symptoms were unexpected and “completely impaired his
functioning at work.” Id. The Individual was diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder and Anxiety
Disorder. Id. at 4. In 2023, the Individual began seeing a psychologist “for weekly psychotherapy
sessions.” Ex. B at 3; Ex. L at 1. The Individual’s wife notified the Individual’s manager of the
February 2023 hospitalization, the Individual’s site access was restricted the same month, and he
remained on leave from February 2023 to May 2023. Ex. 13 at 1; Ex. 14 at 1; Ex. B at 3; Ex. N at
4–6. In his March 2024 LOI response, the Individual indicated that he “was not aware that [he]
was required to notify” DOE of the hospitalization. Ex. 23 at 1. The Individual was returned to
work in May 2023. Ex. 19 at 1.
Treatment notes from late July 2023 reflect that the Individual continued to “struggl[e] despite
going to therapy[,]” and remaining compliant with his medications. Ex. 14 at 1; Ex. 19 at 1. He
experienced “passive suicidal ideation[.]” Ex. 14 at 1. The Individual was placed on a site access
restriction in late July 2023. Ex. 17 at 1. As the Individual continued to struggle, he decided to
enter a PHP, which he attended from August 2023 through September 2023.5 Ex. B at 3; Ex. M
at 1; Ex. 20 at 1; Ex. 14 at 7, 10. On this occasion, he notified his manager and his employer’s
medical clinic about his treatment.6 Ex. B at 3. The medical clinic notified DOE, and he was placed
on a site restriction and escorted off the worksite. Id. The treatment he received at the PHP
consisted of medication management and group therapy. Ex. B at 3. Discharge notes again list the
Individual’s diagnoses as Bipolar II Disorder and Anxiety Disorder. Ex. 14 at 39. Although he was
discharged, he continued to experience symptoms of anxiety. Ex. B at 3. The Individual was able
to return to work in December 2023. Ex. B at 4; Ex. N at 1–3; Ex. 17 at 1–2.
As noted previously, the Individual met with the DOE Psychologist for a psychological evaluation
in January 2024. Ex. 24. During the evaluation, the Individual reported “feeling sad and unhappy
and being dissatisfied with his current life circumstances.” Id. at 3. Regarding his current
treatment, the Individual stated that he was taking five prescription medications and reported his
engagement in psychotherapy and Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT).7 Id. at 2–3. In the Report,
the DOE Psychologist opined that, during the evaluation, the Individual “presented with a
dysphoric mood[,] but did not display any overt anxiety symptoms[,] which suggests that his
current treatment is adequately helping him manage his anxiety symptoms.” Id. at 3–4. The DOE
Psychologist further stated that the Individual “display[ed] a variety of chronic symptoms (e.g.,
fatigue, inefficiency, inability to concentrate)[,] [and] . . . manifest[ed] two important symptoms
of major depression—anhedonia and dysphoria.” Id. at 4. Based on these symptoms, the DOE
Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Severe,
5 The Individual denied having suicidal thoughts during the time he was in the PHP. Ex. 14 at 18, 25, 34.
6 In a May 2024 email exchange with a manager, the Individual notified a manager that he “was not aware that [he]
was responsible for making the notifications to [DOE]” and that on previous occasions, “notification to the government
had been done by [contractor] personnel[.]” Ex. U at 2. The manager indicated that “[r]eporting requirements are the
requirement of the individual security clearance holder[,]” and that it is not the employer’s “practice . . . to provide
supporting or damming [sic] information regarding [its] employees[.]” Id. at 1. In another May 2024 email exchange,
another contractor employee notified the Individual that he was not reporting “to the government” when he notified
her of his hospitalization. Id. at 3.
7 The Individual started ECT in October 2023, which ultimately resulted in the remission of his symptoms at that time.
Ex. B at 3–4; Ex. 15 at 7. However, there was a resurgence of the symptoms in December 2023, and the Individual
discontinued ECT in March 2024. Ex. B at 4; Tr. at 93.
7
without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 5. The DOE Psychologist opined
that this diagnosis, combined with the Individual’s vulnerability to suicidality, “can impair” the
Individual’s “judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.” Id. To show adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation, the DOE Psychologist “recommend[ed] that he continue his
present treatment at the direction of his providers for as long as they feel is necessary.” Id. The
DOE Psychologist also opined that the Individual “should be in full remis[s]ion from his major
depression and suicidality” if “his present treatment” has “a continuing beneficial impact on his
condition” for at least three months. Id.
In June 2024, the Individual sought a psychological evaluation conducted by a consultant clinical
psychologist (Individual’s Expert), after which the Individual’s Expert prepared a report. Ex. D.
The Individual told his expert that he previously “had difficulty with psychotherapy because he
‘ha[s] a really good life, a good family, a good job, no trauma[,]’” and he “[did not] feel like [he]
had a problem that counseling would fix.” Id. at 2. Regarding his current state, the Individual told
his expert that he felt “stable and confident about his current period of remission, which began in
[March] 2024.” Id. at 4. He denied any current suicidal ideation and indicated that he is now
“understand[ing] the root causes of his symptoms and how to better manage them.” Id. The
Individual’s Expert noted that the Individual “denied any of the classic symptoms which would be
indicative of . . . a manic episode.” Id. Further, “a review of [the Individual’s] depressive symptoms
and episodes revealed that his ‘up periods’ were not indicative of mania[,] but rather an absence
of his vegetative depressive symptoms.” Id. at 4–5.
The Individual’s Expert stated in his report that he does not believe that the Individual “has ever
suffered from a manic or hypomanic episode[.]” Id. at 6. He diagnosed the Individual with Major
Depressive Disorder, Moderate, Recurrent, with Anxious Distress in full remission. Id. The
Individual’s Expert also concluded that the Individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness
are intact, and that the Individual is “utilizing mental health services . . . in accordance with the
previous recommendations by [the DOE Psychologist].” Id. at 6. The Individual did not appear to
be “functionally impaired by any psychological issues[,]” and the Individual’s Expert noted that
the Individual’s willingness to seek assistance when he feels symptomatic “illustrates good
judgment[.]” Id. The Individual’s Expert concluded that the Individual “has achieved remission of
his most noteworthy concerns.” Id. The Individual’s Expert recommended continued medication
compliance and therapy sessions. Id.
In a June 2024 letter, the Individual’s psychologist, who the Individual has been seeing since 2021,
indicated that the Individual has been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Severe, and that
while under his care, the Individual has never experienced manic or hypomanic episodes that are
characteristic of Bipolar II Disorder. Ex. E at 1. The provider also stated that he has never observed
the Individual experience “delusional thoughts, psychotic thoughts, impulsive thoughts or
behaviors, or poor judgment.” Id. As the Individual has learned which medications work for him
through “trial and error,” he “appears to be responding now in a consistently positive manner.” Id.
Finally, he indicated that the Individual has been compliant with his psychotherapy routine. Id. at
1–2. Another provider, a physician’s assistant, who has been seeing the Individual since 2023,
indicated in his June 2024 letter that the Individual’s conditions do not “make[] him less
trustworthy[,]” that the Individual’s symptoms have been improving, and that the Individual has
been compliant with treatment. Ex. F.
8
Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual’s friend and work colleague, who has known the Individual for thirty
years, testified that he does not believe that the Individual’s mental health problems make the
Individual any less trustworthy or reliable. Tr. at 17. The Individual’s friend testified that he works
“adjacent” with the Individual, and he has not witnessed the Individual have an “episode” at work.
Id. at 22–23. He also confirmed that their workplace has annual refresher trainings regarding
certain reporting requirements for employees that hold an access authorization. Id.
The Individual’s wife, who has been married to the Individual for twenty-five years, testified that
the Individual has been an “open book” with his employer regarding his mental health issues. Id.
at 25–26. Regarding the Individual’s February 2023 hospitalization, she testified that just before
the Individual was hospitalized, she informed the Individual’s supervisor of his hospitalization. Id.
at 27, 40–41. She noted that this was the same process she followed during the Individual’s 2002
hospitalization and indicated that she assumed that the information “got to the agency” after she
notified the employer. Id. at 27–29, 41. She also testified that no one told her that she had to notify
a different entity. Id. at 29.
The Individual’s wife stated that when the Individual has an “episode,” he typically internalizes
his feelings of depression and anxiety, struggles to get out bed, and takes longer to complete tasks.
Id. at 33–34. She indicated that these symptoms do not “happen overnight,” and noted that when
the Individual tells her that “[he is] just not feeling like himself anymore[,]” they will reach out to
a doctor. Id. at 35–36, 39. She further stated that the Individual has learned some therapeutic tools,
such as meditation, deep breathing, and the importance of keeping to a routine, to better handle his
feelings of depression and anxiety. Id. at 37–38. She testified that these tools have been “helpful,”
but noted that mental health treatment is constantly evolving and that doctors regularly suggest
new modalities of treatment. Id. at 39.
In his testimony, the Individual stated that his Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorder
cause him to start and complete tasks more slowly than usual, and he is unable to “perform” at his
“normal levels.” Id. at 47–48, 80. With regard to oncoming or worsening symptoms, the Individual
is able to identify them by “recognizing and working with [his] thoughts as they come into [his]
head.” Id. at 53. The symptoms that cause him to seek hospitalization include his “mood
becom[ing] so degraded that [he] ha[s] . . . difficulty . . . doing normal daily tasks of living and
being able to concentrate or do work[.]” Id. at 80–82. While the treatments he has undergone are
effective, some more than others, they are effective for “varying amounts of time.” Id. at 49–50.
More recently, since the 2023 PHP and ECT, the Individual has returned to managing his mental
health symptoms with medication and psychotherapy. Id. at 51. During his current biweekly
psychotherapy sessions, the Individual “generally talk[s] about . . . how [he has] been doing” and
the therapist “coache[s him] on things [he] can do to . . . improve.” Id. at 90. In addition to these
tools, the Individual stated that he has also learned to be “more self-aware” and to better recognize
his negative thoughts, so he does not “spiral.” Id. at 53. He has never, at any time, failed to follow
medical advice and treatment. Id. at 51–52. Not only does he use meditation to manage oncoming
symptoms, he also regularly exercises. Id. at 54. When asked by the DOE Psychologist when he
last experienced a more “problematic” bout of suicidal ideation, such as a situation “where he
9
recognized that he really needed to get himself to a safe spot” immediately, the Individual testified
that he last experienced such symptoms in February 2023.8 Id. at 85.
The Individual confirmed that he did not report his February 2023 hospitalization to DOE but
stated that he “was not aware of that responsibility.” Id. 54–56, 77. He testified that with his prior
hospitalizations, he “did the same reporting as in 2023,” indicating that he told his manager and
other interested parties with his employer, and he was never told to directly inform DOE. Id. at
57–58, 77. He stated that he was “confident” that DOE knew of his 2023 hospitalization, as he was
asked to complete an LOI regarding the matter. Id. at 60. Further, prior to 2023, he had never been
told that he was improperly reporting his hospitalizations, and he disclosed information regarding
his treatment and diagnoses in his LOI responses. Id. at 60–61. Regarding his failure to report his
Bipolar II Disorder diagnosis on his 2020 QNSP, the Individual stated that he didn’t “know what
[he] was thinking” when he marked “no.”9 Id. at 62–63. However, the Individual testified that “in
the context of the question,” he may have thought that it was referring to Bipolar I Disorder, and
not Bipolar II Disorder, as there are “very large difference[s]” between the two diagnoses. Id. at
62, 79. He denied intentionally withholding information regarding his prior Bipolar II Disorder at
the time he completed his 2020 QNSP. Id. at 63.
The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual has complied with the recommendations
contained in the Report, and therefore, he concurred with the Individual’s Expert’s opinion that
the Individual’s Major Depressive Disorder was in full remission. Id. at 103–04. He explained that
because the Individual’s condition was in full remission, it meant that “there [was] nothing relevant
symptomatically at this point in time.” Id. at 107. He testified that although the possibility of
symptom recurrence could not be ruled out, the Individual is “a good reporter” of his condition
and just needs to comply “with . . . recommendations and other . . . things like exercise[.]” Id. at
104–05. He further opined that because the Individual and his wife are “very observant . . . of his
condition and respond[] [to the onset of symptoms] by going to professionals[,]” the Individual is
at a “reduce[d] . . . risk” of experiencing severe episodes in the future. Id. at 108–09. The DOE
Psychologist additionally noted that the Individual’s “last episode, if anything, will make him even
more vigilant” about his condition. Id. at 108. He also indicated that he “s[aw] no risk of” the
Individual ever experiencing symptoms “involving impulsivity, and . . . hypomanic things that
[DOE] would be concerned about” in the future. Id. Accordingly, he described the Individual's
prognosis as “good with continuing treatment as recommended.” Id. at 106. Regarding the
previous Bipolar II Disorder diagnosis, the DOE Psychologist testified that he “did not see any
evidence of Bipolar II” disorder and surmised that this was “either a misdiagnosis” or it “was not
a relevant condition at this point in time.” 10 Id. at 100, 103.
8 Although medical notes indicate that the Individual experienced “passive suicidal ideation” in July 2023, at the
hearing, the DOE Psychologist stated that for “anybody with [M]ajor [D]epressive [D]isorder, suicidal thinking is
fairly common.” Ex. 14 at 1; Tr. at 85. Therefore, the DOE Psychologist indicated that his question regarding the
Individual’s last instance of such suicidal thoughts related to a more problematic occurrence “past th[e] threshold
where [the Individual] was feeling that it was a problem.” Tr. at 85.
9 The Individual indicated in the March 2024 LOI response that the omission “must have been an error on [his] part.”
Ex. K; Ex. 23.
10 The DOE Psychologist opined that a Bipolar II Disorder diagnosis is “much more of a concern than major
depression, which does not have the same issue of impulsivity and irresponsible acting out.” Id. at 101.
10
V. Analysis
A. Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline I include:
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amendable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence
or exacerbation;
(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
Although the Individual’s’ Major Depressive Disorder diagnosis is a serious condition, the DOE
Psychologist testified that the Individual, who is currently on a treatment plan consisting of both
medication and therapy, is in “full remission,” meaning that he is not experiencing any relevant
symptoms of the disorder at this time. Therefore, the record reflects that this disorder is treatable
and controllable with medication. Despite much trial and error regarding his treatment, the
Individual testified that he has not experienced more severe symptoms of his condition since 2023
and is adhering to an ongoing treatment plan involving both medication and biweekly
psychotherapy sessions. The Individual additionally provided letters from his current treating
healthcare providers and a report from the Individual’s Expert to demonstrate that he is stable on
his current medication regimen and that he is compliant with his treatment plan, which the record
shows is an established pattern of behavior. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has mitigated
the security concern regarding his diagnosis pursuant to mitigating factors (a) and (b). Id. at ¶
29(a)–(b).
Further, the DOE Psychologist testified that, in his view, the Individual’s Major Depressive
Disorder was in full remission and his prognosis was “good.” The DOE Psychologist indicated
that the Individual, especially after his most recent hospitalization, is at a reduced risk of
exacerbating his condition as he is very observant of his symptoms and consistently seeks help
11
from medical professionals. Therefore, I find that the Individual has also mitigated the security
concern regarding his diagnosis pursuant to mitigating factor (c). Id. at ¶ 29(c).
Although the LSO additionally alleges in the SSC that the Individual has a history of outpatient
treatments and hospitalizations, as stated above, I have found that the Individual has mitigated the
underlying mental health issues that have caused these incidents. Accordingly, I find that the
remaining stated Guideline I concerns are also mitigated pursuant to mitigating factors (a)–(c). Id.
at ¶ 29 (a)–(c).
B. Guideline E
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E include:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically
concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to
cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
12
As a holder of an access authorization, the Individual is under a continuing obligation to report
any hospitalization for mental health reasons to the appropriate DOE Cognizant Personnel Security
Office (CPSO) no later than three working days after each occurrence. See DOE O 472.2A,
Attachment 5. It is undisputed that the Individual did not inform DOE of his February 2023
hospitalization within three working days. Although the Individual argues that his wife informed
his direct supervisor of the February 2023 hospitalization at the time, and he was not aware of any
other reporting requirement, it is the Individual’s responsibility to be aware of such reporting
requirements as a holder of an access authorization. The fact that the Individual was not told of his
failure to comply with DOE’s reporting requirements during his past hospitalizations does not
absolve him this responsibility. Furthermore, although the Individual argues that he did not
intentionally omit his previous bipolar diagnosis on the 2020 QNSP, he omitted it nonetheless and
was unable to articulate any compelling excuse for doing so. Likewise, the Individual failed to
notify DOE of this diagnosis until the August 2023 LOI response. Lastly, disclosing the requested
information in an LOI response does not meet the reporting requirement set forth in the
aforementioned DOE Order. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the Individual made prompt,
good-faith efforts to correct either his QNSP omission or his failure to report his February 2023
hospitalization before being confronted with the facts. Id. at ¶ 17(a).
I also cannot conclude that the Individual mitigated these concerns pursuant to factor (c). Although
the Individual did inform his direct supervisor of his February 2023 hospitalization, I cannot find
that his failure to follow DOE’s reporting requirements is minor, as he failed to follow the protocol
set forth in the aforementioned DOE Order. Id. at ¶ 17(c). Similarly, I cannot conclude that the
Individual’s omission of his bipolar diagnosis on the 2020 QNSP is minor. Although the DOE
Psychologist and the Individual’s Expert agree that the Individual is not currently suffering from
a bipolar disorder, the Individual had nonetheless been diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder at the
time he submitted the 2020 QNSP. And as the DOE Psychologist explained, a bipolar diagnosis is
of “great concern” to DOE given the likelihood that certain symptoms, such as impulsiveness or
mania, could affect an individual’s judgment. Therefore, I do not find that the Individual’s
omission of this diagnosis was minor.
Furthermore, I do not find that “so much time has passed” as the QNSP omission occurred only
four years ago in 2020, and the failure to report his hospitalization occurred in February 2023, less
than one year ago. Id. Additionally, the QNSP omission, coupled with the Individual’s testimony
that he failed to properly report prior hospitalizations for mental health-related reasons not only in
February 2023, but also in October 2002, demonstrates that his behavior is not infrequent. Id.
Furthermore, the fact that the QNSP omission and failure to report the February 2023
hospitalization were ongoing until the Individual was asked by DOE to provide this information
in August 2023 LOI additionally demonstrates that the behavior underlying these stated concerns
was not infrequent. I also cannot conclude that these omissions occurred under such unique
circumstances, as the duty to report and to provide complete and accurate statements is an ongoing
duty for all individuals with an access authorization. Accordingly, I find that mitigating factor (c)
does not resolve the security concerns associated with these omissions. Id.
Regarding factor (b), there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Individual failed to report
or omitted the information due to advice from counsel or a person with professional responsibilities
for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Id. at ¶ 17(b).
13
Mitigating factor (b) is not applicable. Regarding factor (d), there is nothing in the record to
indicate that the Individual has sought counseling specifically to address his omissions on the 2020
QNSP or his failure to report his 2023 hospitalization. Id. at ¶ 17(d). Therefore, mitigating factor
(d) is not applicable. The LSO did not allege any association with persons involved in criminal
activity or any vulnerability due to the omissions and failure to report, and accordingly, mitigating
factors (e) and (g) are not applicable. Id. at ¶ 17(e), (g). Mitigating factor (f) is also irrelevant
because the LSO’s allegations did not rely on unsubstantiated information or a source of
questionable reliability. Id. at ¶ 17(f).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E and I of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable,
in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence
to resolve the security concerns asserted in the SSC under Guideline I, but has not brought forth
sufficient evidence to resolve the concerns set forth in the SSC under Guideline E. Accordingly,
the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore,
I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be
appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge