PSH-25-0165

*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 9, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0165
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 5, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 is employed by a DOE contractor in a position requiring a security clearance.
Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.2 During a 2024 investigation into the Individual’s background, two sources
revealed to the investigator that the Individual had banned himself from casinos because he was
gambling too frequently. Ex. 10 at 142, 144. One source reported that the Individual’s girlfriend
had recently died and that the Individual was “consistently thinking about his girlfriend and basing
his life around her death.” Id. at 145. He added that the Individual “shuts down in stressful
situations.” Id.
Upon learning this information, the local security office (LSO) requested that the Individual
respond to a letter of interrogatory (LOI), which the Individual completed on November 22, 2024.
Ex. 6. In his response, the Individual acknowledged playing slot machines at casinos regularly
since April 2017. Id. at 25. He claimed he had never engaged in other types of gambling, such as
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 -
cards or sports betting. Id. When asked why he gambled, the Individual explained that he was
“bored,” that gambling was “fun,” and that he “thought [he] could win money.” Id. at 25, 28. He
reported spending approximately $300 per gambling session but insisted that he would “pay [his]
bills first” and only gamble with the money left over. Id. at 25–26. According to the Individual,
gambling had never caused him financial difficulties. Id. at 27. Nonetheless, he wanted to quit
because, as he explained, “I liked having money in my pocket and being able to go out with friends
when invited.” Id. at 25. The Individual reported having attended Gamblers Anonymous (GA)
meetings in 2020. Id. at 30. He also acknowledged banning himself from casinos in 2022 in order
to help break what was then a daily gambling habit. Id. at 24, 29. At the time of responding to the
LOI, he had reduced his gambling frequency from daily to once per week and was hoping to cut
the habit completely. Id. at 25.
The Individual also acknowledged struggling with his mental health after his girlfriend’s recent
death. Id. at 30. “I shut down [in] stressful situations,” he reported, “so I can figure out away [sic]
to fix the situation without making it worse.” Id. To manage his symptoms, he stated, he would
engage in activities like going for walks, “stopping to regrouyp [sic]”, or “hanging out with
friends.” Id. at 32. The Individual had met with a therapist at work on three occasions in 2024. Id.
at 30. He had not been diagnosed with a mental health condition. Id. at 31.
On January 7, 2025, the Individual underwent an evaluation with a DOE-contracted psychiatrist
(DOE Psychiatrist). Ex. 7 at 41. The DOE Psychiatrist reviewed the Individual’s personnel security
file and conducted a 2.25-hour clinical interview with the Individual. Id. During the interview, the
Individual reported that his therapy sessions at work helped him to grieve his girlfriend, who had
died in February 2024. Id. at 42. He had also attended an online faith-based grief group. Id. As to
his gambling, the Individual reported that he continued to spend approximately $300 weekly and
acknowledged spending $500 at a casino the prior evening. Id. at 43. He had successfully limited
his gambling after his girlfriend died, reporting that he “barely went” to the casino until December
2024, when he went two or three times. Id. at 44. He then vowed to stop gambling again at the
beginning of 2025, but his abstinence lasted only one week. Id. His gambling had previously
caused him to accumulate significant credit card debt, but he had since cut up his credit cards and
paid the balances. Id. He found GA helpful when he attended for approximately one month in
2020,3 but had not attended since. Id. He admitted that seeing the bright lights of a casino is “a
trigger,” which he can only avoid by refraining from driving near them. Id. at 45. He had
considered giving control of his money to a family member to prevent him from spending at
casinos, but he had not done so. Id.
The DOE Psychiatrist found the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of Gambling
Disorder, Persistent, Moderate, pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders – Fifth Edition – Text Revision. Id. This is a condition that impairs his stability and
judgment, the DOE Psychiatrist opined, and is likely exacerbated by unresolved grief from his
girlfriend’s death. Id. at 48. The DOE Psychiatrist stated that to address the condition, the
Individual should attend the eight annual counseling sessions available to him at work, followed
by monthly counseling outside of work. Id. He should also attend GA meetings three times per
week for one year, with at least some in-person, obtain a sponsor, and work the twelve steps. Id.
3 The DOE Psychiatrist’s report said “2022,” but as confirmed in both the Individual’s LOI response and his hearing
testimony, the correct year was “2020,” prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ex. 6 at 30; Tr. at 16.
- 3 -
As an alternative to GA, the Individual could attend SMART Recovery4 or a similar program,
which must also include some in-person sessions and documentation of his progress. Id. The DOE
Psychiatrist gave the Individual a “good” prognosis for recovering from the unresolved
bereavement, and a “poor” prognosis for stopping gambling unless he fully invests in his recovery.
Id.
On April 14, 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 6–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline I
(Psychological Conditions) 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. 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 eleven exhibits (Ex.
A–K). At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and called his therapist as a
witness. Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0165 (Tr.) at 10, 69. The LSO offered the
testimony of the DOE Psychiatrist. Id. at 90.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline I as the basis for its substantial doubt concerning the Individual’s
eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5. Pursuant to Guideline I, “[c]ertain emotional, mental,
and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 27. One condition that could raise a security concern under Guideline I is “an
opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition that may
impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Id. at ¶ 28(b). According to the LSO,
the Guideline I concerns were raised by the DOE Psychiatrist’s diagnosis of the Individual with
Gambling Disorder, Persistent, Moderate. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline I is
justified.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
4 Self Management and Recovery Training (SMART) Recovery is a program that
uses a four point system to Build and Maintain Motivation, Cope with Triggers and Urges, Manage
Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors, and strive to Live a Balanced Life. SMART is focused on
empowering individuals to take ownership of their own recovery through the development of
emotional intelligence and advanced coping skills.
Ex. F (letter from SMART Recovery counselor dated November 24, 2025).
- 4 -
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
The Individual has long known that gambling was a problem for him. Tr. at 11. In 2020, he briefly
participated in GA, although he continued to gamble on a daily basis. Id. at 51, 56 (testifying, “I
hadn’t fully committed to stopping gambling”). The Individual abstained from gambling for
multiple years during the COVID-19 pandemic when the casinos were closed. Id. at 50. When the
casinos reopened in approximately 2022, the Individual resumed gambling, but quickly realized
he “wanted better for himself” and to stop “throw[ing] his money away.” Id. at 12, 51.
Accordingly, he made the decision “self-ban” himself from the casinos, which meant he would be
escorted off the property if caught entering and would have to forfeit any winnings. Id. at 12–13,
51. The self-ban helped him to reduce his gambling frequency, but he continued to visit the casinos,
even gambling at the slot machines outside the front entrance. Id. at 13.
The Individual testified that his last time gambling was on January 6, 2025. Id. at 10. “January 7th
is the first day of my recovery” he testified. Id. at 48. “That was the first day that I made the
determination that I wasn’t going to gamble anymore.” Id. In February 2025, he began attending
GA meetings twice per week. Id. One weekly meeting is online, he testified, and the other is in
person. Id. at 19; but see Ex. B (undated letter from an individual who the Individual testified was
his sponsor, indicating the Individual “has been attending GA meetings over the telephone
weekly”); Ex. K (typewritten log showing only five “In Person” meetings since February 2025 and
more than 80 by telephone). He does not attend three meetings per week as recommended by the
DOE Psychiatrist, he testified, “[b]ecause in my area, we only have Gamblers Anonymous twice
a week.” Tr. at 20. In April 2025, he obtained a sponsor, who helps him to set goals and holds him
accountable. Id. at 17–19. He speaks to his sponsor daily. Id. at 16–18. He is currently working
“Step 10” of the twelve steps. Id. at 16. Because of his work in GA, he asserted, he has developed
better problem-solving and social skills, his “train of thought is no longer clouded,” he has “better
judgment,” and he’s “learned to take it one day at a time.” Id. at 22, 24. He’s come to understand
the cascade of financial hardship that could result if he continued taking on gambling debt. Id.
- 5 -
Most importantly, he has learned that “the casino’s not a good place to be in, that nothing good
can happen in that place.” Id. He intends to continue participating in GA, he testified, “[p]robably
for the rest of my life, because it gives me strength to continue to not place a bet.” Id. at 18.
In April 2025, the day after receiving the DOE Psychiatrist’s report, the Individual began attending
SMART Recovery. Id. at 14, 19–20, 25; Ex. F. He attends one session per week. Tr. at 26. He
testified that he likes SMART Recovery “a little bit more [than GA] because it’s more therapy
based.” Id. at 25. In SMART Recovery, he explained, he learns how to be mindful, how to avoid
acting on anger, how to “live in the moment,” and how to combat his impulse to visit the casino.
Id. at 28–30. In a letter dated November 24, 2025, the Individual’s SMART Recovery counselor
described the Individual as “a positive, thoughtful and contributing member of our group. He
shows a strong desire for personal growth and development of insight since first attending our
meetings and is always a valued member of our group.” Ex. F. The Individual intends to continue
participating in SMART Recovery “no matter what.” Tr. at 31.
The Individual has seen three therapists to help treat his Gambling Disorder. Id. at 14–15. He met
with the first therapist for eight sessions between April and July 2025, which was the total number
of sessions his insurance would cover. Id. at 36–38. In a letter dated August 5, 2025, this therapist
reported that the Individual “has consistently been open and cooperative in his sessions and
demonstrates good insight into the importance of making positive choices and maintaining a strong
support system to help him do so.” Ex. E at 1. She further reported that “over the course of
treatment [he] has managed to pay off $9,000 in credit card debt and began to add to his savings.”
Id.
Beginning in May 2025, the Individual attended eight sessions with the therapist at work. Ex. G at
1 (letter from the therapist dated November 19, 2025). In these sessions, the therapist indicated,
the Individual addressed his “gambling disorder and recovery and accompanying topics such as
grief and loss, strengthening coping tools for stress management, and frustration management.”
Id. According to the therapist, the Individual demonstrated consistent insight and reflection. Id. at
2. She referred him to an external individual therapist in July 2025, and subsequently closed out
his case. Id.
In September 2025, the Individual began seeing his current therapist, whom he meets with twice
per month. Tr. at 40. The Individual testified that they do not frequently discuss his gambling
“because it’s not an issue at this point.” Id. at 41. Rather, they focus on mindfulness techniques.
Id. On the contrary, the therapist testified that addressing the Individual’s gambling is one of the
two main goals of their therapy, the other being to address the Individual’s trauma from the loss
of his girlfriend. Id. at 71, 83. The therapist agrees with the DOE Psychiatrist’s diagnosis. Id. at
71–72. He has been pleased to observe the Individual’s positive attitude toward treatment and the
strong support system he has established. Id. at 72. He encourages the Individual to attend his GA
and SMART Recovery meetings regularly, including talking to his sponsor. Id. at 75. He believes
the Individual “still has work to do” in his recovery, but that he is “well-positioned to keep doing
that work.” Id. at 78. He estimated that, to meet his therapeutic plan for the Individual, it will take
at least six additional months of therapy sessions. Id. at 82; see also id. at 72 (testifying that after
just seven sessions, “we’re just barely getting into like the meat of the – the actual therapeutic
process”). He characterized the Individual’s risk of relapse as “moderate.” Id. at 84–85 (explaining
- 6 -
that he “needs more time with the supports that he has, but he’s – he’s quickly going to work that
down”).
The Individual testified that he used to gamble as a way to “escape” from his problems, but he has
since learned to address problems head-on when they arise. Id. at 44–45. He no longer feels the
urge to gamble, and he can even drive past a casino without feeling the urge to go inside. Id. at 45.
To address his boredom, he has developed a number of hobbies including writing, repairing
electronics, working on his car, doing yardwork, going to church, meditating, and caring for his
elderly grandparents, with whom he lives. Id. at 46, 48. Between all these activities and attending
his recovery programs, he stated, “I don’t have time to twiddle my hands.” Id. The Individual’s
support system consists of his GA sponsor, his uncle, and especially his aunt. Id. at 47, 57. If he
were to gamble again, he would tell his aunt, and she would “probably take me to talk to my
sponsor face-to-face, or she would drag me to a Gamblers Anonymous program.” Id. at 47. In
addition, the Individual testified, his grandfather does not allow him out of the house unless he is
with friends or family members, because he doesn’t want the Individual to succumb to temptation.
Id. at 64–65. The Individual testified that during the last year, he paid off $9,000 in credit card
debt, he went from five credit cards to one, which he pays off every month, and he began adding
to his savings. Id. at 23. He is working toward having his own residence. Id. at 52.
The Individual believes his current period of abstinence is different from his previous period
during the COVID-19 pandemic because it is driven by personal choice and a desire for self-
improvement, he has surrounded himself with a robust support system, and he knows how to better
manage his time and well-being. Id. at 51–52, 60. “It’s taken a lot of work and a lot of dedication,”
he testified. Id. at 24–25. “I’m determined to – to stay out of the casino for the rest of my life
because I know how unhappy I was in that place.” Id.
At the recommendation of a lawyer, the Individual underwent an evaluation by his own
psychiatrist. Id. at 41–42; Ex. D. In a letter dated May 3, 2025, the psychiatrist diagnosed the
Individual with Pathological Gambling, in early remission. Ex. D at 1. According to the
psychiatrist, the Individual “has made a successful effort to stop gambling and is committed to
remain sober.” Id. at 2. He stated that the Individual reported “that he is now on a budget and is
paying off his past debts.” Id. He further noted that the Individual had a relapse prevention plan in
place, and he encouraged the Individual to stay in therapy for 12 months and to continue
participating in his support and recovery groups. Id.
In his testimony, the DOE Psychiatrist confirmed that a Gambling Disorder is a “lifetime
condition,” but that the Individual can take steps to demonstrate rehabilitation. Tr. at 93. As of the
hearing, the Individual was on the path to fulfilling those steps. Id. at 94–96. He credited the
Individual’s strong support system and strong personal commitment to abstain from gambling. Id.
at 95. The Individual has “not yet” demonstrated rehabilitation from his Gambling Disorder, he
opined, but “he’s on the way.” Id. at 96. According to the DOE Psychiatrist, if the Individual
continues on his current track, he will have demonstrated rehabilitation by “May or June of 2026.”
Id. at 98. At that point, he explained, the Individual will have been in SMART Recovery for one
year and will have completed six additional months under his therapeutic plan. Id. As of the
hearing, he testified, the Individual had not yet fully reaped the benefits of therapy, because he
hadn’t yet explored the “trauma topics” that the DOE Psychiatrist believes “have some
- 7 -
contribution to his gambling.” Id. at 98–99. The DOE Psychiatrist was encouraged to hear that the
Individual recognizes his recovery will be a continuing effort. Id. at 100. At the same time, he
opined, “the severity of his gambling addiction is such that if he dropped treatment, his risk for
returning to old patterns is high.” Id. at 101.
V. ANALYSIS
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline I include:
(a) the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the
individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the
treatment plan;
(b) the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently
receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly
qualified mental health professional;
(c) recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s
previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability
of recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has
been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional
instability;
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
The Individual’s condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the Individual has taken
admirable steps to begin treating it. He has attended therapy sessions since April 2025 to address
his Gambling Disorder, and by his own account, his gambling is “not an issue at this point.” But
according to the testimony of his own therapist, the Individual “still has work to do” and has only
“barely” begun to embark on the therapeutic plan. The DOE Psychiatrist concurred that at least six
additional months of therapy are necessary to demonstrate rehabilitation. Thus, at this early stage
of the Individual’s therapeutic treatment, he is unable to show “ongoing and consistent compliance
with the treatment plan.”
As for the additional steps the Individual has taken since he last gambled in January 2025, I was
impressed by the Individual’s account of the growth he has undergone, his reported success in
staying away from the casino, and his active involvement in GA and SMART Therapy.
Unfortunately, the record is not sufficiently developed for me to fully credit his efforts. The
Individual failed to present any witnesses who could corroborate his GA participation,5 the
personal and financial strides he has made, and his abstinence from gambling for the past year.
The lack of corroboration is troubling, particularly in light of multiple inconsistencies in the record
5 The typewritten attendance log, which appears to have been prepared by the Individual himself, and the letter from
an individual purported to be the Individual’s sponsor, do not provide me with an adequate basis to credit the
Individual’s account. See Ex. B; Ex. K.
- 8 -
that raise questions about the Individual’s candor. First, while the Individual testified that he
attends one in-person and one telephonic GA meeting every week, the documentary evidence he
submitted tends to undermine that claim. Second, the record contains inconsistent accounts of the
Individual’s finances. In his November 2024 LOI response, the Individual denied that gambling
had caused him any financial difficulty and claimed he would only gamble with money “left over”
after paying his bills. Less than two months later, he told the DOE Psychiatrist that he had accrued
“increasing gambling debts” on his credit cards, but had since paid the balances and destroyed the
cards. His therapist contradicted this claim yet again when, in her August 2025 letter, she stated
he had just paid off $9,000 in gambling-related credit card debt during the course of their treatment,
which began in April 2025. The Individual’s psychiatrist’s May 2025 letter also indicated that the
Individual was in the process of paying off his past debts. The Individual failed to submit credit
card statements or other evidence that could resolve the discrepancy. In light of the foregoing, I
am left with an insufficient basis to credit the Individual’s account of his recovery efforts to date.
The Individual has failed to resolve the concerns arising from his Gambling Disorder under the
mitigating conditions set forth in paragraph (a).
The Individual has similarly not met the conditions set forth in paragraph (b). Although he
voluntarily entered into treatment for his Gambling Disorder, he has not yet received a favorable
prognosis. Rather, both mental health experts who testified at the hearing opined that the Individual
requires an additional six months of treatment to demonstrate rehabilitation or recovery.
Regarding the conditions set forth in paragraph (c), the record does not contain the opinion of a
mental health professional that the Individual’s Gambling Disorder is under control or in
remission, or that it has a low probability of recurrence. Both the Individual’s therapist and the
DOE Psychiatrist testified that, in spite of the positive steps the Individual has taken, his treatment
has not progressed far enough to indicate a low risk of relapse.
As to the conditions set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e), the DOE Psychiatrist confirmed that
Gambling Disorder is a “lifetime condition,” which both experts agreed the Individual had not
fully resolved. Accordingly, neither of these mitigating conditions is present.
For the foregoing reasons, I find the Individual has failed to resolved the concerns raised by the
LSO under Guideline I.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
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 I. Accordingly, I have determined
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.
- 9 -
Matthew Rotman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals