PSH-25-0138

*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: June 3, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0138
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: November 14, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual was employed by a federal agency from April 2019 through April 2024. Exhibit
(Ex.) 6 at 46.2 In April 2024, the Individual became employed by a DOE contractor, in a position
for which he requires a security clearance. Id. at 45.
The Individual completed two questionnaires that were used as a basis for a background
investigation in connection with his federal employment. Ex. 8; Ex. 7. In a Questionnaire for Non-
Sensitive Positions that he completed in March 2019, the Individual responded “No” when asked
if, in the past year, he had used or possessed illegal drugs, including marijuana. Ex. 8 at 130. In a
Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions that he completed in May 2023, the Individual responded
“No” when asked if, in the last seven years, he had illegally used or been involved in the illegal
purchase of any drugs or controlled substances. Ex. 7 at 111.
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 -
In July 2024, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in
connection with his employment with the DOE contractor. Ex. 6. On the QNSP, the Individual
again responded “No” when asked if, in the last seven years, he had illegally used or been involved
in the illegal purchase of any drugs or controlled substances. Id. at 74. He further responded “No”
when asked if, in the last seven years, he had intentionally engaged in the misuse of prescription
drugs. Id. at 75. When asked about his criminal record, the Individual disclosed that in 2007, while
in a foreign country, he was charged and convicted of Possession of Cannabis and sentenced to
100 hours of community service. Id. at 73.
The Individual was interviewed by a background investigator on August 19, 2024. Ex. 10 at 204–
09. During the interview, the Individual acknowledged his 2007 drug offense while studying
abroad and admitted “he did have a small amount of marijuana in his bedroom.” Id. at 208
(summary notes of the investigatory interview). The Individual then disclosed that he used
marijuana “intermittently on occasion” between approximately 2005 and November 2022. Id. The
Individual went on to describe to the investigator the circumstances of his marijuana use, which
he detailed further in a November 21, 2024, response to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) issued by
the local security office (LSO). Id. at 208–09; Ex. 5.
When asked how often he consumed marijuana, the Individual indicated that it varied from zero
to seven days per week. Ex. 5 at 22. He would sometimes smoke it and sometimes use it in edible
form. Id.; Ex. 10 at 208. He used it alone to help him sleep and relax, and he used it socially with
friends. Ex. 10 at 208–09; Ex. 5 at 22. He would purchase it “once every 6 weeks to 3 months”
from local state dispensaries. Ex. 5 at 22. He would also obtain it from “friends of friends.” Ex. 10
at 209. The Individual stated he had no future intent to use illegal drugs and that he no longer
associated with people who used them. Id.; Ex. 5 at 25.
Additionally, the Individual reported in his response to the LOI that he used the prescription drug
Adderall on three occasions between 2019 and 2022. Ex. 5 at 25. The Adderall was provided to
him by a friend, as the Individual did not have a prescription. Id. The Individual used it in an
“attempt to improve [his] gaming performance and acumen.” Id.
As to the Individual’s failure to disclosure his marijuana use on the 2019, 2023, and 2024
questionnaires, the Individual offered multiple, and in some cases conflicting, explanations. He
stated that he believed his marijuana use was legal, because he purchased it from legal dispensaries,
and therefore his omissions were not deliberate. Ex. 10 at 208; Ex. 5 at 26. However, at the same
time, he admitted that he understood marijuana use was illegal under federal law. Ex. 5 at 23. The
Individual also stated that he deliberately omitted his drug use from the questionnaires because he
was “fearful [he] would lose [his] position at work and not be able to provide for [his] family if
[he] answered truthfully.” Id. at 27. In addition, the Individual claimed that “recreational marijuana
use was tolerated” at the federal job that he held between 2019 and 2024, and that this “culture”
influenced his decision to deny any marijuana use when completing the questionnaires. Id. at 23.
Finally, in his response to the LOI, the Individual volunteered that he intentionally omitted his past
marijuana usage during an interview with a background investigator that occurred in May 2023.
Id. at 29; see also Ex. 10 at 317 (reflecting that Individual was interviewed in August 2023, with
a summary of the interview containing no mention of drug involvement).
- 3 -
On April 24, 2025, the LSO issued the Individual a letter in which it notified him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance. Ex. 1 at 7–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) and Guideline H (Drug Involvement) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5–6.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted ten exhibits (Ex. 1–10). The Individual submitted seven exhibits (Ex.
A–G). At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of three
character witnesses, two of whom were friends and one of whom was the Individual’s colleague
and supervisor at the federal agency where he worked previously.3 Transcript of Hearing, OHA
Case No. PSH-25-0138 (Tr.) at 11, 98, 115, 131. The LSO did not call any witnesses.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline E as the first basis for its substantial doubt concerning the Individual’s
eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5–6.
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive
information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and
candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. Two conditions that could raise a security concern under
Guideline E are “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire . . . or similar form used to conduct investigations . . . [or]
determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness” and “deliberately providing false or
misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an . .
. investigator . . . involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility
determination . . . .” Id. at ¶ 16(a)–(b). In this case, according to the LSO, the Guideline E concern
was raised by the Individual’s failure to disclose his illegal purchase and use of marijuana on the
2019, 2023, and 2024 questionnaires, his failure to disclose his misuse of Adderall on the 2024
QNSP, and his deliberate omission of his marijuana use during a 2023 interview with a background
investigator. Ex. 1 at 5–6. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline E is justified.
The LSO cited Guideline H as the second basis for its substantial doubt concerning the Individual’s
eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6.
3 The Individual had originally intended to call six character witnesses. Tr. at 6, 73–74. However, based on the
objection of DOE counsel, who argued at the prehearing conference that the testimony of six character witnesses
would be irrelevant to the matters at issue in this case and duplicative of the letters they had authored and which were
contained in the Individual’s Exhibit F, I instructed the Individual to limit his character witnesses to no more than
three. Id. at 6–7.
- 4 -
The illegal use of controlled substances, to include the misuse of prescription and
non-prescription drugs . . . 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. Two conditions that could raise a security concern under
Guideline H are “any substance misuse . . .” and “illegal possession of a controlled substance,
including . . . purchase . . . .” Id. at ¶ 25(a), (c). According to the LSO, the Guideline H concern
was raised by the Individual’s use and purchase of marijuana between approximately 2005 and
November 2022, his use of Adderall that was not prescribed to him three times between 2019 and
2022, and his criminal charge of Possession of Cannabis while residing abroad in 2007. Ex. 1 at
6. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline H 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 of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
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).
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. HEARING TESTIMONY
In his testimony, the Individual acknowledged his long history of marijuana use, which he
represented ended in November 2022. Tr. at 25, 83. When he was younger, he testified, he smoked
marijuana frequently with friends. Id. at 83. In more recent years, he consumed marijuana edibles
largely to help him sleep and to cope with his high-stress job. Id. at 25, 83. During the seven years
prior to November 2022, he estimated that recreational use accounted for only “10 percent” of his
overall marijuana consumption. Id. at 83. The frequency of his use would vary. Sometimes he
would consume an edible every night of the week, and sometimes he would go weeks or months
without consuming any at all. Id. at 25–26. He would purchase the edibles, he claimed, from
- 5 -
dispensaries in his hometown where they were sold legally under state law. Id. at 26. On cross-
examination, however, the Individual acknowledged that marijuana could not be purchased legally
from dispensaries in his home state until early 2022. Id. at 38. Prior to that date, he admitted, he
would drive to a bordering state to purchase marijuana edibles. Id. at 38–39. The Individual further
acknowledged that, prior to “the 2016 time frame,” he would obtain marijuana from friends. Id. at
80.
The Individual testified that he was not subject to regular drug testing during his federal
employment from 2019 through 2024. Id. at 23. Further, he testified, marijuana use was openly
discussed among employees and tolerated within the office, as long as employees did not come to
work under the influence. Id. at 24. Agency leadership “turned a blind eye” to rampant marijuana
use, because otherwise they couldn’t “find any one [sic] to work anymore.” Id. at 66. The
Individual claimed that “over 90 percent of the people [in one agency branch office] likely were
consuming marijuana.” Id. at 65.
In November 2022, the Individual claimed, he made the decision to discontinue marijuana use. Id.
at 27; see Ex. A (results of a May 30, 2025, hair follicle test indicating a negative result for
marijuana).4 He had recently stopped consuming alcohol in January 2021, and this led him down
a path of “self-discovery” where he began pursuing healthier activities, like working out, riding
his bike, and coaching kids to ride bikes through a local organization. Tr. at 28, 31–33; Ex. G (local
news article quoting the Individual regarding his volunteer work with this organization). In this
context, he decided to abstain from marijuana because he “did not see that as something that was
providing a benefit to [his] life, and also, it was inhibiting [him] in different ways.” Tr. at 29.
Furthermore, he stated, he wanted to set a better example for his young children. Id. at 29–30. The
Individual did not, however, seek professional help to address the sleep issues that he previously
used marijuana to manage.5 Id. at 39–41. In addition, the Individual acknowledged that “virtually
everyone” in his social circle continues to consume marijuana, but they respect his abstinence, and
he makes every effort to avoid their presence when they consume it. Id. at 86–87. The Individual’s
wife smokes marijuana “three to four times a week,” he stated, but she only smokes it in the garage
or outside. Id. at 94–95. The Individual has experienced significant stress during the time since
November 2022, including stress induced by the administrative review process, yet he testified
that he has not been tempted to resume marijuana use. Id. at 33–34. The Individual is committed
to abstaining from marijuana in the future. Id. at 34, 95–96.
The Individual acknowledged that he should have disclosed his marijuana use on the 2019, 2023,
and 2024 questionnaires. Id. at 34–35. He continued to insist that he believed his marijuana use
was legal at the state level, and for that reason, at the time he was completing the questionnaires,
he did not think it was necessary to disclose it. Id. at 52. At the same time, however, he admitted
that it was not legal to purchase and use marijuana recreationally in his home state for most of the
time period in which he was using it. Id. The Individual also continued to assert that the “culture”
of marijuana use at his federal job influenced his answers on the questionnaires, although he
4 There is nothing in the record that indicates the time period over which the hair follicle test would detect marijuana
use.
5 The Individual did see a counselor for stress management after his daughter was born in 2022. Tr. at 40–41. He
attended “a number of sessions.” Id. at 41.
- 6 -
admitted that nobody advised or instructed him to conceal his marijuana use when completing
them. Id. at 59–60. The Individual was asked to explain his inconsistent statements on the LOI that
his falsifications were not deliberate, because he believed his marijuana use was legal, and also
deliberate, because he was fearful that the truth would cost him his job. Id. at 61–63. The Individual
responded that he was “having difficulty getting the words out . . . to make sense of this,” but
ultimately he could not reconcile the statements. Id. at 63.
The Individual decided to disclose his marijuana use voluntarily during the August 19, 2024,
investigatory interview, he stated, because he had begun to realize the heightened sensitivity of his
work for the DOE contractor, as opposed to his prior work at the federal agency, and he recognized
the potential for blackmail. Id. at 35–36; see also id. at 66–69 (testifying that he now understands
there is “a world of difference” between his prior uncleared federal position and his current
position that requires a security clearance). On cross-examination, he was asked if his decision to
come clean was also motivated by a concern that the investigator would learn about his marijuana
use from the individuals he listed as references. Id. at 56. The Individual responded, “I – I don’t
know. I don’t know if that was a factor or not.” Id.; see also id. at 55–56; Ex. 10 at 226
(investigator’s notes of an August 28, 2024, interview with the Individual’s friend, in which the
friend reported the Individual’s past marijuana use).
The Individual did not disclose his Adderall use without a prescription on the July 2024 QNSP
because, he claimed, it did not occur to him. Tr. at 56. He later disclosed it on the November 2024
LOI because “that was the first time [he] had scoured all of [his] activities” and concluded it was
something he needed to report. Id. at 89; see also id. at 56–57, 87–89.
The Individual’s friend testified that he met the Individual playing competitive online video games,
and they have since become “very close friends,” to the point where he attended the Individual’s
wedding. Id. at 98, 102–03. He testified positively about the Individual’s integrity. Id. at 100–01.
He stated that he admires the Individual’s ability to follow through on his commitments, including
to pursue a higher educational degree, to get married and start a family, and to abstain from alcohol
use – the latter of which influenced the witness to do the same. Id. at 103–06. The friend is aware
of the Individual’s marijuana use, but they do not generally discuss it. Id. at 109. Recently, he
heard the Individual mention that drug testing was “common” at his job with the DOE contractor
and that the Individual had to “be ready for that.” Id. at 110.
A second friend of the Individual testified that he has known the Individual since eighth grade, and
they remain in close contact. Id. at 116. He spoke highly of the Individual’s integrity and described
him as “one of the most honest people I do know.” Id. at 117–18. He is aware of the Individual’s
past marijuana use and stated “it’s been many years since he has used it.” Id. at 120. He believes
the Individual will adhere to his commitment to abstain from marijuana, because he has shown a
“great level of deep responsibility” in all aspects of his life. Id. at 126.
The Individual’s former colleague at the federal agency testified that he first met the Individual
around 2016 in a social context. Id. at 131–32. They became coworkers in 2019, and in 2021 he
became the Individual’s supervisor. Id. at 132. He described the Individual as “thoughtful” and
“honest,” and stated, “I’ve rarely met somebody who puts more time into thinking about how they
can improve themselves and better themselves.” Id. at 134, 138–39. He testified that he recently
- 7 -
became aware of the Individual’s past marijuana use, and he believes the Individual discontinued
such use around 2022. Id. at 134–35, 138. He confirmed that marijuana use is prohibited for all
federal employees, although since it became legalized in his state, he understands that many
employees at his agency use it without repercussion. Id. at 136, 141–42.
The Individual submitted ten letters authored by friends, neighbors, and colleagues, including the
three who testified at the hearing. Ex. F. All ten references expressed a high opinion of the
Individual’s honesty, reliability, and integrity. Id.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline E include:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the
requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated
fully and truthfully;
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely
to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness,
or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to
change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors,
circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable
reliability;
(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.
Although all of the Individual’s alleged false statements and omissions raise security concerns,
those that raise the greatest concern under the Adjudicative Guidelines are those that he made in
2023, in connection with his application for a public trust position, and especially those that he
made in July 2024, in connection with his application for a security clearance. See Adjudicative
- 8 -
Guidelines at ¶ 15 (stating that “[o]f special concern is any failure to . . . provide truthful and
candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes”); id. (stating that
“refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers . . . in connection with a personnel security or
trustworthiness determination” will “normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility
determination . . .”).
Regarding the condition set forth at paragraph (a), I am persuaded that the Individual corrected his
false statements before being confronted with the facts. He voluntarily revealed his use and
purchase of marijuana to the investigator in August 2024, and he voluntarily disclosed his Adderall
use without a prescription on the November 2024 LOI. I am less persuaded, however, that the
Individual’s efforts to correct his false statements were prompt, since more than five years had
passed since he first concealed his drug use on the 2019 questionnaire. Even supposing I only
consider the most serious of his falsifications on the July 2024 QNSP, although he came clean
about his marijuana use one month later, he still failed to disclose his illicit Adderall use for a full
three months after that. In addition, I have some doubt as to whether the Individual’s efforts to
correct his false statements were made entirely in good faith. Although I believe the Individual has
come to realize the heightened importance of honesty in connection with a national security
position, the Individual was unable to confirm that his decision to reveal his drug use was not
motivated, in part, by a desire to avoid being caught. Indeed, the Individual had good reason to
fear that one of his references would reveal his past drug use, since the investigatory record reveals
that at least one of them did so. Accordingly, I am unable to find that the Individual took prompt,
good-faith efforts that would mitigate the Guideline E concerns.
The Individual confirmed he was not advised or instructed to omit his drug involvement from the
2019, 2023, or 2024 questionnaires, or from the 2023 investigatory interview. Accordingly, I am
unable to find that the Guideline E concerns are mitigated pursuant to the condition set forth at
paragraph (b).
As to the condition set forth at paragraph (c), the Individual’s falsifications and omissions were
not minor, but rather concealed a lengthy history of illegal drug use, which bears directly on the
Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance. The falsifications and omissions were made on
three separate questionnaires and in one investigatory interview, over the course of five years, and
were not fully corrected until one year prior to the hearing. As such, they did not occur so
infrequently or so far in the past that they are unlikely to recur and do not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. As to whether any unique
circumstances excuse the Individual’s false statements, the Individual contends that marijuana use
was legal at the state level and tolerated in his federal workplace during the time he made them,
which influenced his decision to conceal his drug use. The Individual understood, however, that
his marijuana use was illegal at the federal level and against workplace policy, and he certified
that his answers on the questionnaires were “true, complete, and correct to the best of [his]
knowledge and belief and [were] made in good faith.” Ex. 6 at 81; Ex. 7 at 117; Ex. 8 at 132.
Therefore, the circumstances of the Individual’s behavior do not mitigate the security concerns
that it raises under Guideline E.
Regarding the condition set forth at paragraph (d), the Individual has not fully acknowledged his
behavior. In his response to the November 2024 LOI, and again at the hearing, the Individual
- 9 -
continued to insist that his false statements were not deliberate, because he believed his drug use
was legal, while at the same time acknowledging that he deliberately concealed his drug
involvement out of fear for losing his job. When asked, he was unable to reconcile these
inconsistent statements. Furthermore, the Individual did not present any evidence of counseling or
other positive steps he has taken to alleviate the factors that contributed to his behavior, and
therefore I am unable to find the Guideline E concerns mitigated pursuant to mitigating condition
(d).
None of the remaining mitigating conditions apply to the circumstances presented in this case, as
the LSO did not allege vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, the Individual did not
dispute that he made the false statements and omissions alleged by the LSO, and the LSO did not
allege that the Individual associated with persons involved in criminal activities. See Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 17(e)–(g).
For the foregoing reasons, I find the Individual has failed to resolve the concerns raised by the
LSO under Guideline E.
B. Guideline H
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline H 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.
As an initial matter, the condition set forth in paragraph (c) does not apply to the circumstances of
this case, because the LSO has not alleged an abuse of prescription drugs that were prescribed to
the Individual. In addition, I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline H security
concerns under the condition set forth in paragraph (d), because he has not completed a prescribed
drug treatment program.
- 10 -
As to the condition set forth in paragraph (b), although the Individual has acknowledged his drug
involvement and substance misuse and provided testimony that persuades me of his strong
personal commitment to abstinence, he has not sufficiently established a pattern of abstinence such
that I can feel confident he has overcome all drug involvement. The Individual has not
disassociated from drug-using associates and contacts, which include his wife and “virtually” all
of his friends. He did not provide evidence of any methods he uses to address the sleep issues that
prompted his marijuana use previously. And, other than a single hair follicle test from May 2025,
he provided no evidence – for example, additional test results or testimony from his wife – that
could corroborate his claimed abstinence since November 2022. Although I was impressed by his
many glowing references, all of whom characterized the Individual as a person of deep integrity
who follows through on commitments, I cannot overlook that the Individual’s drug involvement
spanned nearly twenty years, during which time he was convicted of a drug offense, he was
employed by federal agency that prohibits such use, and he lived in a state where the purchase and
use of marijuana was illegal until just months before he allegedly quit using. As such, I cannot find
that the Individual has satisfied the mitigating condition set forth in paragraph (b).
Regarding the condition set forth in paragraph (a), I am persuaded that the Individual’s Adderall
use was sufficiently infrequent – only three occasions of use between 2019 and 2022 – so as to
mitigate the associated security concerns. The Individual’s involvement with marijuana, on the
other hand, was not so infrequent. He purchased it every one-to-three months, and at times, he
used it every day of the week. It did not occur under any exceptional circumstances, but rather was
a regular part of the Individual’s social life and daily routine for approximately 17 years. Although
the Individual testified he has not used marijuana since November 2022, which might be so long
ago as to resolve any doubts about his current reliability and good judgment, the absence of
sufficient corroborating evidence prevents me from crediting his testimony, particularly in light of
the unfavorable circumstances described in the preceding paragraph.
For the foregoing reasons, I find the Individual has failed to resolve the concerns raised by the
LSO under Guideline H.
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
- 11 -
considering all the relevant information, 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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns
set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns under Guideline E or Guideline H. Accordingly, I
have determined 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.
Matthew Rotman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals