PSH-25-0197

*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: September 5, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0197
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 10, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Diane L. Miles, 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.
(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 that he hold a security
clearance. In February 2025, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP). Exhibit (Ex.) 10.2 In the QNSP, the Individual reported that in March 2014, he
was voluntarily hospitalized after taking anti-depressant medication, at which time he was
diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder. Id. at 681–682. The Individual also reported that in
December 2024, he “intentionally engaged in the misuse of prescription drugs.” Id. at 684. He
explained that in December 2024, he was hospitalized after he felt depressed and ingested several
pills of prescription medication. Id.
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The DOE’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 693-page PDF workbook. Many of the exhibits are
marked with page numbering that is inconsistent with their location in the combined workbook. This Decision will
cite to the DOE’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit and page number within the combined workbook regardless of
any internal pagination.
2
In April 2025, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual requesting additional details about his hospitalization. Ex. 9. In the LOI, the Individual
reported that he had “a long history of mental health issues,” for which he has received care since
2010, and that in about 2013, he was diagnosed with “Bipolar [Disorder] with anxiety and
depression.” Id. at 642–647.
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s LOI responses, the LSO referred the
Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist), who conducted
a clinical interview of the Individual in June 2025 and issued a report (the Report) of her findings.
Ex. 6. Based on her evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual met sufficient
diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,
Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) for diagnoses of Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar II
Disorder. Id. at 34. She also opined that both diagnoses “have characteristics that affect [the
Individual’s] judgment, stability, and reliability.” Id.
In August 2025, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. Ex.
1 at 6–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification 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 requested an administrative hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s
request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Ex. 2. The Director of OHA appointed me
as the Administrative Judge in this matter. At the hearing I convened on January 22, 2026, pursuant
to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took testimony from three witnesses: the Individual, the
Individual’s wife, and the DOE Psychiatrist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-
0197 (Tr.). Counsel for the DOE submitted ten exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 10. The
Individual submitted two exhibits, marked as Exhibits A and B.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
Guideline I states that certain “emotional, mental, and personality conditions” can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Conditions that could
raise a security concern under this guideline include: “an opinion by a duly qualified mental health
professional that the individual has a condition that may impair [their] judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness.” Id. at ¶ 28(b). In invoking Guideline I, the LSO cited the opinion
of the DOE Psychiatrist, who opined that the Individual met sufficient DSM-5-TR diagnostic
criteria for diagnoses of Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar II Disorder and that these
conditions could impair the Individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 1
at 5.
3
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
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 their 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. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
In 2012, the Individual was diagnosed with depression, which he treats using several different
types of prescription medication and multiple therapists. Ex. 8 at 357; Ex. 6 at 26–28. In 2014, the
Individual went to a hospital and reported experiencing severe anxiety, difficulty sitting still, and
difficulty concentrating. Ex. 8 at 347. He also reported having thoughts of suicide, he displayed
“multiple scabs on both his forearms,” and he reported cutting himself with knives and thinking
of ways he could harm himself. Id. He reported using different antidepressants, none of which
improved his mood and which increased his anxiety. Id. He was hospitalized for eight days, during
which he was diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder, and his medication was adjusted to stabilize his
mood. Id. at 124, 349, 359, 361–363. From April 2014 to October 2019, the Individual was treated
by a psychiatrist, whom he saw “several times about every one to two months.” Ex. 10 at 137.
Since 2019, the Individual has been treated by a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Id. at 645.
In the LOI, the Individual reported that in December 2024, he experienced “an extreme stressor”
before bedtime and he took “a larger than usual” dose of his prescription medications to help him
sleep. Ex. 9 at 644. At the hearing, he testified that he took six Tizanidine pills, six Xanax pills,
and six Clonazepam pills. Tr. at 80, 84. After he took the medication, he worried that his dosage
was too high, so he told his wife what he had done, and his wife took him to the hospital. Ex. 9 at
644. The Individual reported that the hospital stated the reason for his visit was an “accidental
overdose of prescribed medications.” Id. at 645. In his hearing testimony, the Individual claimed
that his doctors prescribed him a specific dose of each drug but also told him that he could take
more medication “as needed.” Tr. at 86. He acknowledged that he showed “questionable”
judgment in taking higher than needed dosage of these medications. Id. at 84, 103.
In the DOE Psychiatrist’s Report of the Individual’s June 2025 psychiatric evaluation, the DOE
Psychiatrist noted that the Individual’s records from his 2014 hospitalization indicated that he went
4
to the hospital complaining of anxiety and suicidal ideation. Ex. 6 at 26. However, during his
clinical interview, the Individual “downplayed” the symptoms he experienced before his 2014
hospitalization and told the DOE Psychiatrist that he went to the hospital because he suffered a
panic attack while driving. Id. As for his December 2024 hospitalization, he admitted to the DOE
Psychiatrist that he lied to the medical providers at the hospital, when he told them that he thought
of committing suicide, but he would not do anything to harm himself, when in fact he had intended
to commit suicide by overdosing on medication. Id. at 27. During the evaluation, the Individual
did not have thoughts of harming himself, but he reported that his suicidal ideation was chronic
and that he “often scans his environment for ways he could hurt himself.” Id. at 28–30. He reported
that he always had low self-esteem, and that he felt an “overwhelming” feeling of emptiness. Id.
at 31.
As for the Individual’s treatment, he reported to the DOE Psychiatrist that he was seeing a
psychologist every two to three weeks, and a psychiatrist for medication management every two
to three months. Ex. 6 at 28; Tr. 77–79; 100. He reported being prescribed several medications to
treat his depression and anxiety and to having received approximately 20 injections of Ketamine,
an intervention for treatment resistant depression. Ex. 6 at 28. In his hearing testimony, the
Individual explained that he did not believe the Ketamine injections were “working for him.” Tr.
at 77, 89–90, 106. As to one drug, Clonazepam, the Individual admitted to ingesting a higher
dosage of the drug than originally prescribed by his medical provider, and to taking the drug “3 to
4 times a month,” rather than every day, so he could build “a reserve” of the drug. Ex. 6 at 28. He
also admitted that in 2014, he was prescribed Xanax, which he reportedly loved. Id. In 2024, his
psychiatrist stopped prescribing him Xanax and advised him to stop taking it, but he admitted to
keeping stashes of the drug at home and to taking the drug several times a year, at a higher dosage
than he was originally advised to take. Id. The Individual admitted that he keeps his remaining
Xanax in his home as a “security blanket” because of how well it works. Tr. at 105. When the
DOE Psychiatrist asked the Individual what he would do when he ran out of Xanax, he replied that
he would “go to Mexico.” Ex. 6 at 28.
Based on her evaluation of the Individual, the DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual met
sufficient diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5-TR for diagnoses of Borderline Personality Disorder
and Bipolar II Disorder, and that both diagnoses have characteristics that affect the Individual’s
judgment, stability, and reliability. Ex. 6 at 34. She explained that the symptoms of the Individual’s
two disorders overlap, but his Borderline Personality Disorder caused his “most debilitating
symptoms,” his anxiety and his suicidal ideation. Ex. 6 at 30; Tr. at 124.3 As for treatment, the
DOE Psychiatrist noted that the Individual continued to have significant symptoms, despite having
received treatment for his Bipolar II Disorder for an extended period, so her prognosis was
“guarded.” Ex. 6 at 34. However, she opined that with “intensive, targeted treatment for Borderline
Personality Disorder, while continuing treatment for Bipolar II Disorder, his prognosis would be
fair.” Id.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he still experiences depression and anxiety, but he
disagreed with the DOE Psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, stating his
own doctors did not believe he had that condition. Tr. at 68–74, 95–96. To support his testimony,
he submitted a letter from his psychologist, dated January 20, 2026, which indicated that, in the
3 At the hearing, the DOE Psychiatrist explained that the Individual’s overlapping symptoms included irritability,
anxiety, distractibility, and having “ruminating thoughts.” Tr. at 122–23.
5
psychologist’s opinion, the Individual had Bipolar II Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder,
but he did not meet sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Borderline Personal Disorder.
Ex. A at 1. The letter shows that the Individual’s psychologist agreed with the DOE Psychiatrist,
in her finding that the Individual did not meet some of the DSM-5-TR criteria for Borderline
Personality Disorder – specifically that he did not demonstrate efforts to avoid abandonment, did
not have unstable relationships, and did not show paranoid ideation or dissociative symptoms. Id.
The psychologist also agreed with the DOE Psychiatrist, in concluding that the Individual did meet
the DSM-5-TR criteria of recurrent suicidal ideation and affective instability. Id.
However, the Individual’s psychologist disagreed with the DOE Psychiatrist’s opinion that the
Individual met three of the diagnostic criteria to support a diagnosis of Borderline Personality
Disorder, for reasons that were not clear. As for the Individual’s sense of self, his psychologist
found that he had a “clear and stable” sense of self, without explaining why she believed this to be
true. Ex. A at 1. The psychologist also wrote that during six years of therapy, she had never
observed the Individual discuss issues related to anger, beyond “mild” anger about his daily life
challenges. Id. The psychologist assumed that if the Individual did not report such feelings, they
did not exist. As for the Individual’s impulsivity, his psychologist believed that the Individual
showed impulsivity with his spending, but not in other areas that were potentially self-damaging.
Id. She also believed the Individual’s impulsivity was better accounted for by his Bipolar II
Disorder, without explaining how she determined this to be so. Id. The letter did not indicate
whether the Individual’s psychologist reviewed the Individual’s medical records before forming
her opinion, so it is not known why his symptoms were better explained by his Bipolar II Disorder
but remained resistant to the treatments he had received. Id. Nor did the letter indicate whether the
psychologist was aware of the Individual’s accidental overdose in December 2024. Id.
The Individual testified that he has attended outpatient therapy sessions with his psychologist,
since March 2020, the frequency of which depends on the severity of his symptoms. Ex. A at 1;
Tr. at 97–98. Since 2025, the Individual has attended sessions with the psychologist every one to
two weeks. Tr. at 97; Ex. A at 1. In the letter, the Individual’s psychologist wrote that the
Individual’s “periods of stability are shortening, and [his] periods of heightened depression and
anxiety are increasing.” Ex. A at 2. During their sessions, the Individual is honest about his
shortcomings, he is transparent about his use of medication, and he discloses when he experiences
thoughts of self-harm. Id. The letter also indicated that the therapy sessions included using
cognitive behavioral therapy to manage the Individual’s anxiety and depression, such as “thought
stopping, cognitive restructuring, [and] deep breathing.” Id. The letter also indicated that the
psychologist could not “speak confidently about [the Individual’s] prognosis,” but the psychologist
believed the Individual was being honest during his sessions. Id. The Individual testified that he
did not believe the cognitive behavioral treatments, mindfulness training, or meditation practices
he engaged in during his sessions with his psychologist were working for him. Tr. at 77, 94. He
also stated that his psychologist recommended that he use exercise to manage his depression and
anxiety, but he has not done so. Id. at 99–100. He stated his last therapy session with the
psychologist was approximately two weeks before the hearing. Id. at 97.
Since October 2025, the Individual has been reading bible scriptures, daily, which improves his
mood. Tr. at 48–49, 78, 88, 94–95. Since he started reading bible scriptures, he had thoughts of
self-harm once. Id. at 78. He also stated that he intends to continue receiving treatment for his
Bipolar II Disorder as long as he can. Id. at 88. As to his diagnosis of Borderline Personality
Disorder, he stated that he would discuss that diagnosis with his medical providers and let them
decide if he needs treatment. Id. at 89.
6
Since approximately 2014, the Individual’s wife has kept the Individual’s firearms locked away in
their home so the Individual cannot access them. Tr. at 87; Ex. 8 at 348. She also testified that
because the Individual’s level of anxiety fluctuates, she must keep his medication away from him,
as a proactive measure. Tr. at 47, 53. She stores his Xanax, Clonazepam, and Tizanidine in a locked
box, so he cannot access them without her assistance. Id. at 56, 87; Ex. 8 at 348. She gives the
Individual the box so he can take the medication he needs, and then “hides” the box where the
Individual can’t find it. Tr. at 46–47, 55, 87. The amount of medication the Individual takes
depends on the level of his anxiety he is experiencing. Id. at 54. The Individual’s wife recalled
instances where she gave the Individual control over his medication but had to lock it away because
his anxiety was high. Id. at 53–54. At the time of the hearing, the Individual’s medication was
locked away. Id. at 56.
The Individual’s wife also attends the Individual’s treatment sessions with his psychologist,
psychiatrist, and family doctor. Tr. at 38. She believed that she saw things differently from the
Individual and that she needed to be present during his treatment sessions to make sure his medical
providers “really understood what was going on.” Id. at 39. The Individual’s medical providers
ask his wife questions, and his wife provides her opinion as to matters discussed during the
sessions. Id. at 59. The Individual’s wife believed that the Individual’s symptoms were a result of
him having a bad reaction to his medication, and she wanted to ensure the doctors were “not trying
to fix something that wasn’t broken.” Id. at 40. The Individual’s wife also stated that she and the
Individual have worked as a team to manage his symptoms. Id. at 25. Depending on the severity
of the Individual’s symptoms, they will schedule a Ketamine treatment or make an appointment to
see his psychologist. Id. at 49.
The DOE Psychiatrist testified that after listening to the testimony provided at the hearing, she
would not change her initial diagnoses of Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar II Disorder.
Tr. at 119, 132. As for the Individual’s treatment, she explained that the Individual’s use of
cognitive behavioral strategies, with his psychologist, to manage his anxiety and depression was
excellent. Id. at 119, 126. She observed that the Individual’s scripture study and mindfulness
exercises align with Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT), which is an effective treatment for
Borderline Personality Disorder, even if he didn’t realize it. Id. at 119, 131. However, she stated
that she would like the Individual to obtain treatment in a more structured setting, such as three
hours a day, several times a week, rather than as needed. Id. at 119, 127, 131. She was also
concerned about the Individual’s wife’s presence at his therapy sessions, as she believed it might
impede the Individual’s progress because he would be less likely to be honest with his providers,
especially regarding uncomfortable topics, such as his suicidal ideation. Id. at 130–131. Regarding
the Individual’s use of medication, the DOE Psychiatrist explained that if the Individual was
advised to take his medication as needed, which she referred to as “range dosing,” that suggests
that his symptoms are not yet under control. Id. at 128–129. Therefore, she opined that both
disorders continue to impair the Individual’s judgment, stability, and reliability, and that her
prognosis for the Individual remained “guarded.” Id. at 119.
V. Analysis
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline I include:
7
(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.
As to factor (a), the DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual’s Bipolar II Disorder and
Borderline Personality Disorder can be controlled with treatment. As for his Borderline Personality
Disorder, the Individual did not agree with the DOE Psychiatrist’s diagnosis and therefore, he has
not sought treatment related to this disorder. Although the Individual submitted a letter from his
psychologist to support that he does not have Borderline Personality Disorder, I am not convinced
the psychologist’s opinion was based on a complete picture of the Individual’s medical history and
reporting of his symptoms. I do not believe his psychologist’s opinion adequately addressed his
medical history and why his symptoms were better explained by his Bipolar II Disorder, while
being resistant to the treatments he has received for the past several years. The psychologist also
concluded certain diagnostic criteria were not met, but these conclusions were either not based on
the Individual’s reporting or were based on assumptions the psychologist made. Furthermore, the
Individual’s psychologist was not present at the hearing and could not be cross-examined as to her
opinion. In contrast, the DOE Psychiatrist provided testimony as to how she formulated her
diagnoses, including how she relied on the Individual’s reporting of his symptoms during his
evaluation, as well as information reflected in the Individual’s medical records. Tr. at 112–118.
Therefore, I give more weight to the opinion of the DOE Psychiatrist, than the Individual’s
psychologist.
As to the Individual’s Bipolar II Disorder, the Individual has received treatment for this disorder
since 2014, through medication and sessions with his psychologist. But the frequency of the
Individual’s treatment sessions and the type of medication he uses changes depending on the
severity of his symptoms, which suggests that his treatment providers have not identified a
treatment plan that can consistently control his symptoms. The Individual testified that he did not
believe his cognitive behavioral therapy, Ketamine injections, or mindfulness exercises he engaged
in with his psychologist were helping him manage his symptoms. Finally, the Individual’s
accidental overdose of medication in December 2024, his admission to the DOE Psychiatrist that
8
he does not take his Clonazepam as prescribed, and his admission during the hearing that he
continued to use Xanax after being advised against doing so, demonstrate that he has not complied
with the medication plan outlined by his medical providers to control his symptoms. Therefore, I
find that the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 29(a).
As to factor (b), despite being notified of the security concerns raised by the DOE, the Individual
has not entered a counseling or treatment program for his Borderline Personality Disorder because
he does not believe he has this disorder and does not agree with the DOE Psychiatrist’s diagnosis.
Although the Individual was receiving treatment for his Bipolar II Disorder from his psychologist,
the psychologist could not provide a prognosis for him, despite treating him since 2020.
Furthermore, after listening to the testimony provided during the hearing, the DOE Psychiatrist’s
prognosis for the Individual was not favorable. Her prognosis remained guarded because the
Individual did not seek treatment for his Borderline Personality Disorder, his treatment for his
Bipolar II Disorder was not sufficiently structured, and the fact that he took his medication as
needed, and not always as prescribed, supported that his symptoms are not under control.
Therefore, I find that the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 29(b).
As to factor (c), the DOE Psychiatrist opined, during the hearing, that her prognosis for the
Individual remained guarded because the Individual did not seek treatment for his Borderline
Personality Disorder, which needed to be treated with his Bipolar II Disorder to adequately address
his symptoms. His treatment for Bipolar II Disorder was also not sufficiently structured, and the
manner in which he used his medication supported that his symptoms were not yet under control.
Furthermore, the letter from the Individual’s psychologist indicated that as of January 2026, his
periods of depression and anxiety were increasing and that his psychologist could not speak
confidently about the Individual’s prognosis. Therefore, I do not have an opinion from a duly
qualified mental health professional that the Individual’s disorders are under control and have a
low probability of recurrence, and the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth
at ¶ 29(c).
As to factor (d), the Individual was diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder in 2012. Evidence of the
Individual’s hospitalization in 2014, his accidental overdose in December 2024, and his testimony
at the hearing, that he still experiences depression and anxiety, despite receiving treatment,
demonstrates that his symptoms of Bipolar II Disorder were not temporary. Furthermore, the DOE
Psychiatrist opined that although the symptoms of Bipolar II Disorder and Borderline Personality
Disorder overlap, the Individual’s most debilitating symptoms – his anxiety and suicidal ideation
– are likely caused by his Borderline Personality Disorder. Because the Individual has not sought
treatment for his Borderline Personality Disorder, I am unable to conclude that this condition was
temporary and has been resolved.
Furthermore, at the hearing, the Individual testified that he still experiences depression and
anxiety, and that these symptoms have been resistant to the treatments he has received. I also
remain concerned by the Individual’s inability, or refusal, to take his medication as prescribed by
his medical providers. After being hospitalized for an accidental overdose in December 2024, the
Individual admitted to the DOE Psychiatrist, that he does not take his Clonazepam as prescribed
because he wants to build a reserve of the drug, and that he continues to take Xanax, after being
advised by his medical provider to stop taking the drug. Finally, the Individual, and his wife,
testified that the Individual’s medication is kept locked away from him because he cannot be
trusted to take his medication as prescribed if he experiences a certain level of anxiety. Therefore,
9
the Individual continues to show indications of emotional instability and he has not satisfied the
mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 29(d).
As to factor (e), the Individual testified that, as of the hearing, he still experiences feelings of
depression and anxiety, and that these symptoms have persisted despite the treatment he has
received from his medical providers for his Bipolar II Disorder, since 2014. He also testified that
since October 2025, he has had thoughts of self-harm on one occasion. The letter from the
Individual’s psychologist indicated that the Individual’s periods of anxiety were increasing as of
January 2026. Furthermore, the Individual has not sought treatment for his Borderline Personality
Disorder, which the DOE Psychiatrist opined was responsible for his most debilitating symptoms,
so this condition, and the Individual’s depression and anxiety associated with it, remain a current
problem. Finally, as explained above, the DOE Psychiatrist opined that both disorders continue to
impair the Individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, and that her prognosis
for the Individual remains guarded. Therefore, neither disorder has been resolved or sufficiently
controlled with treatment, and they continue to be a problem. The Individual has not satisfied the
mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 29(e).
Having concluded that the Individual has not demonstrated the applicability of any of the
mitigating conditions, I find that he has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline I.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline I of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to
resolve the concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that
restoring his security clearance would not endanger the common defense and security and would
be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be restored.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Diane L. Miles
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals