PSH-25-0006

*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: October 3, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0006
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 18, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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 should not be
granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires a security clearance.
In July 2023, the Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) as
part of his security clearance application. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) determined that
the Individual failed to disclose information in the QNSP and during interviews with an
investigator, including that he had failed to file tax returns for several years, that he had an
outstanding delinquent debt, and that he had violated a restraining order. The LSO also requested
that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist). Based on
the information gathered by the LSO, including a report produced by the DOE Psychiatrist, the
LSO informed the Individual by letter (Notification Letter) that it possessed reliable information
that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance. In an
attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E, F, G, and
I of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
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 Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf. The LSO presented the
testimony of the DOE Psychiatrist. The Individual submitted one exhibit, marked Exhibit A. The
LSO submitted thirteen exhibits, marked Exhibits 1 through 13.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial
Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines as the bases for concern regarding the Individual’s eligibility to possess
a security clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1.
Guideline E provides that “[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. “Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid
answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.” Id. Conditions that could
raise a security concern include:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used
to conduct investigations, . . . [or] determine national security eligibility or
trustworthiness . . . ;
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting
information, concerning relevant facts to an . . . investigator, security official, . . .
or other official government representative;
. . .
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline
and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when
combined with all available information, supports a whole-person assessment of
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics
indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive
information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: . . . a pattern of
dishonesty or rule violations[.]
. . . .
2 References to the LSO exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in the top right corner of
each exhibit page.
- 3 -
Id. at ¶ 16.
The SSC recounts the following information. In the 2023 QNSP, the Individual did not disclose
that he had failed to file his 2018, 2021, and 2022 tax returns. Ex. 1 at 5. He also failed to disclose
in the QNSP that he had a debt turned over to collections. Id. During an interview with an
investigator, the Individual reported that he had complied with the terms of a restraining order that
he disclosed in the QNSP, but he later admitted that he had violated that order. Id. Additionally,
he provided inaccurate information regarding the circumstances surrounding his restraining order.
Id. at 6. In a May 2024 Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) the Individual reported that he only had
outstanding federal tax debt for tax years 2021 and 2023, but he also had outstanding federal tax
debt for tax years 2012 through 2016. Id. at 5. In the same LOI, he reported that all of his past tax
returns had been filed, but he later disclosed that he had not filed tax returns for years 2007, 2008,
2009, 2011, 2017, and 2018. Id. The cited information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline
E.
Guideline F provides that an individual’s “[f]ailure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and
meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to
abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative Guidelines
at ¶ 18. Conditions that could raise a security concern include an individual’s “inability to satisfy
debts”; “unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so”; “history of not meeting
financial obligations”; and “[f]ailure to file . . . annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns
or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required . . . .” Id. at ¶ 19 (a)–(c), (f).
The SSC cites that the Individual has not filed state tax returns for tax years 2007, 2008, 2009,
2011, 2017, and 2018. Ex. 1 at 6. The SSC further cites that the Individual owes the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) tens of thousands of dollars for tax years 2012 to 2016, 2021, and 2023.
Id. Lastly, the SSC cites that the Individual has three delinquent financial accounts that total
$15,585. Id. The cited information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline F.
Guideline G provides that “[e]xcessive 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. Conditions that
could raise a security concern includes “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health
professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist . . .) of alcohol use disorder . . . .”
Id. at ¶ 22(d). The SSC cites that the DOE Psychiatrist concluded in a July 2024 report (Report)
that the Individual met sufficient criteria under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate
Severity, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 7. The cited
information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
Guideline I provides that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. “A formal diagnosis of
a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline.” Id. Conditions that could
raise a security concern 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 . .
. .” Id. at ¶ 28(b). The SSC cites that the DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual “has
exhibited behavior that may be consistent with significant interpersonal dysfunction and may be
- 4 -
consistent with a Personality Disorder[,]” and the Individual’s decision making surrounding his
financial and interpersonal circumstances are “likely due to personality characteristics of
immaturity, impulsivity, and poor planning[,]” which are “conditions that can impair his judgment,
stability, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Ex. 1 at 7. The cited information justifies the LSO’s
invocation of Guideline I.
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 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 or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
Failure to File and Pay Taxes
When the Individual submitted his July 2023 QNSP, he disclosed that he did not file income tax
returns for the state of his residence (State) from 2012 through 2017 in response to the question
whether he had, in the last seven years, failed to file or pay federal or state taxes. Ex. 12 at 143.
He also reported in the QNSP that he subsequently filed those State returns and paid the related
$35,000 tax liability in 2021. Id. (indicating the State placed a lien on his paycheck). He did not
identify any other failure to file tax returns or pay taxes within the seven-year timeframe. See Ex.
12. However, during a subsequent interview with an investigator in August 2023 (ESI), the
Individual disclosed that he failed to file a tax return or pay tax liability for 2021 and 2022. Ex. 13
at 223. These instances should have been disclosed in the QNSP because they fall within the seven-
year reporting period. See Ex. 12 at 143. The Individual explained during the ESI that he satisfied
the above tax liability for 2012 through 2017 as a result of the State garnishing his wages. Ex. 13
at 223.
- 5 -
Approximately one year after the ESI, the Individual disclosed in the May 2024 LOI that he, in
fact, did not file his 2021 and 2023 State and federal tax returns until May 2024. Ex. 6 at 29–30.
He also disclosed in the LOI that he owed the IRS $3,759 for tax year 2023 and $1,250 for tax
year 2021. Id. at 30–31. When responding to the LOI question whether there are “any other tax
years in which you have failed to file” the Individual reported “all pass [sic] taxes have been filed
to the best of my knowledge.” Id. at 31. He further reported that he did not owe any additional
federal tax debt beyond the amount he identified for tax years 2023 and 2021. Id.
A State Tax Account Summary dated May 31, 2024, demonstrates that the Individual had not yet
filed a State tax return for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2017, and 2018. Ex. 9. Furthermore, an IRS
Account Balance Statement generated after March 2024 demonstrates that the Individual owed the
IRS $17,248 for tax year 2016; $18,044 for tax year 2015; $16,359 for tax year 2014; $3,240 for
tax year 2013; and $774 for tax year 2012. Ex. 8 (while the document is undated, it does state that
the due date had passed for filing a 2023 federal tax return; thus, this report was likely generated
after March 2024 given the annual April deadline for filing federal tax returns).
At the hearing, the Individual testified that his delinquent tax liability resulted from his ex-wife’s
refusal to have taxes withheld from her paycheck and therefore their joint tax bill was “massive.”
Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0006 (Tr.) at 41. The Individual explained that
sometime around 2016 the State began garnishing his wages, which prompted him to resolve the
outstanding tax liability, and he began filing his returns separately so that his ex-wife would be
responsible for her own tax liability. Id. at 41–42. However, when asked if he had filed his State
tax returns for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2017, and 2018, the Individual responded by stating, “Most
likely no.” Id. at 39. He explained that he did not have records for his State tax filings earlier than
2010 and likely did not file a return for 2007. Id. at 40. He could not recall whether he filed State
tax returns for 2008, 2009, or 2018. Id. at 40, 45, 47. But, he testified that he filed his 2011 and
2017 State tax returns. Id. at 46. He also testified that he had completely satisfied his tax debt to
the State. Id. at 44.
As for his federal tax liability, the Individual believed that he still owed $18,000 on the hearing
date. Id. at 43. He could not recall whether he filed a federal tax return for 2017 or 2018. Id. at 43.
He testified that he had not yet made any arrangements to satisfy any outstanding federal tax debt.
Id. at 44. He also testified that he failed to disclose that he did not file his federal and State 2018,
2021, and 2022 tax returns in the QNSP because he did not have time to thoroughly answer the
questions. Id. at 47. He testified that he answered the questions to the best of his knowledge and
his supervisor did not provide any helpful instructions. Id. at 47–50. He also testified that, at the
time he submitted the LOI, he believed he had filed all of his delinquent returns. Id. at 51. He
testified that he planned to first resolve his State tax issues before addressing his federal tax issues.
Id. at 52.
Outstanding Consumer Debt
In the 2023 QNSP, the Individual reported that he had two delinquent debts which stemmed from
vehicle loans. Ex. 12 at 145–46. However, he failed to report a third debt that was assigned to
collection in October 2020. See id. at 145–47. A July 2023 credit report indicates that the
Individual had a 2020 collection account with a balance of $1,375, a 2016 vehicle loan charge off
- 6 -
account with a balance of $6,420, and a 2020 vehicle loan repossession account with a balance of
$7,790. Ex. 7 at 59–60. In the May 2024 LOI, the Individual provided additional information
regarding these three debts. He reported that he disputed the collection account for $1,375. Ex. 6
at 33. As for the vehicle loan debts, he reported that he had not yet taken any action but intended
to “try to resolve” them. Id. at 35–36.
At the hearing, the Individual acknowledged the legitimacy of the $1,375 debt. Tr. at 25. He
testified that he had not yet made any payments toward this debt but intended to pay it by the end
of 2025. Id. He explained that while the debt is legitimate, he has disputed it because he believes
that he would not be legally responsible for it due to the passage of time. Id. at 30. He also testified
that he failed to list it on his QNSP because he was under time pressure from his employer to
complete the questionnaire and could not ensure the information was thorough. Id. at 28. He also
stated that his supervisor told him to hurry and complete it and that he could address any issues
during the investigation process. Id.
As for the $6,420 delinquent account, the Individual testified that he had reached an agreement
with the creditor a week before the hearing to settle the balance for the significantly reduced
amount of $999. Id. at 31 (referencing Ex. A, which confirms the settlement amount and terms).
He testified that the first payment was due a few days after the hearing and that he would be able
to make the payment. Id. at 32. He explained that the debt resulted from an automobile loan he
could no longer afford as a result of the State garnishing his wages in addition to his wages being
reduced by about a third. Id. at 33. As for the debt of $7,790, he explained that it represented a
loan for a vehicle which needed a major repair one week after he purchased it. Id. at 35. The vehicle
continued to have issues and eventually stopped working after about a year. Id. The Individual
testified that several parties attempted repairs, but ultimately it would have cost him $8,000 to
replace the engine. Id. at 36. Instead, he forfeited the vehicle back to the dealership and stopped
making payments on the loan. Id. He testified that he did not presently have any plans to resolve
the balance. Id. at 37. However, he believes he is presently in a better financial position after
reducing his rent by $1,000. Id. at 39.
Restraining Order
In the QNSP, the Individual disclosed that he was subject to a five-year domestic violence
restraining order. Ex. 12 at 141. The record indicates that his ex-wife obtained the restraining order
in October 2021. Ex. 13 at 245. The restraining order prohibits the Individual from contacting his
ex-wife and her family, including their adult daughter. Id. During the 2023 ESI, the Individual
discussed the restraining order, but he reported that there was no particular reason that led to his
ex-wife obtaining it. Id. at 223. For example, he reported that the police told him his ex-wife felt
“unsafe to go home,” but he told the investigator that he did not know why she would have felt
unsafe. Id. He also told the investigator that he had followed the order. Id. However, after being
confronted with additional information during a subsequent interview in February 2024, the
Individual admitted that his ex-wife sought the restraining order after he damaged her property out
of anger due to her infidelity, and he admitted that he got into one other previous altercation with
his ex-wife that led to police involvement. Id. at 225 (explaining that police contacted him after he
had confronted his ex-wife over collecting mail). He stated that he did not provide these details
during the ESI because he forgot them at the time. Id. However, when later asked to provide
information in the LOI regarding the circumstances that led to the restraining order, he again
- 7 -
omitted the details of destroying his ex-wife’s property. Ex. 6 at 45 (stating only that he asked his
ex-wife if she loved another man and she filed for divorce). He also failed to note the prior meeting
with police in the LOI when he answered “No” to the questions asking whether law enforcement
had ever contacted him or responded to his residence pertaining to any acts of domestic violence
or disturbance. Id. at 48–49. He did admit in the LOI, however, that he had violated the restraining
order by emailing his ex-wife in December 2021 and by emailing his daughter in June 2022. Id. at
47.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he knew contacting his ex-wife and daughter violated
the restraining order. Tr. at 61. He stated that, irrespective of the restraining order, he is “always
going to say happy birthday to [his] kids.” Id. at 60. He said that he is very emotional when it
comes to family. Id. He testified that, in the future, he will “say” happy birthday and not “email
it.” Id. at 63. The Individual did not believe he omitted any information regarding the restraining
order when speaking with the ESI investigator because he believed he truthfully answered the
questions that were presented to him. Id. at 61. The Individual testified that during the ESI the
investigator refused the Individual’s offer to provide a copy of the restraining order, and the
investigator did not ask him a direct question about the basis for the restraining order. Id. at 70.
Alcohol Use
The Report indicates that the DOE Psychiatrist evaluated the Individual and diagnosed him with
AUD, Moderate Severity, in July 2024. Ex. 10 at 83. Although during the evaluation the Individual
denied every symptom of AUD related to alcohol use, the DOE Psychiatrist relied on the following
information to support his opinion. Id. The Individual previously sought alcohol treatment in 2010
and acknowledged that, at that time, he made bad decisions when consuming alcohol. Id. at 78.
The Individual said that in 2010 the treatment provider recommended that he “commit to six
months . . . [,]” but he did not have the ability to spend six months at the program, so he decided
to stop consuming alcohol on his own. Id. He claimed that he abstained from alcohol thereafter for
three years. Id. However, according to the ex-wife’s statements obtained by an investigator, the
Individual consumed up to four beers per day each week from approximately 1991 until 2017, and,
on the weekends, he consumed rum and beer to intoxication. Id. at 80. During the evaluation, the
Individual reported that he consistently consumed four ounces of whiskey four to five times per
week. Id. at 75. He disclosed that in 2021 his daughter had expressed concern regarding his alcohol
use. Id. at 78. He also said that he drank to intoxication once every six to eight months and that he
was last intoxicated in December 2023 after he consumed eight drinks in seven hours. Id. He
reported that he last consumed alcohol in May 2024, a few months before the evaluation, in the
amount of thirty-two ounces of beer over three hours. Id. Furthermore, he acknowledged that his
alcohol use had negatively impacted his life by contributing to his divorce, which occurred in 2023.
Id.
The DOE Psychiatrist noted that it would be unusual for a person with the Individual’s reported
decades-long history of alcohol consumption to not develop any symptoms of AUD. Id. As part of
the evaluation, the Individual underwent a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test to determine whether
he had consumed alcohol within the past twenty-eight days. Id. at 81. The results were positive for
recent alcohol use at the level of 204 ng/mL, which the DOE Psychiatrist noted as “ten times the
positive result threshold” of 20 ng/mL. Id. at 81, 83.
- 8 -
At the end of the Report, the DOE Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual could demonstrate
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation of his AUD by completing an “intensive and
highly structured alcohol recovery treatment program,” attending substance recovery meetings
three times per week for six months, remaining abstinent, and undergoing PEth testing monthly to
provide evidence of abstinence. Id. at 83.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had continued to consume alcohol but reduced his
consumption to “once every week or two” after receiving the Report and getting feedback from
others that his PEth result was “very severe.” Tr. at 11. He testified that the Report opened his eyes
and he decided to “start living [his] life” instead of “just drinking and numbing out.” Id. He
reported that he last consumed alcohol the week before the hearing in the amount of “two shots”
of whiskey in an hour to clear his head and stop worrying because he had just completed a “very
stressful” work project. Id. at 11–13. Prior to that instance, he last consumed alcohol in late
November and became intoxicated after consuming “four shots” of whiskey in an hour. Id. at 13–
14. He testified that Thanksgiving is “hard” because of his daughter’s birthday and he is not able
to contact her because of the restraining order. Id. at 13. He testified that he had wanted to abstain
from alcohol after Thanksgiving “but it didn’t work out.” Id. at 12. However, he denied having
any alcohol cravings from December until the hearing date. Id. He also testified that he had been
intoxicated “quite a bit” since the evaluation because his routine had been to come home, drink
alcohol, and go to sleep. Id. at 15. But, he testified that he “finally understood what was going on”
after he received the Report and decided he need to make a positive change. Id. He testified that
he contacted the same healthcare provider he contacted in 2010 for alcohol treatment, but the
provider again recommended six months of treatment, and he again decided that he could not
commit to that amount of time. Id. at 15–16. He testified that, going forward, he intends to reduce
his consumption and still use alcohol to relax. Id. at 20–21 (stating “[m]y job . . . is complex . . .
and sometimes I need my head, my thought process to go away, . . . . So there’s times where
alcohol helps that . . . .”).
The DOE Psychiatrist testified that his opinion remained unchanged regarding the diagnosis of
AUD and the related recommendations. Id. at 88. The DOE Psychiatrist noted that the Individual
continued to use alcohol as a coping mechanism for stress and failed to demonstrate an
“understanding and taking internal control over . . . recovery and addictive behaviors” rather than
letting external factors, such as stress, dictate whether the Individual will consume alcohol. Id. at
89. The DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual had a poor prognosis because the
Individual had not undergone any treatment or demonstrated a “meaningful time of sobriety.” Id.
Psychological Condition
In the Report, the DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual “exhibited behavior that may be
consistent with significant interpersonal dysfunction and may be consistent with a Personality
Disorder.” Ex. 10 at 85 (noting that “[a]lthough there are multiple indications that [the Individual]
suffers from significant interpersonal dysfunction, . . . there is insufficient information to diagnose
[him] with a Personality Disorder . . . .”). The DOE Psychiatrist explained that “[t]he essential
feature of a personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that
deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. This enduring pattern is
inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.” Id. at 83. The DOE
Psychiatrist noted that the Individual’s “decision making surrounding his financial circumstances
- 9 -
and some aspects of his response to interpersonal stressors likely is due to personality
characteristics of immaturity, impulsivity, and poor planning which impair his stability, reliability,
or trustworthiness.” Id.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychiatrist provided more detail regarding the basis for his opinion. He
explained that, generally, behavior can evince a concerning personality characteristic if it results
in unusual or atypical life consequences. Id. at 98. The DOE Psychiatrist then explained that the
Individual’s “financial and tax situation” seemed “atypical and indicative of poor planning.” Id. at
99. He also noted that police involvement in the Individual’s interpersonal relationships, coupled
with the Individual’s violation of the restraining order, demonstrates “unusual behavior that’s
having a larger life impact . . . than what is . . . typical . . . .” Id. at 99. Lastly, the DOE Psychiatrist
testified that the Individual could address his personality characteristics by undergoing
psychotherapy to help him understand his “dynamics in relationships, how [he] interacts with the
world, and how [he] can learn to understand [his] impulses and interpretation of events and
interactions in a way to take more control over [his] behaviors . . . .” Id. at 94.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on personal conduct include the following:
(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
- 10 -
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has
ceased, or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply
with rules and regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
I conclude that none of the above mitigating conditions apply to resolve the Guideline E concerns.
Paragraph 17(a) does not apply to resolve the concerns because there is no evidence in the record
that the Individual made accurate corrections to the information he provided in the QNSP, during
the interviews, or on the LOI regarding his tax returns, delinquent debts, or his restraining order—
aside from disclosing the violations—before being confronted with the facts.
Paragraph 17(b) is inapplicable because the Individual has not demonstrated that his conduct was
caused or contributed to by advice of legal counsel or a person with professional responsibilities
for advising or instructing him specifically concerning security processes. The Individual did not
provide any evidence that indicates his failure to report information during his interviews or on
the LOI was caused or contributed to by the advice of any person. Thus, ¶ 17(b) does not apply to
a substantial portion of the derogatory information listed in the SSC. However, he did provide
testimony that his supervisor instructed him that he could clarify any issues in the QNSP regarding
delinquent debt after he completed and submitted it. I conclude that this guidance from his
supervisor, if true, does not excuse his behavior. First, I am not confident that his supervisor is a
person responsible for giving specific guidance concerning the security process. Second, I am not
persuaded the alleged guidance is the reason for his failure to report derogatory information. If the
Individual had in good faith followed the purported guidance of his supervisor, he would have put
forth reasonable effort to determine the correct status of his delinquent tax filings so he could
respond accurately to any follow-up questions. Instead, he continued to provide inaccurate
information. For example, he reported in the LOI that he had filed all of his State returns. Then,
on the hearing date, he claimed that he could not recall whether he filed his 2008, 2009, or 2018
State returns. The State Tax Account Summary indicates, however, that he never filed State returns
for those years and others. I do not find the Individual’s testimony credible.
Turning to ¶ 17(c), I conclude that it does not apply to resolve the concerns. There is substantial
evidence that the Individual is likely to continue to omit or conceal information. First, his pattern
of behavior leads me to conclude that his conduct is not minor or infrequent. Standing alone, one
incident may be minor—for example, failing to disclose a single delinquent debt on a QNSP.
However, that is not the present case. In total, the record demonstrates that the Individual
repeatedly failed to disclose accurate information throughout his clearance investigation. In his
QNSP, for example, he omitted his recent failure to file tax returns for 2021 and 2022. He also
claimed that he had previously failed to file five years’ worth of State returns dating back to 2012
but had since filed them; that assertion, as I concluded in my analysis under ¶ 17(b) above, is false.
Furthermore, he again provided this false information to the investigator during the ESI and on the
LOI by claiming that he had filed his delinquent State and federal returns. Based on the persistent
nature of his conduct, I do not conclude that the passage of time nor any unique circumstances
mitigate his conduct.
- 11 -
I now address his failure to provide accurate information to the investigator regarding his
restraining order. His concealment of that information is not minor, and the passage of time,
frequency, or circumstances do not weigh in favor of mitigating his conduct. Significantly, the
Individual’s testimony demonstrates that he does not think he did anything wrong when he denied
knowing the reason his ex-wife sought a restraining order during the ESI and then again in the
second interview. I do not find credible his assertion that he forgot the information. By his own
account, he offered to provide a copy of the restraining order to the ESI investigator—presumably
because it contained the statement of facts that supported the court’s decision to issue the order.
Arguably, by offering the restraining order, he was offering a written account of the facts that he
could not recall during the interview. However, if it is true that the restraining order contained that
information, and he had ready access to it, it seems very unlikely that he forgot that information.
Furthermore, it seems unlikely that he would forget that he was issued a restraining order because
he destroyed his wife’s property. It is far more likely that the Individual deliberately omitted
information regarding the restraining order in an attempt to avoid any negative consequences. And
the Individual made clear at the hearing that he will continue to violate the restraining order if he
feels justified in doing so. Thus, I conclude that the Individual is likely to continue engaging in
behavior that demonstrates he is untrustworthy, unreliable, and unwilling to comply with rules.
I conclude under ¶ 17(d) that the Individual has not acknowledged his untrustworthy and unreliable
behavior nor taken sufficient steps to address the stressors, circumstances, or factors that
contributed to it. The Individual did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that he understood
that continuing to provide inaccurate information regarding his federal and State tax returns is
concerning. Furthermore, the only stressors or circumstances the Individual put forward to explain
his conduct was his need to quickly submit the QNSP, which does not explain why he continued
to provide inaccurate information during the interviews and on the LOI. Finally, the Individual
does not believe he did anything wrong when he withheld information during the ESI regarding
his restraining order, nor does he believe he did anything wrong when intentionally violating that
order.
The remaining conditions do not apply to resolve the Guideline E concerns for the following
reasons. Paragraph 17(e) is inapplicable because there is no allegation in the SSC that the
Individual’s conduct created a security concern due to his particular vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress. Paragraph 17(f) is inapplicable because there is no evidence in the record
to indicate that the information cited in the SSC under Guideline E is unreliable. Lastly, ¶ 17(g) is
inapplicable because the Individual’s association with persons involved in criminal activities is
not at issue. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the Guideline E concerns.
B. Guideline F Considerations
Under Guideline F, the following conditions could mitigate security concerns based on financial
considerations:
(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
- 12 -
(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, . . . divorce or separation . . .), and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(c) The individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem
from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling
service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control;
(d) The individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts;
(e) The individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt
which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate
the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue;
(f) The affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and
(g) The individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or
pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
I find that none of the above conditions apply to resolve the Guideline F concerns. I first find that
¶ 20(a) does not apply because the Individual has not yet resolved or made arrangements to resolve
two of the three delinquent accounts listed in the SSC. Furthermore, the Individual presently
possesses significant, unresolved federal tax liability.
I also find that ¶ 20(b) does not apply for the following reasons. First, regarding his consumer debt,
it is not clear that it resulted from circumstances beyond his control. Regarding the collection
account, he did not provide an explanation for why he was currently unable to pay the debt and it
remained unresolved on the hearing date. As for the first vehicle loan, while he tried to excuse his
delinquency by the fact that his wages were reduced and garnished, they were garnished as a result
of his failure to pay State taxes and he is responsible for the consequence of that failure. While he
attempted to blame his ex-wife for not contributing her share of the tax burden, he did not go so
far as to say that she deceived him. And even if she had, he has been divorced from her since 2023
and has not explained why, since then, he has not resolved this debt. Lastly, I find that the second
vehicle loan default did not result from circumstances beyond his control because he did not
provide an explanation to support such a conclusion. Turning to the second element of this factor,
whether he acted reasonably given the circumstances, I find that in each case he did not. Regarding
the collection account, he has done nothing to resolve the debt. While he did provide testimony
that he disputed it, he provided no evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony and, in any
event, he has chosen to wait it out with the hope that ignoring the issue will, in time, make the debt
uncollectable. This does not demonstrate responsible conduct. Regarding the outstanding vehicle
loan, again, he has done nothing to address the debt. Lastly, regarding the vehicle loan he has made
arrangements to settle, he only took that action on the eve of the hearing and, as seen above, he
has a history of avoiding responsibility for his conduct and providing dubious information
regarding his past conduct. I therefore have little confidence that he will follow through with this
- 13 -
agreement. For these reasons, I find that ¶ 20(b) does not apply to resolve the delinquent credit
accounts. Because the Individual’s delinquent tax liability is properly addressed under ¶ 20(g), I
address those concerns and make appropriate findings thereunder below.
Next, I find that ¶ 20(c) does not apply because the Individual has not received and is not receiving
financial counseling from any source. Neither does ¶ 20(d) apply because, while the Individual
made arrangements to resolve one of his three creditor accounts, he has not yet made a payment,
and, based on his history of failing to take action to address his delinquent debt, I am not persuaded
he has demonstrated good-faith adherence to this agreement.
Turning to ¶ 20(e), it does not apply because the Individual does not dispute the legitimacy of his
delinquent debt. Instead, for the one collection account, he disputed whether the creditor will be
able to enforce the legitimate debt, which does not demonstrate a legitimate dispute.
Paragraph 20(f) is patently inapplicable because the concerns outlined in the SSC are not based on
unexplained affluence.
Finally, ¶ 20(g) does not apply to resolve the concern because the Individual has not convincingly
established that he made any arrangements with federal or State tax authorities to resolve his
present delinquent debt or file his outstanding returns. He admitted that he has not made
arrangements to resolve his federal debt, and he could not confirm whether he had filed his
delinquent State returns.
C. Guideline G Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on alcohol consumption include the
following:
(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; and
(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.
- 14 -
I conclude that none of the above mitigating conditions apply to resolve the Guideline G security
concerns. I find that ¶ 23(a) does not apply because that mitigating condition is based on the
passage of time, infrequency of the conduct, or unusual circumstances under which the conduct
occurred such that the concerning conduct is unlikely to recur. Here, I am persuaded by the DOE
Psychiatrist’s opinion that the Individual continues to use alcohol to cope with stress and that the
prognosis of his AUD is poor. Accordingly, I conclude that the concerns are not mitigated by the
passage of time or infrequency of the behavior or unusual circumstances. Based on my above
reasoning, I do not conclude that his behavior is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on his
reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment.
Second, I find that ¶ 23(b) does not apply to resolve the security concerns. I first note that the
Individual acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use because he testified that he
understood, through talking with others, that his alcohol use was concerning. However, he did not
show that his subsequent actions were in accordance with treatment recommendations. He did not
participate in any of the treatment recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist, nor did he demonstrate
a period of abstinence as of the hearing. The record, therefore, does not demonstrate a clear and
established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Lastly, I find that ¶ 23(c) and ¶ 23(d) do not apply because the Individual is not currently
participating in a counseling or treatment program, he has not successfully completed a treatment
program or required aftercare and, as stated above, he has not demonstrated a clear and established
pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
D. Guideline I Considerations
Under Guideline I, the following relevant conditions can mitigate security concerns associated
with a psychological condition:
(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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
- 15 -
I find that none of the above conditions apply to resolve the Guideline I concerns. Because I rely
upon much of the same evidence in reaching my conclusion under the above mitigating factors,
the following analysis addresses them together. While the DOE Psychiatrist indicated that the
Individual’s conditions could be improved with psychotherapy, the Individual has not received
any treatment or entered into or completed any counseling to address his conditions. Furthermore,
there is no evidence in the record to establish that the conditions were temporary. Lastly, the DOE
Psychiatrist did not give a positive prognosis or opine that the Individual’s conditions are under
control or have a low probability of recurrence. Accordingly, I conclude that the Individual has
not resolved the concerns that derive from his personality characteristics of immaturity,
impulsivity, and poor planning.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline E, Guideline F, Guideline G, and Guideline
I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and
unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony
and other evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth
sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual should not be granted access authorization.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals