PSH-25-0032

*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.
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: November 20, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0032
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 17, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXX (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 granted.
I. Background
As part of the access authorization application process, the Individual completed and submitted a
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in July 2023. Exhibit (Ex.) 10.2 When asked
whether he ever “experienced financial problems due to gambling[,]” the Individual marked “no.”
Id. at 127. When asked whether he had failed to “file or pay Federal, state, or other taxes when
required by law or ordinance[,]” the Individual marked “yes.” Id. He indicated that he failed to pay
his Federal and state income taxes for tax years 2021 and 2022. Id. The Individual stated that he
did not file his federal tax return in 2022, and that he believed that he owed the IRS approximately
$4,000 in unpaid taxes for tax years 2022 and 2021. Id. He represented that he had established a
payment plan to satisfy the aforementioned unpaid Federal taxes, and his first payment was coming
due in August 2023. Id. at 127–28. The Individual did not disclose any delinquencies on any
routine accounts in the last seven years on his QNSP. Id. at 128–29.
As part of the investigation process, the Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview
(ESI) conducted by an investigator in January 2024. Id. at 138. During the ESI, the Individual told
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 exhibits submitted by DOE were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each page. This Decision will refer
to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by DOE.
2
the investigator that he had filed his tax returns for tax years 2021 and 2022, “but was not able to
pay what he owed.” Id. at 142. He indicated that between the two tax years, he owed approximately
$4,000 in unpaid taxes. Id. The Individual stated that he entered into a payment plan with the IRS
in August 2023, paying the IRS $100 every month, but as he had other bills to pay, he failed to
adhere to the payment program. Id. In October or November 2023, the Individual called the IRS
to secure a new payment plan of $100 per month, which he “paid up through” December 2023. Id.
Once again, the Individual stopped making payments to the IRS, citing other bills as the reason
why. Id.
He admitted during the ESI that he had suffered financial difficulties due to his gambling. Id. He
stated that in 2021, he accessed a total of $2,000 in personal loans “to build his credit” and admitted
that he also used some of the money to gamble. Id. As the Individual suffered gambling losses, he
was “not able to pay [back] these loans.” Id. In 2021, the Individual began gambling at a casino
about two to three times per week, losing between $200 and $500 every week. Id. From mid-2022,
he reduced his gambling to two times per month, losing between $200 and $500 per month. Id. He
told the investigator that he “no longer has gambling issues[,]” as he visited the casino less
frequently. Id.
The Individual also explained to the investigator that he failed to pay the aforementioned personal
loans “due to not having the money to pay them[,]” and provided assurances that he would engage
with the relevant financial institutions to establish payment plans. Id. He stated that he did not
believe that his financial issues were the result of gambling. Id. Later in the interview, the
Individual indicated that his financial struggles began after his girlfriend stopped working,
resulting in the household’s loss of her income, and “some of [the] gambling he did back then.”
Id. at 145. Now that his girlfriend “has a job with pay” and he was gambling less, he reported that
his financial circumstances had improved. Id.
As part of the investigation, a copy of the Individual’s credit report was secured in July 2024,
which revealed that the Individual had five delinquent accounts, totaling approximately $6,090.
Ex. 7 at 53–54. As questions still remained, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual
to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), which the Individual signed and submitted in April
2024. Ex. 6. The Individual also underwent a psychological evaluation at the behest of the LSO,
which was conducted by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in July 2024. Ex. 8.
The DOE Psychologist issued a report (the Report) the same month, concluding that the Individual
suffers from Gambling Disorder, Persistent, Mild, pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), which could impair his
judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Id. at 73.
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
a substantial doubt regarding his 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 F (Financial Considerations) and I
(Psychological Conditions) 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.
3
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. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0032 (hereinafter
cited as “Tr.”). The Individual also submitted thirteen exhibits, marked Exhibits A through M. The
DOE Counsel submitted ten exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 10 and presented the testimony
of the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
Guideline F
Guideline F provides that failure 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. Among
those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security
concern are the “inability to satisfy debts[,]” “failure to file . . . or failure to pay annual Federal,
state, or local income tax as required[,]” and “borrowing money or engaging in significant
financial transactions to fund gambling or pay gambling debts[,]” Id. at ¶ 19(a), (f), (h). Under
Guideline F, the LSO alleged that:
1. The Individual indicated in his April 2024 LOI response that he suffered financial
difficulties due to his gambling, stating that he “took out a total of $2,000[] in loans and
used that to gamble.” Ex. 1 at 5. The Individual also “admitted that he fell behind on those
loan payments due to gambling.” Id.
2. The Individual owes the IRS approximately $4,000 in income taxes for tax years 2021 and
2022. Id.
3. The Individual has five delinquent debts totaling approximately $6,090. Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline F is justified.
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 “an opinion by a duly qualified mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness[,]” and “pathological gambling, the associated behaviors of which
may include unsuccessful attempts to stop gambling[,]” or “borrowing . . . money to fund gambling
or paying gambling debts[.]” Id. at ¶ 28(b), (e). Under Guideline I, the LSO alleged that:
4
1. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Gambling Disorder, Persistent, Mild,
not yet in early remission. Ex. 1 at 2. The DOE Psychologist also concluded that the
Individual “has shown poor judgment in continuing to gamble while having significant
gambling-caused financial problems[,]” and “that his gambling disorder is a condition that
can impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Id.
2. The Individual admitted in the April 2024 LOI response that “his gambling became
addicting” in 2021, and that by 2022, he had become even more addicted. Id.
3. The Individual stated in the April 2024 LOI response that he intended to keep away from
casino, but admitted during the psychological evaluation that he “continued to gamble[.]”
Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline I is justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all 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 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
Gambling and Subsequent Diagnosis
The Individual began playing slot machines around October 2017, because he “was seeing
everybody always winning” at the casino and he “thought it would be the same for [him].” Ex. 6
at 41, 43; Ex. 8 at 67–68; Tr. at 49–50. “[B]y 2021[,] he was wagering about [two to three] times
a week, losing up to $500 a week.” Ex. 8 at 67–68; Ex. 6 at 44, 48; Tr. at 50. The Individual began
experiencing financial difficulties as a result. Ex. 8 at 67–68; Tr. at 52. In 2022, the Individual was
5
going to casinos with “$400 to $500” to play the machines. Ex. 8 at 69; Tr. at 49. The Individual
acknowledged that he would suffer “significant losses[,]” but he would return to the casino to “win
[his] money back.” Ex. 8 at 69; Ex. 6 at 46; Tr. at 62–63. In 2022, the Individual reduced his visits
to the casino to a few times every couple of weeks. Ex. 8 at 69; Ex. 6 at 44, 48. The Individual
indicated that he was not really interested in gambling outside of playing the slots, but did admit
that he “occasionally wagered $20 on a football game.” Ex. 8 at 70. Around 2022, he began feeling
as though he could no longer control his gambling and that it had become a challenge that he had
to “work through.” Tr. at 48–49, 62. He acknowledged that this behavior was causing personal
feelings of guilt and stress in his romantic relationship. Ex. 8 at 69; Ex. 6 at 47. He also came to
realize that this behavior kept him from spending time with his children. Ex. 6 at 47–48.
While the Individual acknowledged that he had accessed $2000 in personal loans in 2021, he
denied that “all of the money was used to gamble.” Ex. 2 at 12. He stated that at the time he took
out the personal loans, he “needed several other things,” like “a babysitter, repairs on [his] vehicle,
and paying down debt that [he] already had.” Id.; Tr. at 63. The Individual acknowledged that he
used what was left to gamble. Ex. 2 at 12; Ex. 6 at 45; Tr. at 42, 63. He also told the DOE
Psychologist that “[h]e became delinquent on his loans due to gambling and spending money on
other things.” Ex. 8 at 69. He admitted that at one point, he wanted to gamble with the money his
family needed, and stated in the April 2024 LOI response that he was “making changes and []
progress[ing].” Ex. 6 at 42; Tr. at 62. Before, the Individual did not consider that he could use the
money with which he was gambling to pay off his debts. Tr. at 49.
In 2023, the Individual’s girlfriend began urging him to sign a self-exclusion form, and in June
2024, the Individual signed one such form, excluding himself from a local casino for two years.3
Ex. 2 at 15; Ex. F; Ex. 8 at 69; Ex. 6 at 48; Tr. at 52, 57, 63. Pursuant to the form, as of June 2024,
the Individual was also excluded from the casino’s promotions or advertisements. Ex. 2 at 15; Ex.
F at 1. The Individual also submitted a self-exclusion form from his state’s Gaming Council Board,
indicating that in September 2024, he had applied to the board for self-exclusion. Ex. 2 at 16; Ex.
G. The form states that from September 2024 to September 2029, the Individual’s name would be
“removed from direct mail, electronic advertisement, and promotional lists” and that he would be
“immediately escorted off the property” and forfeit any winnings should he “enter the gaming
floor” of any gaming facility in the state. Id. The Individual admitted that between June 2024 and
September 2024, he occasionally gambled at casinos from which he was not excluded. Tr. at 60.
Since signing the statewide exclusion form in September 2024, the last time the Individual
gambled was March 2025, the same month the hearing was held, when he placed bets on basketball
games. Id. at 56. With regard to his future intentions, the Individual indicated that while he does
not intend to continue gambling at a casino, he feels that he will likely continue to place bets on
basketball games on a “minimal” basis. Id. at 64. The Individual has not sought therapy,
counseling, or joined a support group like Gamblers Anonymous. Id. at 70.
3 The Individual testified that he felt that he had control over his gambling in 2023, and accordingly, did not sign the
self-exclusion forms then. Tr. at 52. He also indicated that he continued to gamble around the time he completed his
LOI responses, because he was experiencing some difficulty arranging for a self-exclusion form with casino
management. Id. at 54. The last time the Individual gambled at his casino of choice was right before he signed the
June 2024 self-exclusion form. Id. at 55–56.
6
In diagnosing the Individual with Gambling Disorder in July 2024, the DOE Psychologist observed
that the Individual “has made repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop
gambling[,]” that “[a]fter losing money gambling, [he] often returns another day to get even[,]”
and that he “[l]ies to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling.” Ex. 8 at 72–73. Finally,
the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual “[h]as jeopardized or lost a significant
relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of gambling,” and “[r]elies on others
to provide money to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling.” Id. Accordingly,
as stated above, the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual suffers from Gambling
Disorder, Mild, and that his prognosis was fair.4 Id. at 73.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that at the time of the evaluation, he felt that the
Individual’s condition could cause “a significant defect in [the Individual’s] judgment or
reliability.” Tr. at 76. In terms of negative prognostic factors, the DOE Psychologist took into
consideration the fact that the Individual “[did not] seem to acknowledge that he had a problem[,]”
and the fact that the disorder was “fairly severe[.]” Id. at 76–78. The DOE Psychologist also
considered the lack of treatment and the paucity of other psychological problems. Id. The DOE
Psychologist testified that the prognostic factors he identified at the hearing were “quite similar”
to the prognostic factors he identified during the psychological evaluation. Id. at 78. The
difference, as the DOE Psychologist noted, was the fact that at the time of the psychological
evaluation, the Individual’s last wager was in May 2024, approximately two months prior. Id. at
79. As stated above, the Individual had last gambled less than a month prior to the hearing. Id.
Accordingly, the DOE Psychologist could only conclude that the Individual’s Gambling Disorder
was still “active” and that his prognosis remained fair. Id. at 79–80. While the DOE Psychologist
did not conclude that the Individual absolutely required treatment to overcome his disorder, he
noted that “the odds are a lot better if [the Individual] get[s] treatment.” Id. at 80–81.
Delinquent Debts
In the April 2024 LOI response, the Individual provided more information regarding the six
delinquent accounts, fourof which were in charge off status, one was in collection, and one was
120 days past due. Ex. 6 at 36. The Individual clarified that some of these delinquent accounts
were, in fact, the loans that he took out amounting to $2,000, and he stated his intention to satisfy
them. Id. at 36, 42. The Individual indicated that he believed that these outstanding accounts “were
still active and payable[,]” as he had not seen any account go into collection status. Id. at 36. The
Individual fell behind on his payments, as he was financially supporting his girlfriend and
gambling. Id. at 36, 38–41; Tr. at 47–48, 51. Of the $6,090 in delinquent accounts, the Individual
provided testimony and documentation at the hearing indicating that he had satisfied $3,514 of
that debt. Tr. at 36–41; Ex. A; Ex. D; Ex. E; Ex. J; Ex. K; Ex. L. As to the outstanding debts, the
Individual testified that once he established contact with the relevant financial entities, he would
resolve the matter by satisfying the outstanding amounts owed. Tr. at 41. The Individual indicated
that although he now has more money saved to pay such financial obligations, approximately
$1,400, he has never created a monthly budget, ensuring that all of his monthly obligations can be
met. Id. at 44–47.
Taxes
4 The DOE Psychologist did not make any relevant recommendations for treatment in the Report.
7
The Individual explained during the hearing that in years past, a neighbor used to file his income
tax returns for him, and he would simply alert the Individual whether the Individual “was getting
[money] back or not.” Id. at 15–16, 32. His neighbor did not tell him whether he owed the IRS
anything for tax years 2018, 2019, or 2020.5 Id. at 16–17. He testified that he began receiving
letters from the IRS regarding his outstanding tax obligations around last year.6 Id. at 15, 18. The
Individual has since engaged a certified public accountant who has filed his tax returns for a few
years now. Id. at 16, 18. The Individual admitted in his testimony that although he filed his Federal
income tax returns, he owes the IRS money for tax years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.7 Id.
at 16, 19. He stated that around the end of 2024, he finished making payments to the IRS to satisfy
the outstanding amount owed for tax year 2018.8Id. at 15, 23–26; Ex. 2 at 18–19; Ex. H.
He indicated in the April 2024 LOI response that he had filed his Federal income tax returns for
tax years 2021 and 2022, and that although he had not established a payment plan with the IRS to
resolve the matter of his outstanding taxes, he simply logged into the IRS website on a biweekly
basis to make a payment. Ex. 6 at 42. At that time, he was trying to make payments in the amount
of $300 to $500 on a biweekly basis. Id. He indicated in the April 2024 LOI response that he had
started making such informal payments the same month, April 2024. Id. During his testimony, the
Individual indicated that he could not adhere to this informal monthly payment plan, as he had
other bills and financial obligations. Tr. at. 24. The Individual indicated that he has since
established a payment plan with the IRS, scheduled to begin in April 2025, wherein the Individual
would make monthly payments of $410 every month to satisfy the outstanding amount he owes
for tax years 2019 through 2023.9 Id. at 25–29; Ex. B; Ex. I; Ex. K. The Individual testified that
he did not believe that he would “have any issues with making these payments every month[,]” as
the payments will be automatically withdrawn from his account, and further, he can change the
payment amount. Tr. at 30, 32.
V. Analysis
Guideline F
5 The Individual also indicated that he never examined his tax paperwork, and he did not recall asking his neighbor
whether he owed any outstanding income taxes. Tr. at 17–18.
6 At the hearing, the Individual explained that he did not know the exact tax years or amounts for which he owed
income taxes until he “started logging into the IRS website[.]” Tr. at 15.
7 At the time of the hearing in late March 2025, the Individual had not yet filed his income taxes for tax year 2024. Tr.
at 19. The Individual also testified that he was under the belief that if he paid the IRS, his state income tax obligations
would also be satisfied, as “everything was just altogether, all in one . . . balance.” Id. at 33. At the time of the hearing,
he could not definitively confirm that he had filed or paid his state income taxes. Id. at 34.
8 The Individual submitted a screenshot of the IRS.gov payment portal indicating that from April 2024 to October
2024, he made twelve payments ranging from $50 to $300, all to satisfy his outstanding balance for tax year 2018.
Ex. 2 at 18–19; Ex. H.
9 At the time of the hearing in March 2025, the Individual had not yet made any payments pursuant to this payment
plan. Tr. at 28.
8
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline F include:
(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;
(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected
medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory
lending practices, or identity theft), 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.
As indicated above, the Individual has not resolved his outstanding tax obligations and the entirety
of his outstanding debts. He also admitted that he continues to place bets on basketball games.
Accordingly, these matters are continuing and were not so long ago. Further, the Individual
consistently failed to repay his delinquent debts until recently, some of which remain outstanding,
and failed to satisfy his Federal income tax obligations over the span of years. These issues were
exacerbated by the fact that he consistently gambled with funds that he could have used to satisfy
the aforementioned obligations. I therefore cannot conclude that the Individual’s behavior was
infrequent or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt
on the Individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Therefore, the Individual
has failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (a).
Although the Individual testified that the loss of his girlfriend’s income contributed to his financial
difficulties, he also indicated that he was gambling hundreds of dollars on at least a monthly basis
when he could have been using that money to satisfy his outstanding financial obligations. This
9
fact alone indicates that he was not acting responsibly under the circumstances. The Individual
even admitted that his gambling contributed to his current financial state. Accordingly, I cannot
conclude that the Individual mitigated the relevant concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (b).
The Individual provided testimony and documentation indicating that he satisfied $3,514 of the
approximately $6,090 of his outstanding debts. With regard to the remainder of the debt, the
Individual testified that he intends to contact the relevant financial institutions to pay the debt using
the funds he has saved, as that had not yet been achieved at the time of the hearing. Accordingly,
I have no information before me that the Individual is adhering to any good-faith efforts to repay
relevant overdue creditors or otherwise resolve the remainder of the debt owed. The Individual has
failed to mitigate the applicable stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (d).
While the Individual did provide evidence that he had established a payment plan with the IRS to
satisfy his outstanding tax obligations, I have no information before me that the Individual is in
compliance with those arrangements. As the Individual indicated, the first payment was scheduled
to come due after the hearing. Further, the Individual has a history of establishing formal or
informal payment plans and failing to follow through. The Individual’s past behavior does not
inspire any confidence that he will remain in compliance with payment arrangements. Therefore,
he has failed to mitigate the tax-related concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (g).
The Individual did not provide any testimony or evidence disputing the legitimacy of a past-due
debt. The SSC also did not allege any affluence on the part of the Individual from any source of
income. Mitigating factors (e) and (f) are not applicable. I also have no information before me that
the Individual has engaged a non-profit counseling service or is receiving financial counseling.
Mitigating factor (c) is not applicable.
Having concluded that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the facts of this case, I
find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline
F.
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
10
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.
The Individual has admitted to very concerning behavior surrounding the matter of his gambling.
Although his girlfriend was no longer working and he had a young family, the Individual spent
time and hundreds of dollars on slot machines on a regular basis. He admitted that he used part of
what he obtained in a loan to gamble, and he understood that his gambling was causing him internal
feelings of guilt and stress in his personal life. Although he took the admirable step of excluding
himself from his local casino and signed an exclusion form with his state’s Gaming Council Board,
the Individual admitted that he last gambled less than a month before the hearing when he placed
bets on basketball games. Accordingly, it is clear to me that although the Individual has placed
deterrents before himself with regard to gambling in the casino, he has not completely precluded
himself from engaging in the undesirable behavior. And further, he has not sought any professional
treatment, counseling, or joined any support groups to address this behavior now and in the long
term.
Quite the opposite of concluding the condition is under control or in remission, the DOE
Psychologist opined that the Individual’s Gambling Disorder was still active and that his prognosis
was fair. The stated concerns have not been mitigated pursuant to mitigating factor (c).
Additionally, as the Individual last gambled less than a month prior to the hearing and his diagnosis
remains active, there is an indication of a current and ongoing problem. Therefore, the stated
concerns have not been mitigated pursuant to mitigating factor (e).
I have no information before me indicating that the Individual sought treatment or counseling in
response to his gambling behavior. Accordingly, mitigating factors (a) and (b) are not applicable.
I have no information before me in the record that suggests that the Individual’s diagnosis of
Gambling Disorder was temporary or that it has been resolved. Mitigating factor (d) is not
applicable.
Having concluded that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the facts of this case, I
find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline
I.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines F 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 he has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve
11
the concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that granting
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 granted. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth
at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals