PSH-25-0184

*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: August 19, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0184
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 16, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 that requires a security clearance.
The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) received information that a state court had issued several
orders of protection against the Individual in 2024 and 2025. Based on that information and the
allegations supporting the orders, the LSO informed the Individual in a Notification Letter that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a
security clearance. 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 J of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. 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 review
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of
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 -
his supervisor, the attorney that represented him during the protective order hearings (hearing
attorney), a criminal defense attorney, and his licensed therapist (therapist). See Transcript of
Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0184 (Tr.). The Individual submitted fourteen exhibits, marked
Exhibits A through N. The LSO submitted fourteen exhibits, marked Exhibits 1 through 14.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) as the basis for concern
regarding the Individual’s eligibility to possess a security clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.
Guideline J provides that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability,
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. “By its very nature, it calls into question a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Id. Conditions that
could raise a security concern include “[e]vidence (including, but not limited to, a credible
allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether
the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted . . . .” Id. at ¶ 31(b). The SSC cited
the following bases for its concern, verbatim:
A. On November 21, 2024, the [local law enforcement] filed an incident report for
allegations of Sexual Misconduct against [the Individual] resulting in the issuance
of two Temporary Orders of Protection.
B. On November 22, 2024, [a district court] . . . filed an Order of Protection from
Domestic Abuse, a Temporary Order of Protection, and an Order to Appear against
[the Individual].
C. On November 26, 2024, a forensic interview of [the Individual’s] minor child was
conducted at [a treatment center] . . . . . During that interview, [the Individual’s]
child stated her father would fondle his genitals and walk around naked in front of
her and her siblings, he would touch her on the thigh, and she did not feel safe
around him alone. Furthermore, she was concerned for the safety of her younger
sibling due to witnessing [the Individual] pulling the younger sibling onto his
stomach in bed and pushing her down to his navel.
D. On December 3, 2024, a forensic interview of [the Individual’s] minor child was
conducted at [a treatment center] in which the forensic interviewer discussed a
family drawing, drawn by the youngest child, depicting four family members
dressed and another naked with an erect penis. Based on the strong reaction by the
child to the drawing, the interviewer was confident that the child was exhibiting
signs of grooming and coaching by a sexual predator.
E. On January 30, 2025, during a final hearing by the [district court] . . . , the court
concluded that [the Individual] committed Acts of Domestic Abuse against his
2 References to the LSO exhibits are to the exhibit number and the page number of the combined .pdf of the exhibit
book.
- 3 -
spouse and minor children, and the judge granted two Orders of Protection. Based
on a preponderance of evidence presented during two hearings [in December 2024
and January 2025], the court determined that an incident of stalking or sexual
assault, physical harm, severe emotional distress, and harm or threatened harm to
children occurred. Furthermore, testimony by a [treatment center investigator and
local agency case agent] was found to be credible and supported the finding that
[the Individual] emotionally and physically abused his children.
Ex. 1 at 6 (internal citations omitted).
The cited information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J.
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 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 his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
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
The Individual and his wife married in 2008. Tr. at 89–90. They have three minor children. Id. at
89. In November 2022, they began church- administered marriage counseling because, according
to the Individual, his wife wanted to live a different, separate life and go back to school. Id. at 96,
119. According to the Individual, his wife decided to discontinue counseling and end the marriage
in January 2023. Id. at 90. Upon making that decision, she moved to a different state. Id. They
separated in February 2023. Id. In an effort to maintain his relationship with their children, the
Individual asked his wife to come back while he pursued employment in the other state, which she
- 4 -
did in mid-March 2023. Id. at 91. According to the Individual, that same month his wife sent him
a letter that provided her reasoning for wanting primary custody of the children that did not
reference any abuse or sexual impropriety. Id. at 97; see Ex. I at 56 (an unsigned and undated letter
which the Individual purported was authored by his wife).
In May 2023, his wife filed for divorce and moved from their shared home into a different
residence in the same state. Tr. at 92; Ex. 9 at 63. The Individual successfully found a job in the
other state and moved there in June 2023, expecting his wife to also move back to that state based
on their agreement. Tr. at 93. However, the wife did not move back to that state. Id. The Individual
reported that she told him that she would not move until she was satisfied with the terms of the
divorce, including sole physical custody of their children. Id. at 93–94.
Since filing for divorce, his wife consistently sought full physical custody while the Individual
sought equal custody. Id. at 95. They unsuccessfully participated in divorce mediation in October
2023 and November 2023. Id. at 101. The wife then requested a custody consultation
(Consultation) in November 2024, which allows the court to engage “an advisor that does
interviews with . . . both parents and sometimes the kids” to give the court advice regarding a
potential custody arrangement.3 Id. at 98. Six days later, the Individual’s wife filed the petition for
order of protection from domestic abuse referenced in the SSC alleging sexual misconduct and
psychological abuse towards herself and their children. Ex. 9 at 69, 71. The petition contained
allegations that the Individual manipulated his wife into sexual intercourse by using religion to
“push . . . his physical needs” on her, which escalated to initiating sexual intercourse while she
was asleep without her consent. Id. at 71. She also asserted that he would fondle his genitals around
the children and expose himself to their daughter, and the children reported that he continued to
do so after their separation. Id.
The court issued a temporary protection order on the same day the wife filed the petition. Id. at 63,
66. A hearing to determine whether to extend the order occurred on December 12, 2024, and
January 30, 2025. Ex. 8 at 42. Both the Individual and his wife were represented by counsel at that
hearing. Id. at 47. Afterward, the court issued two orders of protection against the Individual—one
covering his wife for a year and the other covering the children for six months.4 Id. at 44–45.
The orders were accompanied by the court’s findings and decision. Id. at 47–48. The decision
indicated that the court had received evidence from a forensic investigator and a case agent in
addition to the Individual and his wife and found, among other things, that the Individual engaged
in sexual contact with two of their minor children, sexually inappropriate conduct in front of all
three children, and “unwanted sexual contact and sexual intercourse” with his wife “throughout
the duration of their marriage.” Id. In reaching its conclusions, the court referenced that the
Individual fondled his genitals in front of his children and exposed himself on multiple occasions
by walking in the home in front of the children fully naked, which made the children
3 The Consultation occurred on January 2, 2025. Tr. at 99. The Individual testified that his wife brought the petition
for temporary order of protection to the Consultation and, as a result, the Consultation recommended that the wife
have sole custody of the children. Id. at 99–100.
4 The order of protection in the record identifies the protected parties as the wife and their three children. Ex. 8 at 43.
The second order of protection referenced in the record does not appear to be included as an exhibit, however, the
included order of protection references a “related 1-year order” issued on behalf of his wife. Id.
- 5 -
uncomfortable. Id. at 48. The court specifically concluded that the Individual was not credible and
that the wife was credible. Id. Accordingly, the court issued the orders of protection finding that
the Individual committed “acts of domestic abuse” against his wife and their children. Id. at 49.
While the evidence the forensic investigator and case agent provided during the hearing is not
included in the record, the record contains a police report from a November 26, 2024, interview
with a forensic investigator who interviewed the eldest child. Ex. 8 at 59. The forensic investigator
reported the eldest daughter’s statements that the Individual would fondle his genitals, that he
would walk around naked, that he would touch her on the thigh, and that she did not feel safe
around him alone. Id. at 57. She also expressed concern for the safety of her younger sibling due
to witnessing the Individual pulling her younger female sibling onto his stomach in bed and
pushing her down to his navel earlier that month. Id. at 57, 59. The report also indicates that the
youngest child produced a drawing in April 2024 of the family in which every member was clothed
except the father who “is nude with an erect penis.” Id. at 59. Based on the child’s reaction when
questioned about her drawing separately by both the case agent and a forensic investigator, both
were concerned, and the forensic investigator concluded that the child exhibited signs of coaching
by a sexual predator. Id. at 58‒59.
The Individual has consistently denied the allegations contained in the petition. See, e.g., Ex. 9 at
63; Ex. 8 at 41; Tr. at 70. As demonstrated below, he asserted (1) that his wife fabricated the
allegations in order to obtain full custody of their children, (2) the court’s findings were not based
on evidence but rather rubber stamped the petition given the prejudice inherent in the state’s legal
system, and (3) he relied on the bad legal advice of an inexperienced attorney when deciding to
participate in the protective order hearing instead of stipulating to the order without a hearing.
As to the first point, the Individual asserted that his wife had fabricated the allegations by framing
innocuous behavior as inappropriate. Tr. at 129–30. For example, he admitted to placing his hand
down his pants to adjust his genitals after doing yardwork in the heat, which his wife used as an
opportunity to mischaracterize the action as fondling. Id. at 106. Regarding his daughter’s drawing,
he did not deny that she produced it but speculated that she may have been either imitating one of
his wife’s several large nude paintings or her graphic anatomy encyclopedia the children enjoyed
looking at. Id. at 106–07. He also testified that he walked around the home naked “extremely
rarely” when they lived together. Id. at 107. Regarding placing his hand on his eldest daughter’s
thigh in public, he admitted that he had placed his hand on her knee in public but testified that she
never protested it. Id. at 131. He blamed the children’s statements on his wife’s “coaching and
grooming.” Id. at 132.
Furthermore, the Individual presented the testimony of his hearing attorney who stated that the
police completed their investigation into the allegations and declined to file criminal charges
because there was an absence of reliable evidence. Id. at 29. The hearing attorney further testified
that the investigator related that the wife began raising new allegations when she was informed of
the decision to not charge the Individual, which the investigator reportedly perceived as a red flag
since it often occurs when the complainant is not being truthful. Id. at 29–30.
Lastly, the Individual alleged that his wife had not raised any of these allegations before the
November 2024 request for Consultation. Id. at 98. The Individual offered screenshots from a text
- 6 -
message conversation he had with his wife in June 2022 in which he was indignant that she had
expressed empathy for women depicted in a television show who had been subjected to sexual
assault as members of a religious cult. Id. at 103; see Ex. K at 60–61. The Individual became upset
and responded forcefully to his wife’s statement that she felt that their marriage included the
expectation of sex, retorting that she was not forced into marriage and the couple never had sex
absent consent. Tr. at 103–04; Ex. K at 60–61. The wife asserted in response that the Individual
“made it clear” on their honeymoon “what was expected” of a “godly wife” and that although sex
then and since had been “consensual[,]” it was also “a hard and sad realization for our
honeymoon.” Ex. K at 60. He responded to her by stating that she was taking “innocent normal
things like raising your voice when the kids deserve it and [using that action to] say ‘well you’re
kind of a child abuser too.” Id. At the hearing, the Individual testified that the text message
conversation documents his vehement opposition to sexual assault and provides another example
of the wife taking an innocent behavior and attempting to turn it into something more disturbing.
Tr. at 104. However, the conversation also documents that his wife expressed concerns regarding
their sexual relationship during their marriage, starting on their honeymoon, which presumably
occurred near in time to their marriage in 2008.
To undermine the court’s decision, the Individual provided testimony of a criminal defense
attorney who had extensive experience in criminal defense in the jurisdiction where the
Individual’s protection orders originated. Id. at 40–43. She testified that judges in that jurisdiction
“rubber stamp[]” request for protection orders, always granting them “whether it’s valid or not”
because of several high-profile domestic violence incidents where the victims were seen as
receiving insufficient protection from the court system. Id. at 43–45. As such, she stated that the
Individual received poor legal advice to participate in the hearing and should have instead
stipulated to the protective order to avoid the inevitable findings against him. Id. at 44. However,
the criminal defense attorney confirmed that she did not participate in the Individual’s case and
therefore did not interact with the court, the witnesses, or anyone else involved in it. Id. at 64. She
also confirmed that the findings of the court regarding the sexually inappropriate conduct “could
certainly constitute a crime under [the state’s] statute . . . .” Id. at 63.
The Individual also attempted to undermine the court’s decision by asserting that he could not
effectively defend himself due to not having received a copy of the video recordings of his
children’s interviews regarding the allegations. Id. at 26. The hearing attorney testified that the
Individual’s case was his first of that kind and that he did not seek to obtain the video interviews
of the children ahead of the hearing. Id. at 27, 31–32. There is no dispute that the video recording
would have provided the opportunity to prepare a defense to the allegations contained in the
petition, including determining whether the interviews were tainted by the interviewer. Id. at 47,
55 (criminal defense attorney testifying “that children are very susceptible to taint”); see also id.
at 30 (hearing attorney testifying that the investigator gave the impression that the wife initially
made the allegations in front of the children). The Individual testified that he should have stipulated
to the order without a hearing and regrets listening to the poor advice from his inexperienced
attorney. Id. at 108.
Turning to the Individual’s efforts since the date of the protective order, the Individual started
treatment with his therapist in March 2025 as a result of the stress he experienced related to his
wife’s allegations. Id. at 68. The therapist was unaware at the time of the hearing that the
- 7 -
Individual’s wife had alleged the Individual abused her in their marriage. Id. at 80, 83. The
therapist testified that he consulted with the Individual’s children’s therapist one time, and the
children’s therapist stated that the Individual had admitted the inappropriate behavior and felt there
was nothing wrong. Id. at 75 (referencing the allegations that the Individual “might have
masturbated in front of [his children] or walked naked often in front of them.”). When the therapist
confronted the Individual regarding this information, the Individual denied making any
admissions, which the therapist accepted as true. Id. at 75–76. At the hearing, the Individual also
denied ever admitting to conduct that could be considered inappropriate. Id. at 111. The Individual
stated that the children’s therapist is biased and just “reinforcing the court’s assumptions.” See id.
at 116–17.
The record includes a letter dated February 2026 from the Individual’s pastor in strong support of
the Individual. Ex. F. The pastor detailed how he and church leadership conducted a formal
investigation to determine whether the allegations of abuse were substantiated given the
Individual’s membership in their organization. Id. As a result of that inquiry, which included
speaking to the pastors of the church who provided the Individual and his wife marriage
counseling, attending the initial protective order hearing, reviewing the allegations in support of
the petition, and having discussions with the Individual, the pastor and church leadership
determined that the allegations were unsubstantiated because there was “no evidence” that the
Individual had “violated the law or committed abuse of any kind toward his wife and children.”
Id.
The Individual’s supervisor testified that the Individual is a model employee, a “phenomenal
mentor and coach” to staff, and “very effective, very accomplished in what he does . . . .” Tr. at
14–15, 21.
While the order of protection for the children expired in February 2026, the order for his wife was
set to expire after the hearing in March 2026. Id. at 36–37.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline J Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on criminal conduct include the following:
(a) So much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) The individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life;
(c) No reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
- 8 -
(d) There is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance
with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good
employment record, or constructive community involvement.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
I conclude that none of the above conditions apply to resolve the Guideline J concerns. First,
¶ 32(a) does not apply to resolve the concerns for the following reasons. Approximately one year
has passed since the court issued its decision and final orders in January 2025. And the Individual
has consistently denied the allegations. One year is too short a period to conclude that the serious
criminal conduct, for which the Individual has not taken responsibility, is mitigated by the passage
of time. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of, among other considerations, the
“nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct”). Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record
from which to conclude that the Individual’s alleged conduct resulted from unusual circumstances.
Next, ¶ 32(b) is patently inapplicable because the Individual did not present any evidence to
demonstrate that he was pressured or coerced into committing criminal acts.
Regarding ¶ 32(c), it is inapplicable to resolve the concerns because the record contains reliable
evidence supporting that the Individual committed the offenses alleged in the SSC. A court, after
receiving sworn testimony, concluded that the Individual committed sexual contact with his
children and acts of domestic abuse against his wife and children. I reject the Individual’s argument
that the court’s decision is unreliable based on systemic bias against petition respondents or his
attorney’s deficient advice. There is ample evidence in the record that the children provided
statements supporting the court’s findings and therefore the allegations listed in the SSC.
Furthermore, the conduct was concerning enough that both a forensic investigator and a case agent
sought the assistance of law enforcement and their testimony was credited by the court. Thus, this
does not appear to be a case where the court made an arbitrary decision based on anything other
than the weight of the evidence it received. Finally, given the Individual’s burden, pointing to
deficient legal representation does not demonstrate the court’s decision or underlying evidence is
unreliable. In essence, he argues that if he had stipulated to the issuance of a protective order, the
court would not have been able to make actual findings regarding the allegations, and therefore
there would be an insufficient basis to conclude his conduct presented a security concern.
However, that conclusion is speculative. Even if he had stipulated to the issuance of a protective
order, the court would have still issued it presumably supported by the petition that contains the
allegations that presently present a security concern. Furthermore, the fact that he was not able to
prepare a proper defense does not establish that the information in the record is unreliable. What
would have resulted from obtaining those recordings is speculative. Finally, the screenshots of the
text communications between the Individual and his wife undermine his credibility because they
directly contradict his assertions that his wife never brought up any allegations of inappropriate
sexual behavior prior to their present custody dispute. It instead demonstrates that, back in 2022,
she expressed concern regarding his sexual behavior and consent during their relationship.
My findings do not ignore the dubious timing of the wife’s petition and allegations in relation to
seeking custody. However, any doubt raised by this timing does not outweigh the evidence in the
- 9 -
record referenced above. I also place minimal weight on the fact that law enforcement decided not
to file charges. Setting aside the explanation provided by the hearing attorney, there are any
number of reasons why law enforcement may have decided not to file charges against the
Individual. There is no way to determine whether the investigator told the hearing attorney the true
rationale. Even if the investigator had been candid, it does not outweigh the substantial, reliable
information in the record that supports the allegations contained in the SSC.
Finally, ¶ 32(d) does not apply to resolve the concerns because the record does not demonstrate
successful rehabilitation. Rehabilitation begins with an individual acknowledging and accepting
that they engaged in concerning behavior. Here, there is no evidence of that. The Individual has
consistently denied any inappropriate behavior toward his wife or children. However, even if he
had acknowledged and accepted responsibility for his conduct, the passage of time has been
minimal. See supra. The fact that he has not engaged in criminal activity and has continued his
positive employment record for that brief period does not resolve the concerns. Furthermore, there
is no evidence of constructive community involvement, job training, higher education, or
restitution during the relevant period.
The Individual has therefore not resolved the Guideline J security concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I conclude that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
Guideline J security concerns. 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.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals