PSH-25-0193

*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 30, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0193
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 13, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Andrew Dam, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (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 estimated she originally obtained access authorization in 2015, in conjunction with
her employment with a DOE contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 7 at 126, 153 (January 2025 Questionnaire
for National Security Positions (QNSP)).2 In August 2024, the Individual entered a Limited Area
at her worksite with her husband’s vehicle. Ex. 6 at 92 (April 2025 response to Letter of
Interrogatory (LOI)) (April 2025 LOI Response). The Individual was unaware that an electronic
location device was in the vehicle, which triggered a security incident. Id. Due to the security
incident, the DOE contractor’s employees conducted a forensic review of her cell phone and found
several text messages referencing her use of illegal drugs while holding a clearance. See Ex. 5 at
33–70. Throughout the period she used illegal drugs and held a clearance, she failed to self-report
her illegal drug use as required by DOE Order 472.2A, Personnel Security, Attachment V –
Reporting Requirements: “The following occurrences/actions must be reported to the appropriate
CPSO [Cognizant Personnel Security Offices] immediately, but in no event later than three (3)
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 10 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 -
working days after the occurrence: . . . The use of any Federally illegal drug . . . .” DOE O 472.2A,
Attach. 5 ¶ 6(e). She also failed to report such drug use when completing a QNSP in April 2020.
Compare, e.g., Ex. 6 at 81 (admitting in her April 2025 LOI Response that she had used cocaine
in March 2020) with Ex. 8 at 169 (responding “No” when asked in the April 2020 QNSP if she
had illegally used any drugs or controlled substances within the last seven years).
In September 2024, the DOE contractor terminated the Individual because of the various instances
of drug use described in the text messages. Ex. 7 at 127.3 The Individual “negotiated voiding [the]
termination” with the DOE contractor, and the DOE contractor reinstated her employment on
“January 13th[,] 2025.” Id. at 126. The Individual submitted another QNSP on January 17, 2025,
wherein she admitted to some drug use but clearly continued obscuring the full extent of her drug
use. Compare id. at 150–51 (January 2025 QNSP in which she only admitted to using a
hallucinogenic “on one occasion” in September 2022) with Ex. 5 at 33 (Individual’s March 2020
text messages about using “molly”4 and “mushrooms” at a birthday party “last night”) and Ex. 6
at 81–83 (admitting to taking “MDMA” in March 2020 and August 2022; cocaine in March 2020;
and hallucinogenic mushrooms “a handful of times” between the “beginning of COVID” and a
September 2022 concert).
Given her apparent drug use and related failures to report, the Local Security Office (LSO)
subsequently issued to the Individual a Notification Letter advising her that it possessed reliable
information creating substantial doubt regarding her eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at
7–9. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E and H of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Id. at 5–6.
The Individual exercised her right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 11–15. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted ten exhibits (Ex. 1–10). The Individual submitted nine exhibits (Ex.
A–I).5 Neither party objected to the admission of the other’s exhibits. The Individual testified and
offered the testimony of one other witness, her supervisor (“Supervisor”). Tr. at 3.
3 The Individual’s security clearance was administratively withdrawn at the time of her termination. See DOE O
472.2A ¶ 4(s) (“In all instances, security clearances must be administratively withdrawn when there is termination of
employment . . . .”); Ex. 3 at 17 (“Subject was granted a DOE Q clearance from 10/1/2015 to 9/20/2024.”).
4 The Individual explained that molly is also known as MDMA. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0193
(Tr.) at 133. MDMA is short for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. See, e.g., United States v. Heard, 62 F.4th
1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2023) (“Federal law prohibits . . . ‘3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).’”)
5 The Individual’s exhibits were submitted as a single PDF file. This Decision will refer to the exhibit letter and PDF
page number when citing to the Individual’s exhibits.
- 3 -
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
a. Guideline H
Guideline H relates to the illegal use of controlled substances, including prescription and non-
prescription drugs. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 24. “The illegal use of controlled substances . . .
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness . . . 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.” Id.6 Conditions that could raise
a security concern under Guideline H include “any substance misuse”; “illegal possession of a
controlled substance . . . .”; and “any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information
or holding a sensitive position[.]” Id. at ¶ 25(a), (c), (f). In citing Guideline H, the LSO relied upon
the Individual’s admissions that she (1) in March 2020 consumed cocaine; (2) in March 2020 and
August 2022 consumed MDMA; and (3) from the start of COVID to September 2022 consumed
hallucinogenic mushrooms a handful of times. Ex. 1 at 6 (citing Ex. 6 at 81–83). Accordingly,
there is sufficient derogatory information in the DOE’s possession to raise security concerns under
Guideline H.
b. Guideline E
Guideline E relates to questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. The refusal to be truthful and
honest during the administrative review process is especially concerning. Id. Conditions that could
raise a concern under Guideline E include the “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification
of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . .” and “deliberately providing false
or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an
employer, investigator, [or] security official . . . involved in making a recommendation relevant to
a national security eligibility determination . . . .”Id. at ¶ 16(a)–(b). In citing Guideline E, the LSO
relied upon the Individual’s (1) acknowledgment that she used illegal drugs while holding a
clearance despite knowing the ramifications on her ability to hold a clearance; (2) failure to report
any of her illegal drug use within three days, as required by DOE O 472.2; (3) failure to report her
drug use in the April 2020 QNSP; and (4) failure to fully report her drug use in the January 2025
QNSP. Ex. 1 at 5–6.7 Accordingly, there is sufficient derogatory information in the DOE’s
possession to raise security concerns under Guideline E.
6 “Controlled substance means any ‘controlled substance’ in 21 U.S.C. [§] 802.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 24
(formatting in original). The schedules of controlled substances include psilocybin, MDMA, and cocaine. See
generally 21 U.S.C. § 812 (cited in 21 U.S.C. § 802); Advanced Integrative Med. Sci. Inst., PLLC v. Garland, 24 F.4th
1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Psilocybin is a hallucinogenic substance obtained from certain mushrooms[ ] and is a
Schedule I drug . . . .”).
7 The SSC incorrectly states that the Individual “answered ‘no’” in the January 2025 QNSP when asked if she had
used illegal drugs in the last seven years. Ex. 1 at 6. However, the Individual acknowledged that she intentionally
documented her drug use inaccurately in the January 2025 QNSP. Ex. 7 at 150–51; Tr. at 47–48; Ex. 6 at 86 (admitting
she “answered [the January 2025 QNSP] incorrectly because she left off her use of cocaine and MDMA as well as
understating her use of hallucinogenic mushroom . . . out of concern for her position”). Accordingly, notwithstanding
the factual error in the SSC, the LSO properly raised Guideline E security concerns associated with the Individual’s
inaccurate reporting of her drug use in the January 2025 QNSP.
- 4 -
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 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).
An 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). An 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. at
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
a. Individual’s Background
The Individual attended college from 2004 to 2009. See Ex. 7 at 124; Ex. E at 43. In college, the
Individual engaged in some marijuana use and consumed and grew hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Tr. at 100–02, 117–19, 154–55; Ex. 6 at 82 (admitting to using hallucinogenic mushrooms in
2006); Ex. 5 at 53 (text message stating, “Plus the spores are legal, right? . . . [My friend] does it
[growing mushrooms] now[,] and I did it in 2006”). At the hearing, she could not specify when
she last used drugs in college. Tr. at 101–02. The Individual maintains that she never used illegal
drugs from her last use in college until March 2020. Id. at 159–60.
The Individual submitted her first QNSP in November 2014 and estimates that she obtained her
clearance sometime in 2015. Ex. 10 at 325–66 (2014 QNSP); Ex. 7 at 153. The 2014 QNSP made
clear that illegal drug use was a concern to the agency: “In the last seven (7) years, have you
illegally used any drugs or controlled substances?” Ex. 10 at 356 (emphasis in original). The
Individual marked, “No” and maintained at the hearing that her drug use in college fell outside the
2014 QNSP’s seven-year reporting window. Id.; Tr. at 101–02.
The Individual married her husband (“Husband”) in 2021, though they began cohabitating in about
October 2019. Ex. 7 at 130; Ex. 8 at 163–64.
- 5 -
b. Individual’s Admitted Drug Use in March 2020 While Holding a Security Clearance
and Her Failure to Report Such Drug Use
The Individual’s April 2025 LOI Response provided the following regarding her March 2020
drug use:
In or around March 2020, [the Individual] was at a friend’s house celebrating
another friend’s birthday in the very early days of COVID. This occurred at a small
gathering of friends and was the only time she used cocaine.
. . .
The first time she took MDMA was in March 2020, at the same gathering as the
cocaine use, at the beginning of COVID.
. . .
Ex. 6 at 81, 83. Three text messages dated March 28, 2020, sent from the Individual’s phone also
reflect that she had hallucinogenic mushrooms that night: (1) “We were celebrating [a friend’s]
birthday in secrecy last night. I had a lot of margaritas and molly”; (2) “And a little bit of
mushrooms”; (3) “And also a little bit of coke now that I think of it.” Ex. 5 at 33–34.
In her April 2025 LOI Response, she answered, “Yes” when asked if she was “aware at the time
that illegally using drugs while holding a clearance/sensitive position was not allowed[.]” Ex. 6 at
88 (formatting omitted). At the hearing, the Individual admitted that she knew she should have
reported her drug use within three business days but acknowledged that she had not. Tr. at 42.
About a month after her March 2020 drug use, in April 2020, the Individual completed another
QNSP, wherein she affirmatively provided false information about her drug use. Ex. 8 at 169
(responding, “No” when asked if she had “[i]n the last seven (7) years, . . . illegally used any drugs
or controlled substances”) (formatting omitted).
When asked about her mindset at the time she used three different illegal drugs in March 2020,
she testified that she had been “drinking,” there was “COVID,” and she was “stressed.” Tr. at 160.
She further indicated that the illegal drugs were “just there” and at the time she was “seeing no
harm done” and thought, “what is the big deal.” Id. at 161. She also attributed her drug use to the
company that she kept at the time: “[T]here’s a lot of . . . I don’t put myself with anymore, . . . but
before that I was hanging out with those people.” Id.
c. Individual’s Continued Illicit Drug Involvement and Continued Failures to Report
According to the Individual, “[t]he last time she took MDMA, half a pill was offered to her at a
friend’s house after a concert in August 2022.” Ex. 6 at 83. Her friends gathered for either a “small
get-together” or “barbeque.” Tr. at 39. Again, “[s]he was curious to try the drug” when she took
it. Ex. 6 at 83. Then, only a month later, in September 2022, she consumed hallucinogenic
- 6 -
mushrooms at another concert with her Husband and her father. Id. at 82. This time, her father had
offered her the drugs. Id.; Tr. at 71–72.
The Individual represented that the September 2022 concert was the last time she consumed
hallucinogenic mushrooms. Ex. 6 at 82; Tr. at 36. The Individual represented that she only
consumed psychedelic mushrooms a “handful” of times—an estimated “five or six times”—
between “COVID” and the September 2022 concert. Ex. 6 at 82; Tr. at 151. The text messages
that the Individual sent suggest that these representations minimized her mushroom use and that
the Individual even went so far as to cultivate and distribute psychedelic mushrooms.
Before reviewing some of the text messages, I must address the probative value of these messages,
which the Individual’s attorney has challenged. At various points, including at the hearing, the
Individual claimed that she was not afforded an opportunity to review the text messages that
precipitated the concerns about her drug use and dishonesty. See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 82 (complaining
that the DOE contractor’s employees “went around the room reading copies of [the Individual’s]
text messages out loud to her and asked her to explain them with little to no context” and that the
Individual “wasn’t provided with a copy to reference at any point”); Tr. at 87 (testifying at the
hearing that this was the “first time I’m seeing several of these [text messages]”). The Individual’s
attorney then argued in closing that the text messages should be given less evidentiary weight
given that the text messages purportedly lacked context, in part because her client lacked an
opportunity to review the text messages from years ago. Tr. at 166–67.
I find this argument unpersuasive. To start, the Individual’s attorney received the DOE exhibit
notebook more than two weeks before the hearing. The Individual and her attorney had sufficient
opportunity to review the exhibits and to prepare to discuss these text messages evincing her drug
use and related dishonesty. Furthermore, the DOE contractor found these text messages in the
Individual’s phone in September 2024. Since 2024, the Individual could have reviewed her own
phone records to determine which of her own messages referenced drug use. The Individual and
her counsel cannot claim the record lacks sufficient “context” about the text messages and attempt
to benefit from that purported lack of “context” when they failed to prepare such “context” for
entry into the record. More importantly, at face value, many of the text messages and text message
threads need no further context; as discussed further below, many of the messages have no other
plausible context except for as evidence of drug use. For those reasons, I find the protestation as
to the probative value of the text messages unavailing and, as explained throughout, I assign the
Individual’s text messages their due value.
The record includes ample evidence that the Individual and her Husband consumed and even grew
mushrooms over an extended period. To start, the Individual exchanged no less than seventeen
text messages with her Husband on September 19, 2020, wherein they discussed the purchase of
mushroom spores from the “dark web” and their plans to grow mushrooms in their home. Ex. 5 at
50–54. When confronted with these messages, the Individual claimed that she and her Husband
were simply “joking” or being “sarcastic or snarky.” Tr. at 103.
However, the extensiveness of the messages and the level of detail—wherein they discussed the
logistics of acquiring spores, growing them into psychedelic mushrooms, legal risks, and future
- 7 -
consumption—undermines any claim that such a conversation was merely a joke. See, e.g.¸ Ex. 5
at 51 (text from Husband to the Individual stating, “Lol spores are legal to sell/buy/possess bc [sic]
they don’t contain any illegal substances, in all but 3 states. [Our home state] is one of them”), 52
(text from the Individual to her Husband emphasizing, “We need some [mushrooms] ready to go
ASAP and some on the back burner, cooking”), 54 (text from the Individual to her Husband stating,
“So next time he [our friend] orders spores, ask if he can get us one?”).
Numerous text messages sent to and from the Individual after this September 2020 discussion
further suggest that she cultivated mushrooms in her home and distributed them to her friends,
further undermining any claim that she and her Husband were merely “joking.” For example, the
Individual sent her Husband a March 2021 text message with a link to a blog on growing “magic”
mushrooms: “This is closure [closer] to how I was taught the [sic] grow.
http://www.zamnesia.com/blog-how-to-grow-magic-mushrooms-indoors-n2060[.]” Id. at 56
(emphasis added).8 Later, on May 16, 2021, the Individual’s friend texted her that she was also
“trying to think of a space in [her] house that would work to grow [mushrooms]” and suggested
that she and the Individual could “eventually just barter strains ;) [winky face]”—evincing that the
Individual had been cultivating and distributing her own “strain” of mushrooms. Id. at 45.9
The text messages continue: On February 22, 2021, she informed her Husband that she had “picked
a couple mushrooms”; later, on May 22, 2021, the Individual and her Husband discussed that their
“new batch” of mushrooms had been “so potent”—both statements implying that she had been
growing “batches” of mushrooms that she would “pick.” Id. at 55, 57. I also consider that the
Individual, in a text thread with her friends, referred to herself as a “shroom mom” in April 2022
and admitted to having previously grown psychedelic mushrooms in college. Ex. 5 at 53, 67.
I also cannot credit that the Individual’s last psychedelic mushroom use occurred in September
2022, as claimed, given the below text message thread between the Individual and her Husband
on August 26, 2023:
• Individual to Husband: “Did you want to take mushrooms?”
• Husband to Individual: “If it [sic] wasn’t on cali [sic].”
• Husband to Individual: “I’m already not in the best shape I’d [sic] I do get called into
work.”
8 The Individual gave an unreliable alternative explanation for sending her Husband the blog about growing magic
mushrooms: “That [blog] would have been for gardening . . . shiitakes . . . but not for illegal growing.” Tr. at 106. But
see id. at 139 (testifying that she and Husband had not grown even non-psychedelic mushrooms in their home).
9 The Individual testified that she had never grown psychedelic mushrooms, never bought them online, and never
bought them from a dispensary. Tr. at 141–42. She testified that she simply “[didn’t] recall” how she procured the
psychedelic mushrooms. Id. However, the text messages clearly indicate that she was providing mushrooms to her
friends. Ex. 5 at 46 (Individual’s text messages asking a couple if they would like her to bring mushrooms to an
October 2021 gathering). The Individual provided no coherent explanation as to how she could have not engaged in
any of the aforementioned methods of procuring psychedelic mushrooms yet somehow have had them on hand for
distribution. Tr. at 141–42. This major inconsistency numbers among many others in the record and further suggests
that the Individual has failed to provide fully forthcoming testimony about her drug involvement.
- 8 -
Id. at 59. The Individual offering her husband mushrooms in 2023 is probative of continued,
regular drug use. When confronted with these text messages at the hearing, the Individual offered
that she and her Husband may have been talking about ordering a “side dish” of mushrooms for
eating. Tr. at 152–53.
I find this explanation dubious. First, considering plain language, people conventionally refer to
using psychedelic mushrooms as “taking mushrooms”—not eating food. See, e.g., Estate of
Robinson ex rel. Irwin v. City of Madison, 15-cv-502-jdp, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20733, at *46
(W.D. Wisc. Feb. 13, 2017) (using the phrase “taking mushrooms” to refer to drug use); Bowman
v. Yates, No. C 06-3901 CRB, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120258, at *13 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2008)
(using the phrase “taking mushrooms” in conjunction with “intoxication”). This explanation also
lacks credibility given the context of those messages: her Husband immediately responded he was
“already not in the best shape[,]” implying some level of impairment and thus the use of
psychedelic mushrooms. Her explanation ignores both plain language and context, adding yet
another piece of testimony undermining her reliability.
The cumulative record demonstrates the Individual remains, as of the hearing date, an uncredible
narrator of her drug use and even suggests cultivation and distribution of illegal drugs to friends.
In reaching that determination, I consider the various text messages discussed above and her
dubious explanations when confronted with those text messages at the hearing. I must also consider
the lack of honesty she demonstrated at various points prior to the hearing: (1) first, during her
time as a clearance holder from 2020 to 2024;10 (2) then, during the 2024 security incident leading
to her termination; and (3) finally, as a clearance applicant in 2025, discussed further in Section
IV(d).
d. Individual’s September 2024 Termination and Further Provision of False
Information in the January 2025 QNSP
In August 2024, the Individual entered a Limited Area at her worksite with an electronic location
device in her Husband’s vehicle, triggering a security incident. Ex. 6 at 92. Due to the security
incident, the DOE contractor’s employees conducted a forensic review of her cell phone and found
several text messages referencing some of the illegal drug use discussed in Section IV(b)–(c). See
Ex. 5 at 33–70. At the hearing, the Individual testified that the DOE contractor’s employees
conducted an interview of the Individual in connection with the security incident. Tr. at 68–69. At
the beginning of the interview, they asked her questions about her illegal drug use, and she denied
any illicit drug use. Id. at 66, 69–70.
When the DOE contractor’s employees confronted her with the text messages to the contrary, the
Individual then admitted to only “some” illegal drug use. Id. at 69–70. This admitted illegal drug
10 The Individual testified that her drug use and failure to report her drug use “nagged at [her] frequently” and that she
“wouldn’t go more than a couple weeks without thinking about it . . . .” Tr. at 163. However, despite that feeling, she
ultimately failed to report her drug use because she “felt like it was too late to report it.” Id.
- 9 -
use resulted in her termination in September 2024. Ex. 7 at 127. Contemporaneously, the DOE
contractor provided the text messages to the LSO attached to an Incident Report dated September
18, 2024. Ex. 5 at 27–74.
Eventually, the Individual “negotiated voiding [the] termination” with the DOE contractor in
January 2025. Ex. 7 at 126. As stated before, the Individual subsequently submitted and certified
her January 2025 QNSP, wherein she admitted to some drug use but continued obscuring the full
extent of her drug use. Compare Ex. 7 at 117, 150–51 (only admitting to using a hallucinogenic
“on one occasion” in September 2022) with Sec. IV (b)–(c). The Individual testified that she
reported her drug use incorrectly on the January 2025 QNSP “[b]ecause [she] felt like [she] had to
be consistent with what [she] had told [her] employer . . . .” Tr. at 125. The Individual admitted
that she had no confusion about the drug-related questions in the QNSP when she provided false
information. Id. at 126–27. The Individual testified that she did not “think that [providing false
information was] the right thing to do” and that she “really wished [she] had not . . . .” Id. at 129.
A February 11, 2025, Case Evaluation Sheet from the LSO reflects that the January 2025 QNSP’s
inconsistency with the text messages on record led to the issuance of the LOI. Ex. 4 at 23–25. In
the April 2025 LOI, the Individual admitted to more extensive drug use than had been reported in
the January 2025 QNSP. Compare Ex. 7 at 150–51 (only admitting to using a hallucinogenic “on
one occasion” in September 2022) with Ex. 6 at 82–83 (admitting to taking “MDMA” in March
2020 and August 2022; using cocaine in March 2020; and using hallucinogenic mushrooms “a
handful of times” between the “beginning of COVID” and a September 2022 concert).
e. Character Evidence and Other Documentary Evidence
The Individual provided a written letter, dated December 2025, from the Individual’s licensed
professional counselor (“Counselor”). Ex. B at 45. The Counselor indicated that they had 17
counseling sessions since January 2018 and generally stated that she does not believe the
Individual to have “drug or alcohol addiction” and that the Individual is “trustworthy, truthful, and
authentic[.]” Ex. B at 45. However, the letter provides no specifics as to whether the Individual
was ever evaluated for any drug addiction. Id. The letter also does not clarify if the Individual’s
drug use or dishonesty were ever discussed in their 17 sessions. Id. At the hearing, the Individual
testified that she does not currently see the Counselor. Tr. at 55–56. The Individual provided no
indication that they discussed her drug use. Id.
The Individual also submitted written character references from her coworkers and her sister-in-
law. See Ex. C at 48–51. None indicated any awareness of the security concerns at issue,
specifically that she used illegal drugs multiple times and obscured that truth multiple times. Id. In
fact, her sister-in-law specifically disclaimed, “I am not privy to the specific details surrounding
the event that led to this investigation . . . .” Id. at 49.
At the hearing, the Individual’s Supervisor offered that the Individual was “very honest and open.”
Tr. at 19. He testified that he was aware that the Individual had used “mushrooms” some “years
ago” but lacked specific details as to the extent of her usage. Id. at 22–23; see also id. at 27 (stating
that he was unaware of any other drugs aside from mushrooms or dates of usage). The Individual’s
Supervisor admitted that he does not socialize with the Individual outside of work. Id. at 19.
- 10 -
The Individual submitted positive work performance appraisals, performance awards, and a list of
her workplace achievements. Ex. D at 53–54; Ex. E at 56–58; Ex. G at 62–63; Ex. I at 73. She also
submitted a list of volunteer activities she engages in. Ex. F at 60.
Last, as evidence of her abstinence from drugs, the Individual submitted a signed declaration of
her “intent not to use or be involved with illegal drugs in the future” dated April 25, 2025. Ex. E
at 37. The Individual also submitted Certificates of Completion demonstrating her attendance in
(1) a 4-hour Drug and Alcohol Awareness Class and (2) a Behavior Modification Class—both of
which she attended on April 18, 2025. Id. at 39, 41. In terms of drug testing, the Individual
submitted the results from urine samples collected on December 20, 2024; November 7, 2025; and
December 29, 2025. Ex. H at 65–71 (the latter two tests completed by Quest Diagnostics). The
December 20, 2024, test was negative for all tested drugs. Id. at 71. The latter two tests were
negative for all tested drugs except for amphetamines, which the Individual testified is attributed
to her prescribed Adderall. Id. at 65–70; Tr. at 55.
I note that the drug tests offer little probative value for the Individual’s abstinence from
hallucinogenic mushrooms given that they did not test for hallucinogenic mushrooms. Ex. H at
65–71. Additionally, according to Quest Diagnostics, urine tests only detect “recent drug use in
the previous 24 to 72 hours[,]” which hardly supports any purported long term drug abstention.
Frequently Asked Questions: Urine Drug Testing, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS,
https://www.questdiagnostics.com/content/dam/corporate/restricted/documents/employer-
solutions/urine-drug-testing-collateral/Quest-urine-drug-tesing-FAQ23.pdf (last visited on Feb.
11, 2026).
V. ANALYSIS
Based on the record before me, I do not find that the Individual has mitigated the LSO’s security
concerns. I first address the Guideline H concerns and then the Guideline E concerns.
a. Guideline H
Conditions that could mitigate Guideline H security concerns include:
(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a
pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to:
(1) Disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) Changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and
- 11 -
(3) Providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement
and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or
misuse is grounds for revocation of national security eligibility;
(c) Abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which
these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; and
(d) Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including, but not
limited to, rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse,
and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 26.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), I cannot determine how “long ago” the drug use occurred given
that the Individual lacks credibility and provides an unreliable accounting of drug use. For
example, she claimed her last psychedelic mushroom use occurred in September 2022, despite
2023 text messages that strongly suggest otherwise. I also cannot find the drug use to have occurred
infrequently given the Individual’s unreliability. By her own account, she recounted three specific
instances of illegal drug use in March 2020, August 2022, and September 2022, which overlapped
with illegal mushroom use “five or six times.” This seems rather frequent. As outlined thoroughly
in Section IV, (1) the many text messages she sent and received from 2020 to 2023; (2) her
numerous contradictory statements and implausible explanations; and (3) her admitted history of
growing mushrooms in college strongly suggest that she also cultivated illegal mushrooms for
consumption and distribution starting at some point in 2020, which evinces an even higher level
of involvement with illicit substances. Taken together, I cannot find her drug use infrequent.
I also cannot find her drug use to have occurred under the type of circumstances that would
mitigate the concern. The Individual’s admitted drug use occurred in mundane circumstances,
specifically at social gatherings and concerts and in the presence of family and friends. For the
reasons stated above, mitigating condition (a) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), the Individual acknowledged some of her drug involvement
and substance misuse and has generally claimed she avoids environments where drugs are used.
However, I again emphasize that the Individual clearly has not acknowledged the full extent of her
drug use as of the date of the hearing and continues to be an unreliable narrator as to the extent of
her drug use. Furthermore, her submitted laboratory testing hardly provides an “established”
pattern of abstinence. As stated above, the laboratory testing took place sporadically in December
2024, November 2025, and December 2025—with a limited 24-to-72-hour detection windows. I
must also consider that the tests do not account for hallucinogenic mushrooms, a major illegal drug
at issue in this case.
Last, the Individual provided an April 2025 signed statement about her intention to abstain from
drug use. I have no reason to believe that such a signed statement would prevent her from further
drug use. Only four months prior to this April 2025 signed statement, the Individual certified the
accuracy of her January 2025 QNSP while affirmatively providing false information. I simply
cannot credit the April 2025 statement of intent. Mitigating condition (b) does not apply where she
- 12 -
so clearly continues to provide untruthful accounts of her drug involvement—with little evidence
of actions taken to overcome the problem and with little evidence to establish a pattern of
abstinence.
Mitigating condition (c) lacks application, as the concerns raised do not include prescription drugs.
Mitigating condition (d) does not apply. I have no evidence that the Individual was prescribed a
drug treatment program by any professional, including by her Counselor. Furthermore, I do not
consider her 4-hour drug education and awareness course and the 4-hour behavioral modification
course to be either a drug treatment program or sufficient to address the Individual’s extensive,
multi-year drug involvement. She also lacks a favorable prognosis from a duly qualified medical
professional. Given the above, the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by
the LSO under Guideline H.
b. Guideline E
Guideline E concerns may be mitigated if:
(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;
and
(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
- 13 -
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), I repeat my serious reservation about the Individual’s
accounting of her drug use. Even assuming arguendo that she only used various illegal drugs in
March 2020, August 2022, and September 2022, in addition to illegal mushrooms five or six times
during that same period—she tried obscuring the extent of her drug use in her January 2025 QNSP
after having already been confronted by the DOE contactor and terminated in September 2024. At
this point, she had tried to mislead the agency over approximately five years, which precludes any
finding that she corrected her deceptive behavior promptly. Alarmingly, she only admitted to
further drug use in her April 2025 LOI response upon being confronted a second time. Mitigating
condition (a) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), the Individual’s behavior cannot be attributed to the advice of
legal counsel or a person with relevant professional responsibilities.
Regarding mitigating condition (c), by the Individual’s own account, she first used illegal drugs
while having a clearance in March 2020. She failed to report that illegal drug use and her
subsequent illegal drug use until confronted with it after the August 2024 security incident, during
which she continued to obscure the whole truth from the DOE contractor. Then, when re-instated
to her position, the Individual continued to provide false information to the agency in her January
2025 QNSP. Clearly, this dishonesty occurred frequently—essentially every day over a five-year
period.
The Individual maintains that she fully corrected the record of her drug use in her April 2025 LOI
Response. However, as stated above, I believe she continues to obscure her full illegal drug
involvement as of the hearing date. Assuming arguendo that she told the whole truth of her drug
use in her April 2025 LOI Response—a finding I do not make—I cannot find her dishonesty to
have happened “so long ago” when her corrections were received less than a year ago.
I also cannot consider the offense to be “minor.” The Individual acknowledged that, at the time of
her illegal drug use, she knew that such behavior and concealment conflicted with her
responsibilities as a clearance holder and clearly understood the severity of her behavior given that
she would worry about her dishonesty every “couple [of] weeks.” Mitigating condition (c) does
not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (d), the Individual acknowledged her reporting failures; however,
I believe she continues to obscure the full extent of her drug use and continued to engage in
dishonesty at the hearing. I acknowledge she has taken some steps to alleviate the circumstances
that contributed to her untrustworthiness—for example, she took a 4-hour behavioral modification
course. However, that 4-hour behavioral course provides little assurance when considering the
“nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to
include knowledgeable participation; [and] the frequency and recency of the conduct . . . .” 10
C.F.R. § 710.7(c). By her own account, she engaged in dishonesty every day over a five-year
- 14 -
period, starting in March 2020. When presented the opportunity to tell the truth at multiple
junctures—in the April 2020 QNSP, during the August 2024 security incident, and in the January
2025 QNSP—the Individual affirmatively chose to misinform her employer and the agency. I
cannot find the Individual unlikely to engage in dishonest behavior given the above and given the
clear indication that she continues to obscure the full extent of her drug involvement. Without full
acknowledgment of her dishonest behavior at the hearing and given the likelihood of recurrence,
I cannot find mitigating condition (d) to apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (e), the LSO did not raise any concerns regarding personal conduct
that could result in vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Mitigating condition (e)
lacks application.
Regarding mitigating condition (f), there exists no dispute as to the reliability of the information
raised in the SSC because the Individual admitted to the dishonest behavior in her April 2025 LOI
Response and at the hearing. Mitigating condition (f) lacks application.
Regarding mitigating condition (g), the concerns raised by the LSO did not involve the Individual’s
association with those involved in criminal activities. Accordingly, mitigating condition (g) also
lacks application.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the
facts of this case and that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline E.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the DOE’s
possession to raise security concerns under Guidelines E and H of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
After considering all the relevant information, 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 Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the Notification Letter under Guidelines E and H. Accordingly, I find the
Individual has not demonstrated that granting her security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. 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