PSH-25-0068

*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: January 28, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0068
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 31, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Andrew Dam, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (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 or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
In February 2019, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions
(QNSP) in support of his application for access authorization in connection with his employment
with a DOE contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 6 at 147. The Individual marked “No” in the February 2019
QNSP when answering whether “[i]n the last seven (7) years . . . [he had] illegally used any drugs
or controlled substances[.]” Id. at 141 (emphasis in original). The Individual secured his clearance
in June 2019 and began working as a student intern from May 2019 to August 2019. Ex. 2 at 11;
Ex. 4 at 33.
In May 2020, the Individual again submitted a QNSP to return to work with the DOE contractor.
Ex. 5 at 101. He again answered “No” when asked if “[i]n the last seven (7) years, . . . [he had]
illegally used any drugs or controlled substances[.]” Id. at 96. He again received access
authorization and resumed work with the DOE contractor from July 2020 to September 2021. Ex.
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 -
4 at 33. In October 2021, the Individual started another job with a second DOE contractor. Id. at
32.
The Individual submitted a third QNSP in connection with his reinvestigation in August 2024. Ex.
3 at 19; Ex. 4 at 78. In the August 2024 QNSP, the Individual marked “Yes” when certifying
whether “[i]n the last seven (7) years . . . [he had] illegally used any drugs or controlled
substances[.]” Ex. 4 at 71 (emphasis in original). The Individual further disclosed that, between
August 2018 and September 2021, he “[u]sed [marijuana] 3-4 times in total[,] [o]nce in between
jobs where [he] believe[d] [his] Q clearance was transferred between sites.” Id. In November 2024,
the LSO suspended the Individual’s access authorization after learning of his marijuana use and
related failures to disclose such use. Ex. 3 at 19–20.
The LSO subsequently issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization.
Ex. 1 at 6–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained
that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E and H of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 10. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted seven exhibits (Ex. 1–7). The Individual submitted fifteen exhibits
(Ex. A–O). I have accepted Exhibits A through N into the record; however, I am excluding Exhibit
O from consideration as it was received after the Transcript was issued. Hearing Transcript, OHA
Case No. PSH-25-0068 (Tr.) at 95 (instructing the Individual to submit any post-hearing exhibits
prior to the issuance of the Transcript). The Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the
testimony of another witness, his supervisor (Supervisor). Id. at 3. The LSO called no witnesses.
Id.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
Guideline E relates to questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. The refusal to be truthful and
honest during the administrative review process is especially concerning. Id. In citing Guideline
E, the LSO relied upon the Individual’s (1) failure to report prior illegal drug use when completing
his 2019 and 2020 QNSPs and (2) his intentional controlled substance misuse while holding a
security clearance and related failure to report it, as required by DOE Order (DOE O) 472.2A.2
Ex. 1 at 5. There is sufficient derogatory information in the possession of DOE to raise security
concerns under Guideline E. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a)‒(b) (indicating that deliberate
omission of relevant facts from a personnel security questionnaire and concealing information
from an employer or security official may present security concerns under Guideline E).
Guideline H relates to the illegal use of controlled substances, including prescription and non-
prescription drugs. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 24. “The illegal use of controlled substances . . .
2 DOE O 472.2A requires that clearance holders report “[t]he use of any Federally illegal drug” no “later than three
(3) working days after occurrence . . . .” DOE O 472.2A, Attachment 5 § 6(e).
- 3 -
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness . . . because such behavior
may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person’s
ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Id. In citing to Guideline H, the
LSO relied upon the Individual’s admission that he used marijuana three to four times between
August 2018 and September 2021—which overlapped in part with him holding a security
clearance. Ex. 1 at 5. There is sufficient derogatory information in the possession of DOE to raise
security concerns under Guidelines H. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 25(a), (f) (indicating that
any substance misuse, as well as any illegal drug use while granted access authorization, may
present security concerns under Guideline H).
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
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
An individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted 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
a. First Marijuana Use in August 2018, Falsification in February 2019 QNSP, and
Internship with First DOE Contractor
To start, the Individual self-reported three to four uses of marijuana in his August 2024 QNSP. Ex.
4 at 71; Tr. at 43. However, the Individual testified that he only used marijuana on two occasions.
Tr. at 43; see also Ex. 2 at 12 (Individual’s written explanation that he has “2 use-cases of cannabis
in [his] past . . .”). He explained that, when he originally completed the August 2024 QNSP, he
“was unsure if 2 inhalations of smoked cannabis product counted as substance-use twice”—
resulting in him overestimating his marijuana use. Ex. 2 at 12; see also Tr. at 43 (Individual’s
testimony that he was unsure “whether doing two separate marijuana products at the same time . .
. was considered twice use”).
- 4 -
The first incident of marijuana use occurred in August 2018. Ex. 2 at 12. The Individual was 19 at
the time. Ex. K at 1 (Individual’s June 2025 written statement). The Individual testified that he
was traveling near a national park with five friends and that they had gone sky diving. Tr. at 42;
Ex. 2 at 12. Two of his friends on the trip purchased a joint of marijuana and shared the joint with
the Individual. Tr. at 42; Ex. 2 at 12. The Individual testified that, prior to this use, he had never
used marijuana, and he “d[idn’t] know what [his] main motivation was” for using marijuana. Tr.
at 42. He “recall[ed] having inhaled this substance 2 times in sum.” Ex. 2 at 12. The Individual
further testified that he no longer associates with the two friends who purchased and used the
marijuana with him on this trip. Tr. at 43.
Only six months after his drug use, the Individual applied for access authorization in conjunction
with an internship with the first DOE contractor, submitting a QNSP in February 2019. Id. at 37,
55–56; Ex. 6 at 147. In the February 2019 QNSP, the Individual marked “No” when asked whether
“[i]n the last seven (7) years . . . [he had] illegally used any drugs or controlled substances[.]” Ex.
6 at 141 (emphasis in original). When asked during the hearing why he failed to report his prior
drug use, the Individual provided that he would “never be able to reflect [his] mindset accurately
as to that decision, in the moment . . .” and “d[id] not actively remember checking that box” on
the QNSP or “omitting that information” on his prior drug use. Tr. at 54.3
He could, however, provide “the context around” the failure to report the drug use. Id. In particular,
the Individual testified that he remembered feeling “nervous” when filling out the February 2019
QNSP and “imagine[d] [his] motivation for omitting” the drug use “was . . . fearfulness”
and “scared naivete.” Id.; see also Ex. K at 1 (Individual’s June 2025 written statement describing
his 2019 self as “young, naive, and afraid”). He specifically recalled that the first DOE contractor
employer was “one of the very few booth stands in a [college] career fair that a lot of people want
to go to.” Tr. at 55. The Individual testified that “[b]ack then” he would have been motivated “to
appear as a spotless person[ ] or a spotless candidate” and “was scared [that] any kind of nick on
[his] character would be seen as a downside.” Id. at 55, 78 (“In 2019, I think that I was afraid of
being anything but spotless[;] I can confirm that.”). But see Ex K at 1 (Individual’s June 2025
written statement indicating he failed to disclose “not out of calculated intentional deceit for
malicious purposes[ ] but because [he] didn’t grasp the importance of candor in the
questionnaire”).
The Individual’s testimony—that he had no specific memory of completing the 2019 QNSP—
partially contradicts his written statement provided in January 2025, in which he gave rather
specific details as to his state of mind when completing the QNSP:
3 The Individual also signed and certified in the February 2019 QNSP the following statement:
I understand that a knowing and willful false statement on this form can be punished by fine or
imprisonment or both . . . . intentionally withholding, misrepresenting, falsifying, or including
classified information may have a negative effect on my security clearance, employment prospects,
or job status, up to and including denial or revocation of my security clearance, or my removal and
debarment from Federal service.
Ex. 6 at 209. When asked during the hearing if he recalled reading this statement, the Individual stated that he did not
recall. Tr. at 56–57.
- 5 -
When completing the [QNSP] during the early months of 2019, I was asked to
comment on federally controlled substance use. During this time, I had answered
“No” to using illegal federally controlled substances within the last seven years . .
. . At this time, I was naturally uninformed of the national security information I
was applying to. Furthermore, when asked by a federal agent/questionnaire, I was
worried of retaliation at a criminal level when these answers were provided. I
justified at the time that it was state-legally acquired and that two uncharacteristic
“inhalations” of a smoked cannabis product didn’t provide physical effect to
myself. Since then, I have learned that federal law trumps state law and it is the
expectation of the clearance granted individual to understand that. I do not deny
this allegation.
Ex. 2 at 12.
The Individual interned with the first DOE contractor employer from May 2019 to August 2019,
contemporaneous with his clearance investigation and the granting of his access authorization. Tr.
at 37; Ex. 5 at 84; Ex. 4 at 33. The Individual received his initial clearance in June or July 2019.
Tr. at 38; Ex. 5 at 96. The LSO’s Case Evaluation Sheet indicates that the Individual’s clearance
was placed on terminated status in August 2019 upon the conclusion of his internship. Ex. 3 at 20.
The Individual testified that, during this period of employment and holding access authorization,
he had no recollection as to whether he felt he should correct his initial omission: “I don’t know
how I felt at any point after . . . I do not recall any specific feeling . . . [that] I should go back and
report it.” Tr. at 56. He could only confirm that “at some point[,] [he] forgot that [he] . . . was
dishonest . . . .” Id.
b. Falsification in May 2020 QNSP and Return to Work with the First DOE Contractor
The Individual returned to college from August 2019 to May 2020. Tr. at 37–38. In May 2020,
Individual submitted a second QNSP to reinstate his clearance prior to returning to work with the
first DOE contractor employer. Id. at 39; Ex. 5 at 98. In the 2020 QNSP, the Individual again
certified that he had not illegally used drugs within the last seven years. Ex. 5 at 96.4 He then
returned to the first DOE contractor employer from July 2020 to September 2021. Ex. 4 at 33.
When asked at the hearing why he, for the second time, failed to report his 2018 drug use in his
2020 QNSP, the Individual stated he “did not even remember that [he] filled out [the 2020] QNSP
. . . until this adjudicative proceeding.” Tr. at 57; see also id. at 59 (“I cannot tell you where I did
it [the QNSP], when I did it, how I did it, what happened, what computer I used.”); Ex. K at 1 (“I
truly, from the bottom of my heart, do not recall actively omitting.”). However, he could provide
“a recollection” as to the “environment and stressors that existed at that point.” Id. at 57. In
particular, the Individual testified that he had become responsible as a leader in a college club,
4 The Individual also signed and certified in the May 2020 QNSP that he “underst[oo]d that [his] use of . . . any illegal
drug, could result in the loss of [his] DOE access authorization” and that “[d]eliberately misrepresent[ing], falsify[ing],
or omit[ing] significant information from . . . a [QNSP]” might “raise a doubt as to [his] eligibility for DOE access
authorization.” Ex. 5 at 100–01.
- 6 -
which required him “working on . . . [a] project” that “persisted into a lot of late[-]night hour days
. . . .” Id. at 59. He described himself at that time as a “husk of a human being, trying [his] best to
stay afloat.” Id. He speculated that, at the time of filling out the 2020 QNSP, he would have
considered it “the smallest drop” in comparison to “his other personal responsibilities” which he
“understand[s], now, are not nearly as important as the security investigation process.” Id. at 60;
see also id. at 76 (“[I]t is my absolute knowledge that I don’t have any memory of filling [the 2020
QNSP] out actively, but I do have memory of dismissing [the 2020 QNSP’s completion] as a
substantial important moment of my life.”); Ex. K at 1–2 (Individual’s June 2025 written statement
identifying the compounding stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic, finishing his last year of
university, and working in his college club).
In contradiction to his testimony that he had no specific memory of completing the 2020 QNSP,
the Individual, again, provided a written statement in January 2025 that suggested that he in fact
had some specific memory:
I had retained records from my other [2019 QNSP] while only updating sections
that I, at the time, had significant updates towards such as foreign travel visits,
sources of contact, places lived, etc. No incidents of substance-use had occurred
between [the 2019 and 2020 QNSP][,] therefore I paid no mind to [my substance
use] when updating information in the [2020 QNSP].
Ex. 2 at 12. At the hearing, when asked about this particular discrepancy, the Individual explained
that his written response from January 2025 had “communicate[d] [his] beliefs as to what
contributed to the” omission from the 2020 QNSP and that he “should not [have] made
assumptions . . . in ways that are inaccurate.” Tr. at 76–77.
c. Second Marijauna Use while Holding Access Authorization in either October 2020 or
September 2021, Related Failure to Report, and Employment with Second DOE
Contractor
As stated above, the Individual returned to work with the first DOE contractor in July 2020. Ex. 4
at 33. The Individual testified that, in August 2021, he accepted a job offer with the second DOE
contractor with an October 2021 start date. Tr. at 86–87. He left his job with the first DOE
contractor in September 2021, aware that he would be entering into a position requiring him to
maintain his clearance. Ex. 4 at 33; Tr. at 87. The Individual started working with the second DOE
contractor employer in October 2021. Ex. 4 at 32–33.
Contemporaneous with this period, the Individual used marijuana a second time; however, the
Individual could not recall if his second marijuana use occurred in October 2020 or September
2021. Ex. 2 at 12; Tr. at 44–45. He explained that he socialized with a particular group of friends
in the same environment in both October 2020 and September 2021 and that, during one of these
two social gatherings, he engaged in his second use of marijuana. Tr. at 44–45; see also Ex. 2 at
12 (“I’ve narrowed it down to either of these months as that was when relevant associates of mine
had visited me at my residence.”). The Individual testified that he had been watching a movie with
this group of friends. Tr. at 45.
- 7 -
The Individual explained that, if his marijuana use occurred in September 2021, it would have
occurred during the brief period between his employment with the first DOE contractor employer
and the second DOE contractor employer. Id. at 47–48. Regardless, he acknowledged that his
second marijuana use occurred while holding access authorization. Id. at 47, 87 (Individual’s
testimony acknowledging that he had a clearance in October 2020 and that he knew he had a
clearance in September 2021 despite his brief lapse in employment). When asked why he used
marijuana a second time while holding a clearance, the Individual testified that it was “hard for
[him] to reflect accurately what [his] thinking was.” Id. at 47. The Individual also testified that he
did not know of the requirement that he report his drug use within three days. Id. at 80 (“From
October 2021 till August 2024, I do not believe that I was aware that I had to continuously report
. . . within three days [ ] drug use.”). However, during the hearing, the Individual gave conflicting
testimony as to his understanding of his obligations. Compare id. at 48–49 (the Individual’s
testimony that he “believe[d] that [he] was ignorant to the responsibilities at th[e] time” of the
second marijuana use) with id. at 80–81 (the Individual’s testimony that at the time of the second
marijuana use he “kn[e]w the responsibilities of holding a security clearance”).
d. Disclosure of Prior Marijuana Use in the August 2024 QNSP and Suspension of
Access Authorization
While employed with the second DOE contractor, the Individual underwent reinvestigation,
submitting a QNSP in August 2024. Id. at 78; Ex. 3 at 19. In the August 2024 QNSP, the Individual
marked “Yes” when certifying whether “[i]n the last seven (7) years . . . [he had] illegally used
any drugs or controlled substances[.]” Ex. 4 at 71 (emphasis in original). He also marked “Yes”
when asked if he had used illegal drugs or controlled substances “while possessing a security
clearance.” Id. In November 2024, the LSO suspended the Individual’s access authorization after
learning of his marijuana use and related failures to disclose. Ex. 1 at 6; Ex. 3 at 19–20. At the
hearing, when asked why he had finally disclosed his marijuana use in the August 2024 QNSP, he
indicated he “had no idea that [he] omitted” the marijuana use in his “previous QNSP[s]” and
“assumed that [he] had been honest back then.” Tr. at 60. The Individual further testified that he
answered the 2024 QNSP honestly when asked about the drug use. Id. at 63 (describing the impetus
for the disclosure as the 2024 QNSP asking for the information).
e. Individual’s Testimony Regarding his Current Character and Therapy from
December 2021 to December 2023
The Individual was asked to provide testimony demonstrating “that this type of dishonest behavior
w[ould] not happen in the future[.]” Id. at 64. In response, the Individual provided that he
“believe[d]” himself to be “a changed person” having “embark[ed] on a lot of work to become a
more honest person[ ] to [him]self and other people . . . .” Id. Regarding his changed behavior, the
Individual noted he initiated “therapy of [his] own volition, independent” of this adjudicative
proceeding. Id. at 50. The Individual submitted a letter from his behavioral health clinician, dated
April 2025, evincing that he attended “behavioral health care” from December 2021 to December
2023. Ex. E. He testified he was motivated to attend, as he “felt careless, selfish, and . . . dishonest”
and that he “didn’t want to be that person.” Tr. at 51. He further testified that his behavior had
negatively affected a personal relationship and that he entered therapy with self-hatred and
- 8 -
insecurities. Id. at 82–83. The Individual also shared that “pre-2022” he did not “feel satisfied or
enriched” since he was “living in [his] parents’ basement.” Id. at 83.
The behavioral health clinician indicated, via letter, that the Individual was diagnosed with
“adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood”; that the Individual “was consistent
in his behavioral health treatment”; and that the “focus of [his] treatment was cognitive behavioral
therapy.” Ex. E. Reflecting on how his therapy helped with his behavior, the Individual explained
that it was “scary . . . to be honest . . . about [his] own vulnerabilities and flaws” and that
“confronting [himself] [wa]s . . . the gateway to being honest and communicating that honesty
with others . . . .” Tr. at 51. To further that goal, the Individual recounted attending counseling
twice a week to speak with his behavioral health clinician. Id. at 72. As part of the mechanisms for
confronting himself, the Individual began practicing and continues to practice “journaling.” Id. at
51, 72, 82. The Individual explained that journaling daily helps with self-reflection and expressing
his desires to grow and mature. Id. at 51. He explained that a combination of regularly speaking
with his therapist and journaling facilitated him “implementing” positive behavior in his personal
life—a specific example being an improved relationship with his sibling. Id. at 84–85 (Individual’s
testimony that he and his sibling “hated” each other prior to the changes he implemented in his
life); see also Ex. K at 2 (“Through candid communication to my provider and self-reflection to
myself, I learned to identify and address my past tendencies toward selfishness and dishonesty.
This commitment to change, practiced first within the therapeutic setting and then with others in
my life through openness and vulnerability, fundamentally reshaped my character.”). The
Individual stopped attending therapy in December 2023 and testified that, while he “would have
been happy to keep going,” his therapist felt that he was on a good path and implied that the
therapist felt that treatment was no longer needed. Tr. at 52. Although the Individual had reflected
on prior incidents of dishonesty, the Individual testified he had not remembered having been
dishonest in his 2019 and 2020 QNSPs and also testified that he and his therapist had never
discussed prior drug use during their counseling sessions. Id. at 53, 81.
Since having his clearance suspended, the Individual has taken several courses to address his prior
drug use and decision-making. Ex. F (certificate evincing completion of a drug education course);
Ex. G (certificate evincing completion of a marijuana education course); Ex. H (screenshot
evincing the completion of three decision-making courses); Ex. I (certificate of completion of a
decision-making course from a university). The Individual shared that he learned, from the
decision-making courses, about “critical thinking, how to make the right decision, how to think
through issues a lot more [in depth][,] [ ] understanding other’s perspectives[,] and . . .
communicat[ing] with others [ ] in certain difficult areas.” Tr. at 85.
The Individual also began attending therapy both outside of work and through the second DOE
contractor’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Ex. L (March 2025 letter from Individual’s
primary care provider evincing referral for behavioral health treatment); Ex. M (June 2025 letter
from EAP psychologist evincing Individual’s attendance since February 2025); Tr. at 66 (“I
actually engaged in two separate therapy programs . . . .”). The Individual explained that he has
done this to address “the anxiety and stressors that” have “come out of [ ] this process alone.” Tr.
at 66–67. The EAP psychologist’s letter explains that the Individual “utilized [EAP] services to
help address stressors and [ ] displayed effective coping mechanisms.” Ex. M. The Individual
described the treatment as “incredibly helpful” in addressing his nervousness. Tr. at 67.
- 9 -
The Individual testified that drug use has no significant role in his life. Id. at 74. He submitted the
results of a drug test, reflecting a negative result for a urine sample provided on July 11, 2024. Ex.
J at 1–2. The Individual also testified that he no longer associates with the individuals who
provided him the marijuana during his first and second incidents of use. Tr. at 43–44, 46. The
Individual does not associate with anyone who uses drugs. Id. at 49–50. The Individual specifically
recalled one instance when an acquaintance used illegal drugs in his presence, and the Individual
actively chose to stop associating with this acquaintance. Id. at 50. The Individual submitted, as
an exhibit, “a signed statement of intent to abstain from all future controlled substance
involvement” with the “full knowledge and acceptance that failure to uphold this agreement will
result in the revocation of [his] clearance and potential loss of employment and opportunity.” Ex.
D. The Individual testified that he has not “not used any federally illegal drugs since . . . except
for the ones [he] reported . . . .” Tr. at 49; see also Ex. 2 at 12 (“I can however say with certainty
that since . . . 2021 I have not partaken in any substance use . . . .”).
f. Other Testimony and Evidence Regarding the Individual’s Character
The Individual’s Supervisor testified at the hearing and wrote a letter of support for the Individual.
Tr. at 3; Ex. B. The Individual’s Supervisor has known the Individual since he first started working
with the second DOE contractor in October 2021. Tr. at 17; Ex. B at 1. She described the Individual
as being “highly committed to being honest and having integrity.” Tr. at 17; see also Ex. B at 1 (“I
can attest to [the Individual’s] integrity and commitment to safeguarding sensitive information.”).
She indicated she was surprised that the Individual used marijuana while holding a clearance;
however, she believed the Individual to still be reliable given her observations as to his current
behavior, maturity, and honesty. Id. at 28; see also Ex. B at 1 (“I believe this incident was an
isolated lapse in judgment that does not reflect his overall character or commitment to adhering to
security protocols.”).
The Individual also submitted two additional letters of support: one from a friend (Friend) and
another from a coworker (Coworker). Ex. A; Ex. C. The Individual’s Friend met the Individual in
2016 and lived with the Individual from 2018 to 2020. Ex. A at 1. The Individual’s Friend was not
present for the two incidents where the Individual used marijuana; however, he observed that,
based on his regular contact with the Individual, marijuana use was not a regular part of the
Individual’s life. Id. He never observed the Individual using drugs and confirmed that no marijuana
was kept in their apartment. Id. He also described the Individual as “responsible, honest, and
trustworthy . . . .” Id.
The Individual’s Coworker has known the Individual since late 2021, having worked with the
Individual frequently and also spent time with the Individual outside of work “in casual, personal
settings.” Ex. C at 1. The Individual’s Coworker provided that “[i]n [his] time of knowing [the
Individual], never once has [the Individual] proclaimed, demonstrated, or even hinted at actively
using drugs”; he also considered the security incidents as a “lapse of judgment rather than an
indication of any ongoing issue or disregard for the rules.” Id. The Individual’s Coworker noted
that the Individual had “demonstrated unwavering transparency” by “providing complete and
honest disclosure about . . . the incidents in question . . . .” Id. at 1–2.
- 10 -
V. ANALYSIS
Based on the record before me, I am not convinced that the Individual has fully mitigated the
LSO’s security concerns. I first address the Guideline H concerns and then the Guideline E
concerns.
a. Guideline H
Conditions that could mitigate Guideline H security concerns include:
(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a
pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to:
(1) Disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) Changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and
(3) Providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement
and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or
misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility;
(c) Abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which
these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; and
(d) Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including, but not
limited to, rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse,
and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 26.
To start, I credit the Individual’s testimony that he has not engaged in illegal drug use outside of
the two incidents: the first occurring in August 2018 and the second occurring in either October
2020 or September 2021. In crediting his testimony, I consider that his Friend and Coworker both
observed that the Individual is not a regular marijuana user. I weigh more heavily that the
Individual self-reported this incriminating information notwithstanding the low probability that
these incidents of marijuana use would have been discovered by the LSO. In making the
determination regarding the probability of his prior marijuana use being discovered, I rely on the
fact that his July 2024 urine test returned as negative for drug use, the fact that his August 2018
drug use remained undiscovered despite the 2019 and 2020 investigative processes, and the fact
that the persons with direct knowledge of the Individual’s incidents of drug use were unlikely to
have been interviewed as part of his reinvestigation, given their current lack of association with
the Individual. While his behavior reflects poor judgment and an extended period of dishonesty,
- 11 -
his self-disclosure, coupled with the low probability that this derogatory information would have
otherwise been discovered, reflects that he is now providing reliable information with respect to
his past marijuana use.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), the drug use occurred in August 2018, and then in either
October 2020 or September 2021. I cannot find that the drug use happened under “unusual
circumstances” given the mundane details surrounding the drug use. The Individual used or
consumed marijuana in social settings where friends had marijuana available. Some of the
behavior may be attributed to youth and immaturity. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring the
consideration of “age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct”). However, the
second incident of marijuana use occurred after finishing college, while holding an active
clearance, and after having worked with the first DOE contractor for either three months or
fourteen months. The Individual admitted that he knew of his responsibilities as a clearance holder.
On the other hand, that the drug use occurred twice over two or three years demonstrates that the
substance abuse was infrequent. Furthermore, the most recent marijuana use occurred, at the latest,
in September 2021 or three years and ten months ago. Accordingly, I find that the marijuana use
occurred sufficiently long ago that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the Individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. There are also several indications that illegal
drug use is unlikely to recur. First, the timespan over which he has not used marijuana significantly
exceeds the span of time over which he used marijuana, which included only two isolated uses.
Second, the Individual affirmed in a signed statement and at the hearing that he does not use
marijuana and has no intent to use marijuana—a statement I credit, for the reasons described above.
Third, his Friend observed that during the period they lived together from 2018 to 2020 the
Individual did not regularly use marijuana. Fourth, the Individual’s Coworker, who spends time
with the Individual outside of work, also confirmed that there is no indication the Individual uses
marijuana. Last, the Individual provided a urine test from July 2024 evincing a lack of drug use.
Given that the drug use was infrequent and occurred so long ago that it is unlikely to recur, I find
mitigating condition (a) to apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), the Individual acknowledged his drug involvement by coming
forward of his own volition. He has also provided evidence of overcoming the marijuana use
problem and establishing a pattern of abstinence for many of the same reasons I stated above. I
have credited his account that, if he last used marijuana in September 2021, then he has abstained
from drugs for three years and ten months. The two times he used marijuana appear to be isolated
incidents, based on his self-disclosure and the information provided by his Friend and Coworker.
The Individual does not associate with the individuals who provided him with marijuana. The
Individual has actively disengaged from social interactions that would expose him to others’ illegal
drug use, having provided an anecdote where an acquaintance used illegal drugs in front of him
and he thereafter stopped spending time with the Individual. Furthermore, the Individual provided
a signed statement that he has no intention to use illegal drugs or illegally use controlled substances
in the future. The Individual also submitted evidence of the completion of drug abuse and
marijuana abuse courses. Accordingly, I find mitigating condition (b) satisfied.
- 12 -
Mitigating conditions (c) and (d) lack application, as the concerns raised do not include misuse of
prescription drugs and because no testimony or documentary evidence was provided regarding
substance abuse treatment.
I find that the Individual has satisfied mitigating conditions (a) and (b) and that the Individual has
resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline H.
b. Guideline E
Guideline E concerns may be mitigated if:
(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.
I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the concerns raised under Guideline E.
- 13 -
First, I cannot find mitigating condition (a) satisfied with respect to the Individual’s concealment
of his marijuana use. Although he disclosed his prior marijuana use in 2024 before being
confronted with the facts, it cannot be said that he came forward promptly where his 2019 and
2020 omissions remained uncorrected until his 2024 QNSP. Furthermore, he failed to report his
second marijuana use in 2020 or 2021 for approximately three or four years. Mitigating condition
(a) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), the Individual’s behavior cannot be attributed to the advice of
legal counsel or a person with relevant professional responsibilities. Mitigating condition (b) does
not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (c), I find the repeated and long-term concealment of his drug use
and falsifications in the 2019 and 2020 QNSPs to be serious concerns. The Individual testified that
he had no specific memory of providing false information in the 2019 and 2020 QNSPs. However,
there is no dispute that at least the 2019 provision of false information occurred deliberately. There
is also no dispute that the Individual deliberately used marijuana in October 2020 or September
2021, while holding a security clearance and while aware of his obligations a clearance holder. He
failed to report such drug use until he completed his 2024 QNSP. The purposefulness, the length
of time, and the disregard towards the investigative process and reporting requirements simply
cannot be considered minor.
I also cannot find the behavior so infrequent given that the concealment started in 2019 and
continued until 2024. I further cannot say that his pattern of dishonesty occurred so long ago given
that he only came forward with this information when completing the 2024 QNSP. Last, I cannot
find the concealment and falsifications to have occurred under unique circumstances. I must
consider that the original falsifications and concealment may have been attributed to the
Individual’s youth and immaturity. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). I also consider the Individual testifying
that he feared losing his clearance and employment opportunity. However, those falsifications
continued for years despite the Individual developing maturity through therapy. Accordingly,
mitigating condition (c) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (d), the Individual eventually acknowledged the reporting failures.
The Individual also provided evidence that he attended counseling from December 2021 to
December 2023 to address behavioral issues, including his honesty. The record includes his
testimony that therapy had helped him with self-reflection—including confronting himself about
his own flaws, journaling, speaking with his therapist, and implementing those practices in his
interpersonal relationships. In terms of other actions taken to overcome the problem with his
dishonesty, he has started re-attending therapy through a private provider and through his
employer’s EAP and has also taken several classes to address his critical thinking and decision-
making. I have letters of support regarding his positive character and the testimony of his Supervisor
who believes the Individual to have matured and to be a person of integrity, demonstrating the
efficacy of the positive steps he has taken.
While I credit that the Individual has made positive changes in his life, I cannot find that the totality
of the evidence rebuts the strong presumption against the reinstatement of his clearance. Dorfmont
v. Brown, 913 F.2d at 1403. In particular, I consider that, despite the two years of attendance in
- 14 -
therapy to address past dishonesty from December 2021 to December 2023, the Individual failed
to correct his falsification in the 2019 QNSP, failed to correct his falsification in the 2020 QNSP,
and failed to report his October 2020 or September 2021 drug use until August 2024. 10 C.F.R. §
710.7(c) (requiring consideration of the “frequency and recency of the conduct”). Throughout his
time in therapy and even after therapy, the Individual failed to correct these failures until it came
time to complete his August 2024 QNSP.
The Individual testified that he did not remember his initial dishonesty in the 2019 and 2020
QNSPs; however, I also find this testimony unreliable. In contradiction to his testimony, the
Individual, in January 2025, provided a written statement with specific details as to his state of mind
when completing the 2019 and 2020 QNSPs. More specifically, with respect to his 2019 QNSP, his
written statement recounted that he “justified at the time that [the marijuana he used] was state-
legally acquired . . . .” Ex. 2 at 12. Furthermore, with respect to his 2020 QNSP, the Individual’s
written statement recounted “ha[ving] retained records from [his] other [2019 QNSP] while only
updating sections that [he], at the time, had significant updates towards such as foreign travel visits,
sources of contact, places lived, etc.” Id. When asked why his testimony conflicted with his prior,
January 2025 written statement, the Individual testified that he had been making assumptions when
providing those responses. Notwithstanding this explanation, this continued and recent
inconsistency—up to the date of the hearing—raises a question as to whether the Individual had in
fact forgotten his dishonesty in the 2019 and 2020 QNSPs. I cannot find that mitigating condition
(d) sufficiently applies to mitigate the security concerns.
Regarding mitigating condition (e), the LSO did not raise any concerns regarding personal conduct
that could result in vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Mitigating condition (e)
lacks application.
Regarding mitigating condition (f), there exists no dispute as to the reliability of the information
because the Individual came forward. Mitigating condition (f) lacks application.
Regarding mitigating condition (g), the concerns raised by the LSO did not involve the Individual’s
association with those involved in criminal activities. Accordingly, mitigating condition (g) also
lacks application.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the
facts of this case and that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline E.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines E and H of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, 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 set forth in the Notification Letter under Guideline H, but not the security concerns under
Guideline E. Accordingly, I find the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security
- 15 -
clearance would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the
national interest. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10
C.F.R. § 710.28.
Andrew Dam
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals