PSH-25-0127

*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: May 23, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0127
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 12, 2025
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 For
the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Individual’s security clearance should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position which requires her to hold a security
clearance. Derogatory information regarding the Individual’s drug use was discovered. The Local
Security Office (LSO) began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a
Notification Letter to the Individual informing her that she was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to continue
holding a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the Administrative Judge
in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the
Individual presented the testimony of three witnesses, in addition to her own. See Transcript of
Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0127 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted ten
exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 10 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted
ten exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through J.
1 Under the regulations, “‘[a]ccess authorization’ means an administrative determination that an individual is eligible
for access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.5(a). Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to Guideline H of the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold
a Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.
Guideline H states that
[t]he illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and
non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or
mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both
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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 24. Conditions that could raise a security concern include:
(a) any substance misuse (see above definition);
(b) testing positive for an illegal drug;
(c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug
paraphernalia;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g.,
physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker)
of substance use disorder;
(e) failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed by a duly
qualified medical or mental health professional;
(f) any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a
sensitive position; and
(g) expressed intent to continue drug involvement and substance misuse, or failure
to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse.
Id. at ¶ 25.
The LSO alleges that the Individual tested positive for marijuana on a random drug test
administered at her place of work on July 8, 2024. Ex. 1 at 1. The LSO further alleges that in her
3
response to an August 2024 Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) sent by DOE, the Individual admitted
that she consumed cannabis gummies on July 1 and 2, 2024, while holding a security clearance.
Marijuana is a controlled substance pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 812, which brings its use under the
definition of substance misuse outlined in Guideline H. Furthermore, the Individual is alleged to
have tested positive for an illegal drug and admitted to using an illegal drug while holding a
security clearance. Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline H are justified.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 25(a)–(b), (f).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. The regulatory standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or
restoring a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly
consistent with the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that
security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913
F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting her eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
In 2024, the Individual experienced an “intense period of emotional distress and personal
upheaval.” Ex. 2 at 1. The Individual witnessed her mother’s death and was named executor of the
estate soon after. Id. At the same time, the Individual was experiencing significant marital conflict.
Id. The Individual began experiencing persistent insomnia. Id. After several sleepless nights, “in a
moment of poor judgment and desperation for relief, [the Individual] consumed cannabis gummies
in an attempt to calm [her] mind and rest.” Id. In her request for this hearing, the Individual
described the behavior as “out of character” and expressed remorse for her actions. Id. She later
testified that she obtained the marijuana from a friend who had offered them to her as a sleep aid
that was working for them. Tr. at 16. She testified that she was sleep deprived and desperate for
4
relief and did not think about her security clearance until the next day. Id. at 19–20. Despite feeling
guilty, she used marijuana a second time that night. Id. at 20.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that after consuming the cannabis gummies a second time,
she wrestled over the holiday weekend with the question of how to handle her reporting
requirements for her security clearance and decided that she would discuss the matter with her
supervisor in their one-on-one meeting when she returned to the office on July 8, 2024. Tr. at 11.
However, on the morning she returned to the office, before her 1:30 P.M. meeting with her
supervisor, she was selected for a random drug screening. Id. She testified that she immediately
went to her supervisor and informed them that she had used marijuana recently. Id. She then took
the drug test and contacted the LSO to report her drug use. Id. The Individual acknowledged that
“it sounds a little convenient to be like I got the drug test notice, but I was going to tell my
supervisor that afternoon.” Id. at 23. She testified that she did not talk to her supervisor
immediately upon arriving at work because she was mentally preparing for the difficult
conversation. Id. The Individual testified that the random drug screening was “the universe . . .
teaching [her] a lesson.” Id. at 24. She described the experience as humbling and recalled thinking
to herself, “you made your bed, now you have to lay in it.” Id. at 24–25.
The Individual signed a Last Chance Agreement with her employer on July 19, 2024, in which she
admitted that she had failed the drug test, agreed to complete a treatment course approved by her
employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) manager, and agreed to undergo random drug
screenings. Ex. A at 1–3. The agreement was effective for two years. Id. at 3. She also submitted
into evidence a signed statement committing to abstinence from illegal drugs and misuse of legal
substances and acknowledging that failure to abstain from such could result in revocation or denial
of her security clearance. Ex. L. In an effort to comply with the agreement and address the LSO’s
concerns, the Individual completed a four-hour comprehensive drug and alcohol awareness course,
participated in bi-monthly random drug testing, and decided to disassociate from the person who
gave her the cannabis gummies. Ex. 2 at 2; Ex. D (July 2024 Drug Awareness Course Certificate
of Completion); Ex. F (results of random drug screenings from August 2024 to August 2025, all
negative).2 She also participated in counseling through her employer’s EAP in which she
“explore[d] the underlying personal experiences that led to [her] decision to consume cannabis,”
and “worked through unresolved trauma and gained critical insights into [her] behavior.” Ex. 2 at
2; Ex. G (attendance verification with EAP psychologist). She stated that she had grown through
the counseling and that she had learned tools to make better decisions and manage difficult
circumstances in a responsible way. Ex. 2 at 2.
The Individual testified that, prior to her drug use and subsequent counseling, she had suppressed
most of her emotions and viewed needing help as a weakness. Tr. at 38–39, 43–44. In counseling,
she had worked on those issues and various other topics, such as marital troubles and trauma, that
had contributed to her drug use. Id. at 31, 43–44. She testified that as she worked through and
processed those issues, her counselor would prompt her to identify ways to manage stress in real
time. Id. She learned that she could not shoulder all burdens by herself, how to ask for help, and
when to take breaks. Id. at 31–32, 37–38, 45. She testified that she learned how to set boundaries
2 In Exhibit G, the EAP Lead Psychologist wrote that the Individual had been tested at a reduced frequency recently
due to lack of concern for substance misuse and that she had been tested monthly on September 17, October 2, and
November 13, 2025, all returning negative results. Ex. G at 1.
5
and say “no” when she could not reasonably handle a task or responsibility. Id. at 32. She also
learned how to identify when she was beginning to feel overwhelmed so she could communicate
and get the support she needed. Id. at 36. The Individual had also been doing marriage counseling
with her spouse and testified that the exercises had led them to greater understanding and
tremendous growth. Id. at 33–34. Their communication had improved, and her husband had
become one of her biggest sources of support. Id. at 35.
The Individual engaged in nightly sleep meditations to help her get a good night’s rest and peace
of mind. Tr. at 45–46. She testified that she felt the most stable she had ever been. Id. at 46. She
added:
I would definitely not want this to repeat itself, this situation, but I have learned so
much about myself and the circumstances that led me to this situation and just
myself as a whole. . . . [I]t made me learn so many valuable things, life lessons that
unless I would have went through this I don’t know that I would have learned them.
Id. at 46. The Individual testified that her sleep was significantly improved now. Id. at 50. She
testified that she had melatonin supplements in case she had trouble sleeping and, in the worst-
case scenario, could take time off to sleep if she needed it. Id. at 51–52. The Individual was asked
whether she felt she could take time off of work if she ever began feeling such significant stress
that her judgment was impacted. Id. at 48. She responded, “100 percent,” and testified that she had
sufficient sick leave and Family and Medical Leave Act leave to facilitate that time off if needed.
Id. She testified that her supervisor checked in with her consistently and had told her to take time
off as needed without worry. Id. at 49. The Individual testified that their relationship was closer as
a result of this process. Id.
The Individual testified that her drug awareness course covered the mental and physical effects of
illegal substances and highlighted the potential outcomes of drug use. Tr. at 32. She also learned
to look for certain behaviors or methods of coping that could indicate a person used drugs so she
could avoid associating with them. Id. at 33. She testified that she had not used drugs before or
since the two days in July 2024 and intended to abstain indefinitely. Id. at 12, 13, 39 (“[T]here will
not be any future substance abuse. And I can guarantee that.”).
The Individual’s supervisor had known her for about nine years and had been her supervisor for
about three years. Tr. at 55. She was aware of the Individual’s positive drug test. Id. She testified
that immediately after being told to take a drug test, the Individual told her about her drug use and
the circumstances leading up to it. Id. She testified that the Individual immediately acknowledged
that she had done something wrong and stated that she would deal with the consequences of her
actions. Id. at 56. She described the Individual as extremely responsible and stated that the
Individual makes sound decisions at work. Id. at 57. She also described the Individual as strong
with high integrity. Id. at 64. To the best of the supervisor’s knowledge, the Individual had been
compliant with all the terms of her Last Chance Agreement.3 Id. at 60. She testified that she and
the Individual talked a lot and that, through the Individual’s honesty, trust was quickly rebuilt and
their relationship became stronger. Id. at 62. She stated, “I trust [the Individual] explicitly.” Id.
3 Exhibits F and G also contain statements by the EAP Lead Psychologist that the Individual was in full compliance
with the agreement.
6
The supervisor also confirmed that the Individual had the scheduling flexibility to take time off if
needed. Id. at 66.
The Individual’s colleague testified she met with the Individual about every two weeks, as
schedules allowed, and that they liked to stay in touch personally and professionally. Tr. at 72.
They had known each other for over ten years. Id. She testified that the Individual had called her
after taking a marijuana gummy and told her that she had made a mistake. Id. at 73. She testified
that she encouraged the Individual to contact her supervisor to report the incident. Id. at 74. She
testified that the Individual had always been a rule follower, so she was surprised when the
Individual told her she had used marijuana. Id. at 73–74. She confirmed that the Individual was
having sleep difficulty pursuant to stress from her marriage and her mother’s death at the time of
the incident. Id. at 74. She also confirmed that the Individual had been attending counseling and
testified that the Individual seemed happier. Id. at 75. She described the Individual as an
“extremely solid human being.” Id. She testified that the Individual was more willing to reach out
for help and more open, even discussing her feelings about her marriage and her mother. Id. at 76.
She was confident that the Individual would never use drugs again. Id. at 77.
The Individual’s friend had known her for about ten years and saw her about three times per month.
Tr. at 81. She had been surprised to learn that the Individual had used marijuana because it was
out of character for the Individual. Id. at 82–83. She testified that the Individual had been under a
lot of stress at the time but had developed coping mechanisms to handle such situations in the
future. Id. at 83, 85. She testified that, since the Individual began attending counseling, she had
seen the Individual’s “joy come back” and that she had “seen her really flourish as a person.” Id.
She believed the Individual intended to abstain from marijuana indefinitely. Id. at 86. She
described the Individual as honest with high morals and character. Id. She testified that no one in
their shared friend group used any illicit substance or used alcohol excessively. Id. at 87–88.
V. ANALYSIS
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours
and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government places a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access authorization. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
The issue before me is whether the Individual, at the time of the hearing, presents an unacceptable
risk to national security and the common defense. I must consider all the evidence, both favorable
and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions
that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Because of the
strong presumption against granting or restoring security clearances, I must deny access
authorization if I am not convinced that the LSO’s security concerns have been mitigated such that
restoring the Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
7
Conditions that could mitigate 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. Condition (b) applies.
Regarding condition (a), the Individual testified that her drug use was infrequent, and the
circumstances surrounding it were unique. I cannot find that the Individual’s drug use was so
infrequent that it does not cast doubt on her judgment reliability and trustworthiness because,
though it was an isolated incident, she was explicitly aware at the time that using marijuana was
impermissible for her as a security clearance holder. This displays such poor judgment that its
infrequency does not, by itself, remove doubt about the Individual’s judgment, trustworthiness,
and reliability. I also cannot find that the conditions surrounding her drug use make future drug
use unlikely to occur because, unfortunately, being under significant stress and suffering from a
lack of sleep are not unique conditions for anyone. The Individual’s drug use was fairly recent,
and not enough time has passed for time alone to allay concerns about future drug use.
Accordingly, condition (a) does not apply. However, the Individual’s actions since her drug use
have shown her to be trustworthy, reliable, and of sound judgment, and therefore, I find that
condition (b) does apply.
The Individual acknowledged immediately upon being asked to take a drug test that she had used
marijuana in violation of the rules for security clearance holders. She took responsibility for her
actions without defensiveness or defiance. She testified that she has disassociated from the person
who gave her the gummies. Her friend testified that no one in their friend group uses drugs. The
Individual has taken concrete steps to make it less likely she is in a fragile mental state or sleep
8
deprived, thereby changing the environmental conditions that led to her poor decision-making. She
has engaged meaningfully in counseling and was able to identifi both the reasons she got to a
fragile mental state and the tools she now has to avoid it in the future, including reaching out to
her support system for help and meditating nightly. The Individual also submitted “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,” and
signed a Last Chance Agreement with her employer, with which she has complied. Additionally,
the drug testing the Individual underwent pursuant to the Last Chance Agreement provides
objective evidence corroborating her claim to have established a pattern of abstinence from illegal
drugs. I find that the Individual has made a lasting change that now makes it unlikely that she will
use drugs in the future.
Condition (c) is inapplicable because prescription drug abuse is not alleged. Condition (d) is
inapplicable because no substance abuse diagnosis requiring treatment and a positive prognosis is
alleged.
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization under Guideline H of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has succeeded in fully resolving those
concerns. Therefore, I conclude that restoring DOE access authorization to the Individual “will not
endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10
C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should restore access authorization to the
Individual.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kristin L. Martin
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals