PSH-25-0159

*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: July 2, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0159
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 7, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
Andrew Dam, Administrative Judge
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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
The Individual received a security clearance in conjunction with his employment with a DOE
contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6. 2 In April 2025, the Individual submitted to a random drug screen
with the DOE contractor and tested positive for marijuana metabolite. Ex. 4 at 17–18.
Subsequently, the local security office (LSO) informed the Individual by letter (Notification
Letter) that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility
to hold a security clearance. Ex. 1 at 6–8. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled
Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised
security concerns under Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5. The SSC also
explained that the Individual was subject to the Bond Amendment, which disqualifies an unlawful
user of a controlled substance or addict from holding a security clearance. Id.
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 Exhibits 1 through 5 submitted by the DOE were submitted as a single PDF, Bates numbered in the upper right
corner of each page. This Decision will refer to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by the DOE.
- 2 -
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 review hearing.
At the hearing, the Individual testified and presented the testimony of three witnesses: his first-
line supervisor (Supervisor 1); his second-line supervisor (Supervisor 2); and the DOE contractor’s
health and safety manager for the facility (H&S Manager). Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No.
PSH-25-0159 (Tr.) at 3. The LSO presented no additional witnesses. Id. The LSO submitted five
exhibits (Ex. 1–5). The Individual submitted three separate exhibits that I have deemed as Exhibits
A, B, and C. Tr. at 8.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The relevant provisions of the Bond Amendment provide that “the head of a [f]ederal agency may
not grant or renew a security clearance for a covered person who is an unlawful user of a controlled
substance or an addict.” 50 U.S.C. § 3343(b); see also DOE Order 472.2A, Personnel Security,
Appendix C: Adjudicative Considerations Related to Statutory Requirements and Departmental
Requirements (June 10, 2022). An addict is defined as an “individual who habitually uses any
narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare; or is so far addicted
to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.”
50 U.S.C. § 3343(b) (incorporating by reference the definition found at 21 U.S.C. § 802(1); see
also DOE Order 472.2A, Appendix C at ¶ 2 (citing the Bond Amendment). The DOE policy
implementing the Bond Amendment defines “an unlawful user of a controlled substance” as
follows:
An unlawful user of a controlled substance is any person who uses a controlled
substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of the
controlled substance or who is a current user of the controlled substance in a manner
other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use
of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather
that the unlawful use occurred recently enough to indicate the individual is actively
engaged in such conduct.
DOE Order 472.2A, Appendix C at ¶ 2. A controlled substance is any substance listed as a
controlled substance by 21 U.S.C. § 802. 50 U.S.C. § 3343(a)(1); DOE Order 472.2A, Attachment
8 at 8-2; see also 21 U.S.C. § 812 (listing tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) as a controlled substance,
except for THC in hemp as defined under 7 U.S.C. § 1639o).3
Under Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines, the illegal use of controlled substances “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 under Guideline H include “testing positive for
an illegal drug” and “any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding
a sensitive position[.]” Id. at ¶ 25(b), (f). In invoking Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines,
3 Hemp products are further defined as products from “the plant Cannabis sativa L. . . . with a delta-9 [THC]
concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1).
- 3 -
the LSO cited the Individual “test[ing] positive for marijuana metabolite on a random drug test for
his employment . . .” in April 2025. Ex. 1 at 5. Given this positive drug test, I find the LSO’s
invocation of the Bond Amendment and Guideline H to be justified.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires a Decision to reflect
comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all of the relevant evidence,
favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting or continuation of a person’s access
authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the
national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory standard implies that there is a presumption
against granting or restoring a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard for granting security clearances
indicates “that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont
v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a
security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting her eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
a. Individual’s Provision of False Information to Obtain his Security Clearance
On January 27, 2022, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions
(QNSP) as part of his security clearance application. Ex. 5 at 76. In the QNSP, the Individual
marked “No” when asked whether he had used illegal drugs in the last seven years and further
certified his responses were “true, complete, and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief
and [were] made in good faith.” Id. at 69, 76.4 The question regarding his drug use would have
covered any drug use occurring after January 27, 2015. Id. at 69.
“[A]fter testing positive for THC . . . at work[,]” the Individual underwent an intake evaluation
with an addiction counselor from a recovery program (Recovery Program); the Individual
submitted a letter dated May 6, 2025, authored by the addiction counselor and summarizing the
intake evaluation. See Ex. A at 1–2. According to the counselor’s evaluation, the Individual
4 The certification also included an acknowledgment that the provision of false statements could negatively impact his
eligibility to hold a security clearance. Ex. 5 at 76.
- 4 -
reported using marijuana about two times per month from the ages of 17 to 19 and that he “‘tried’
LS[D] & psychedelics once at age 19 . . . .” Id. at 1; see also Tr. at 57 (Individual’s testimony
admitting that at this time he used marijuana once per week with friends). The Individual was born
in early 1998, meaning he was 17 in early 2015 and 19 in early 2017. Ex. 5 at 40. Accordingly,
such drug use from 2015 through 2017 fell squarely within the 2022 QNSP’s requirement that he
report any drug use after January 27, 2015. Id. at 69.
At the hearing, when confronted with this information and asked why he marked “No” when asked
about his drug use in the QNSP, the Individual responded that “the way that the [QNSP] was
explained to me . . . it . . . goes back to 18.” Tr. at 54–55. However, the Individual was further
confronted with the fact that his reported drug use to the addiction counselor covered drug use
after his eighteenth birthday—including his psychedelic use at 19 during his first year of college.
Id. at 55; see also id. at 61. To this, the Individual admitted, “I don’t have . . . an excuse for that.”
Id. The Individual admitted, during the hearing, that when filling out the QNSP, he “definitely
thought about it [his past drug use]” yet still marked “No” when responding. Id. at 56.
The Individual later in the hearing tried explaining that, at the time he filled out the QNSP, his
drug use was long past, that he had quit several years before, and that he thus operated “under the
assumption” that he had not used drugs in the last seven years. Id. at 58–59. I simply cannot credit
this explanation when his earlier testimony provided specific admissions, evincing he more likely
than not deliberately provided false information:
Q. Okay . . . when you read the question [in the QNSP], do you remember thinking
at all about your drug use from before?
A. I . . . definitely thought about it. Absolutely.
Q. So you definitely thought about it. So, I mean, I know I’m asking you to
speculate a little bit about what you were thinking then, but would you have done
the math, . . . when you were looking at this [QNSP] in 2022?
A. A . . . quick [ ] you know, thought to it . . . , yes.
Q. Okay.
A. But [–]
Q. So you’re telling me that you would have thought about the math, and . . . you
did think about your drug use[,] but you still marked no, is that your testimony
today?
A. Yes, sir.
Id. at 56.
b. Individual’s 2025 Positive Drug Test and the Individual’s Explanation
The Individual started working with the DOE contractor in 2021. Ex. 5 at 48; Tr. at 37. The
Individual maintains that he has not used marijuana since working with the DOE contractor, and
that he is not addicted to marijuana. Tr. at 38. On April 23, 2025, the Individual underwent a
random drug test at the direction of his employer, the results of which were positive for marijuana
metabolite. Ex. 4 at 17–19. The LSO subsequently suspended his clearance. Ex. 1 at 6; Ex. 4 at 12.
- 5 -
At the hearing, the Individual testified that his older dog experienced seizures that negatively
affected her joints. Tr. at 39. He described the dog’s seizures as lasting multiple hours during which
she would convulse, lock her joints, and struggle to move after the seizures concluded. Id. at 43.
He further testified that his veterinarian recommended that he try administering cannabidiol (CBD)
products to the dog to treat the seizures, specifically her muscle and joint pain. Id. at 39, 43. The
Individual testified that he first tried administering the CBD product to his dog via gummies and
then switched over to a CBD oil at his veterinarian’s direction. Id. at 39, 42. No dates were
provided for when he started administering CBD to his dog.
The Individual indicated that he bought the CBD oil over the counter at a store. Id. at 42. The
Individual testified that he would apply the CBD oil to the back of his dog’s neck with his hands,
that he neglected washing his hands, and that the CBD oil must have absorbed through his pores.
Id. at 39–40, 42. According to the Individual, his positive drug test must have resulted from such
skin absorption. Id. at 39–40. I have no documentary evidence or expert testimony that would
confirm the credibility of this explanation. Furthermore, in the May 2025 evaluation, the addiction
counselor noted that the Individual “realizes the rationale is far-fetched” though he “sticks to the
story.” Ex. A at 1.
The Individual testified that, upon testing positive, he threw out the bottle of CBD oil. Tr. at 42–
43. The Individual did not submit into evidence the bottle, a picture of the bottle, or similar
evidence to corroborate his claim that he had purchased a CBD product for his dog. He testified
he had not attempted to get high off the CBD oil. Id. at 42.
c. Individual’s Actions after the Positive Drug Result
The Individual’s employer referred the Individual to the Recovery Program. Id. at 45. The
addiction counselor recommended that the Individual “complete some education re[garding] the
nature of common drugs of abuse with focus on THC and CBD, their metabolic process, the
progressive nature of chemical dependence, and with particular focus on High-Risk Decision [sic]
making.” Ex. A at 2.
The Individual submitted, as evidence, another letter from the Recovery Program dated May 21,
2025. Ex. C at 1. The letter states that the Individual “successfully completed 2 total hours of . . .
Substance Abuse Education which included High Risk Decision Making [sic], learning from the
past and moving forward, [ ] the definition of a standard drink and the rate at which the body
processes alcohol, [and] THC and the various CBD products on the market.” Id. The letter also
provides the following:
[The Individual] has the potential to meet expected outcomes in the future and not
repeat any past high[-]risk decisions, and he is motivated and committed to making
low risk choices to maintain his employment . . . . [The Individual] has expressed
his understanding of the material presented and has a settled confidence that he will
continue to move forward.
Id. The Individual testified that he now has a little more education on the use of CBD products and
that it is his future intention to refrain from using CBD products generally. Tr. at 46. The Individual
- 6 -
provided a signed statement of his intention avoid future incidents: “I . . . promise that this incident
will never happen again or anything similar involvement [sic].” Ex. B at 1. The record lacks any
drug testing to corroborate that the Individual has not used marijuana since his positive drug test
result.
d. Character Testimony
Regarding the Individual’s character, his witnesses described him in positive terms. See, e.g., Tr.
at 14 (Supervisor 1 describing the Individual as an “excellent employee”), 27 (Supervisor 2
describing the Individual as a “very good employee”), 34 (H&S Manager describing the Individual
as one of the “best performers here in our staff”). Supervisor 1 and the H&S Manager testified that
they were surprised by the positive drug test and that the result seemed out of character for the
Individual. Id. at 17, 31–32. Furthermore, the witnesses generally testified that they have not
observed the Individual appearing at work under the influence of drugs or having exhibited
behaviors that would lead them to believe the Individual engages in drug use. Id. at 16, 24–25, 32–
33. However, the witnesses have limited interactions with the Individual outside of work. See id.
at 19–20 , 23, 31.
V. ANALYSIS
The Individual maintains that he has not used an illegal drug since 2017 and that the April 2025
random drug test found marijuana metabolite in his system due to him administering a purportedly
legal CBD product to his dog. Without the package or similar evidence, I have no basis to conclude
that the Individual purchased or administered a purportedly legal CBD product to his dog. I also
have no evidence to support that one could even test positive for marijuana metabolite from skin
contact with a product marketed as CBD oil. Instead, I have the Individual’s admission to the
addiction counselor that his story is “far-fetched.” I also have the Individual’s admission that he
deliberately provided false information about his past drug use on his 2022 QNSP.
In closing arguments, it was raised that there might exist due process issues in my consideration
of the Individual’s past drug use and falsification in his 2022 QNSP since they were not raised as
bases for security concern in the SSC. See Tr. at 63–64. To be clear, I am not considering the
Individual’s past drug use and falsification as giving rise to security concerns. Instead, the
Individual’s past drug use and deliberate falsification in his application for access authorization is
probative of the concerns raised in the SSC and central to this proceeding: specifically, (1) whether
the Individual used an illegal drug and (2) whether the Individual is providing a credible
explanation for the positive drug test result. Said another way, that the Individual deliberately
provided false material information in the QNSP tends to show that the Individual would do the
same at the hearing to restore his security clearance.
Here, the record is comprised of (1) a lack of corroborating evidence that the Individual used a
CBD product on his dog, (2) a lack of corroborating evidence that it is possible to test positive for
marijuana metabolite through skin absorption of this purported product, (3) an admission that the
explanation for the positive drug test result is farfetched, and (4) an admission of prior drug use
and false statements made in order to secure a security clearance. I simply cannot credit the
- 7 -
Individual’s explanation that his positive drug test resulted from his administration of a purportedly
legal CBD product to his dog.
a. Bond Amendment
The Bond Amendment provides that Federal agencies “may not grant or renew a security clearance
for a covered person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict.” 50 U.S.C. §
3343(b); see also DOE Order 472.2A, Appendix C. As stated above, I do not credit the Individual’s
dubious explanation for his positive drug test result. Accordingly, his positive drug test for
marijuana metabolite evinces past marijuana use. I also cannot determine that the Individual is not
a current user or addict of marijuana given the lack of drug testing that would substantiate this.
The Individual’s two letters from the Recovery Program lack any indication that the Individual
underwent drug testing when taking his 2-hour drug education and decision-making course. The
Individual’s witnesses testified that drug use would be out of character for the Individual; however,
this testimony has little probative value when they have little interaction with the Individual
outside of work. Last, the Individual submitted a signed statement promising that such incidents
will never happen again. However, his suspect story and concealment of his past drug use in his
2022 QNSP reflect poorly on his credibility. I do not credit his signed statement. Ultimately, the
evidentiary burden rests with the Individual, and that evidentiary burden has not been met with the
evidence and testimony described above. I find the Bond Amendment continues to bar the DOE
from granting the Individual a security clearance.
b. Guideline H
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on drug involvement and substance misuse
include the following:
(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
- 8 -
(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.
Regarding paragraph 26(a), I cannot find that the behavior happened so long ago when the
Individual tested positive for marijuana metabolite in April 2025, which was not even half a year
ago. I cannot make any specific findings as to the circumstances of the Individual’s drug use or
find the behavior infrequent, given that the Individual generally denies any purposeful use of
marijuana leading up to the positive drug result in April 2025. Again, I do not credit his denial of
illegal drug use and explanation for his positive drug test.
However, the Individual admitted to regularly using marijuana from 17 to 19 and using
psychedelics once at 19, all occurring from 2015 through 2017. The Individual deliberately omitted
such information from his 2022 QNSP. The Individual tested positive for marijuana use in April
2025 and now provides a “far-fetched” explanation for the result. I simply cannot find the behavior
unlikely to recur given this pattern. The admission that he deliberately concealed prior drug use in
his 2022 QNSP—in conjunction with his 2025 positive test result and uncredible explanation—
also strongly insinuates a disregard for laws, rules, and regulations and casts doubt on his current
reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Paragraph 26(a) does not apply.
Regarding paragraph 26(b), the Individual has denied drug involvement and substance misuse
despite the evidence from the positive drug test that he had used an illegal drug. Accordingly,
paragraph 26(b) is inapplicable.
Since the concerns are not based on abuse of prescription drugs, paragraph 26(c) is wholly
inapplicable.
Regarding paragraph 26(d), the Individual has put forth some evidence towards the satisfaction of
this mitigating condition. The Individual completed the addiction counselor’s recommended
treatment, specifically the 2-hour educational course through the Recovery Program, and, while
not explicitly providing a prognosis, the Recovery Program concluded that the Individual “ha[d]
potential to meet expected future outcomes” regarding substance misuse following the course. Ex.
A at 1. However, this mitigating condition cannot be met given the lack of documentary evidence
demonstrating that the drug abuse is “without recurrence[.]”
Furthermore, even if the Individual had put forth sufficient evidence to satisfy mitigating condition
(d)—which is simply not the case here—in resolving these concerns, I must consider “[t]he nature,
extent, and seriousness of the conduct” and the “frequency and recency of the conduct[,]” among
other factors. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). Again, the Individual’s explanation for his April 2025 positive
drug result lacks credibility. Record evidence and his testimony also demonstrate that the
Individual previously provided false information about prior drug use that occurred from 2015
through 2017 to secure access authorization in 2022. A 2-hour drug education course provides
little to assuage my concerns about his pattern of drug use and subsequent concealment, which
spanned years and continued up to the day of the hearing. This pattern also demonstrates a
- 9 -
disregard for the clearance process—as well as laws, rules, and regulations—and cannot be
considered minor given such disregard. As such, I cannot find that the Individual has resolved the
Guideline H security concerns.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline H.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked the Bond Amendment
and Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable
and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony
and other evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Bond Amendment continues to bar the
DOE from restoring the Individual’s security clearance and that the Individual has not brought
forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline H concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly,
the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore,
I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. 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