PSH-26-0001

*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: October 7, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0001
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 11, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, 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 should not be granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2024, the Individual signed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) as part of seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 7 at 96.2 In the QNSP, the
Individual reported having been charged with offenses in connection with alleged domestic
violence in 2021 and 2019, having a domestic violence-related order of protection issued against
him in 2023, and having been arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in 2011
and Criminal Sexual Penetration of a Minor (Statutory Rape) when he was nineteen years old in
2003. Id. at 82‒88. He also reported having received court-ordered counseling in connection with
the 2003 Statutory Rape charges. Id. at 80‒81. The Individual denied having been arrested or
charged with any other offenses in the seven years prior to completing the QNSP, having been
charged with any felony offenses besides the DWI and 2003 Statutory Rape, having been ordered
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The exhibits submitted by the local security office (LSO) were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each
page. This Decision will refer to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by the LSO.
- 2 -
to consult with a mental health professional on any occasion other than in connection with the
2003 Statutory Rape charges, or having used any illegal drugs in the prior seven years. Id. at 80‒
89.
A background investigation of the Individual related to his seeking access authorization revealed
that the Individual had been ordered to attend counseling related to the 2019 domestic violence
allegations he disclosed on the QNSP. Id. at 236. Criminal records obtained during the background
investigation showed that the Individual had been arrested, charged, and/or cited with dozens of
offenses from 1997 to 2024, including domestic violence-related charges he had not disclosed on
the QNSP. Id. at 211, 223‒25. The background investigation additionally revealed numerous
felony offenses he had not disclosed on the QNSP: two alleged sex crimes while the Individual
was a minor; Aggravated Fleeing Law Enforcement Officer (Fleeing) in 2001; Battery, Fleeing,
and Resisting/Obstructing a Peace Officer in 2004; and, Felony Criminal Sexual Penetration in
2006. Id. at 217, 228, 231, 233, 269. A “protected source” interviewed by an investigator as part
of the background investigation also revealed that the Individual had used hallucinogenic
mushrooms. See Ex. 5 at 37 (summarizing information obtained by the LSO in the adjudication of
the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization).3
The LSO subsequently issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning the illegal
drug use alleged by the protected source. Ex. 6. In his response, the Individual admitted that he
had used hallucinogenic mushrooms on one occasion in 2021 with a friend. Id. at 40.
The LSO issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 10‒12. 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 J of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Id. at 5‒9.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted nine exhibits (Ex. 1–9). The Individual submitted ten exhibits (Ex. A‒J). The Individual
testified on his own behalf. Tr. at 3, 11. The LSO did not call any witnesses to testify.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the first basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5‒
6. “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to
comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any
failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative
or adjudicative processes.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. The SSC cited the Individual having
3 The report of the background investigation appears to have redacted all information from the protected source. See
Ex. 9 at 241. The LSO reproduced the information from the protected source in a case evaluation it prepared following
receipt of the report of the investigation. Ex. 5 at 37.
- 3 -
failed to disclose on the QNSP: (1) his use of hallucinogenic mushrooms; (2) having been arrested
and charged with domestic violence-related offenses in 20194 and twice in 2023;5 (3) five
occasions on which he was arrested and charged with felony offenses; and, (4) having been ordered
to attend counseling following his 2019 arrest for domestic violence-related offenses. Ex. 1 at 5‒
6. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified
information on the QNSP justify its invocation of Guideline E. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a).
The LSO cited Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the other basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6‒
9. “Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By
its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules,
and regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. The SSC cited fifty-four occasions on which
the Individual was allegedly arrested, charged, and/or cited for unlawful conduct from 1997 to
2024. Ex. 1 at 6‒9. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual engaged in a pattern of minor
offenses, as well as serious criminal conduct, justify its invocation of Guideline J. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 31(a)‒(b).
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
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 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
4 As explained in detail below, I find that the Individual did disclose his 2019 domestic violence-related charge on the
QNSP and accordingly find that the LSO’s allegation that the Individual did not do so is without merit and does not
present security concerns under Guideline E. Infra p. 9.
5 As explained in detail below, I find that the LSO’s allegation that the Individual was charged with a domestic
violence-related offenses in January 2023 and March 2023 insufficiently substantiated to raise security concerns under
Guideline E. Infra p. 9.
- 4 -
A. Individual’s History of Alleged Sex Crimes
The Individual was charged with sex crimes on five occasions from 1997 to 2006. The Individual
was charged with Felony Criminal Sexual Penetration of a Minor in 1998, related to conduct that
allegedly occurred in 1997 when the Individual was fourteen years old. Ex. 9 at 228; see also Ex.
7 at 51 (indicating the Individual’s birthdate). The charges were dismissed nolle prosequi by the
prosecuting agency. Ex. 9 at 228. At the hearing, the Individual testified that the allegations, which
he asserted were false and instigated by his mother, were made against him by his sibling and
subsequently recanted. Tr. at 53‒54.
The Individual was next charged with a sex crime in 2000 when he was arrested and charged with
Felony Criminal Sexual Contact with a Minor (With Force or Coercion). Ex. 9 at 231; see also Tr.
at 14, 53 (Individual denying in his hearing testimony that he was ever charged with this offense).
Criminal records obtained during the background investigation of the Individual show that he was
arrested and charged with Statutory Rape in April 2003 and August 2003.6 Ex. 9 at 217, 231‒32,
266. In an interview with an investigator, the Individual claimed that both records of his arrest in
2003 related to a single offense wherein, at the age of nineteen, he had consensual sexual
intercourse with a seventeen-year-old girl who contacted law enforcement to report the Statutory
Rape after the Individual refused to enter into a relationship with her. Id. at 181‒82. The Individual
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to an eighteen-month term of probation pursuant to which he
was required to complete court-ordered counseling. Id. at 181‒82, 219. The Individual’s court-
ordered counseling occurred in a group setting and, other than an intake session, he did not meet
one-on-one with a clinician. Tr. at 66.
In 2006, the Individual was drinking alcohol with a woman (Jane Doe) with whom he shared a
child but who was dating another man at that time. Ex. 9 at 183‒84. The Individual and Jane Doe
had sexual intercourse. Id. The Individual was subsequently arrested and charged with Criminal
Sexual Penetration after Jane Doe alleged that she had not consented to the sexual intercourse. Id.
at 183‒84, 269. The charges against the Individual were dismissed. Id. at 269. In an interview with
an investigator and in his hearing testimony, the Individual theorized that Jane Doe and her
boyfriend had planned the incident that led to his arrest as revenge for the Individual having
disclosed to a probation officer that the boyfriend was using illegal drugs around the Individual’s
son. Id. at 183‒84; Tr. at 43‒44.
B. Individual’s Alleged Domestic Violence
The Individual was first accused of domestic violence in 2007 when Jane Doe sought an order of
protection against him for alleged domestic violence. Ex. 9 at 228. The details of the alleged
domestic violence are not present in the record, but the Individual denied that it occurred and
alleged that Jane Doe’s claims were related to the 2006 Criminal Sexual Penetration charge. Tr. at
42‒43. A judge eventually dismissed the matter after Jane Doe failed to appear at a hearing. Ex. 9
at 228.
In 2008, the Individual was arrested and charged with Battery and Criminal Damage to Property
in connection with another alleged instance of domestic violence. Id. at 218, 269‒70. In his
6 The Individual was also arrested in May 2003 for what appears to be failure to appear at a hearing related to the
April 2003 Statutory Rape charge. Ex. 9 at 267.
- 5 -
interview with an investigator, the Individual claimed that he and a girlfriend (Girlfriend 1) had
argued while intoxicated and that he had called law enforcement after she struck him in the face
but was nevertheless arrested himself. Id. at 184‒85. The charges against the Individual were
dismissed after Girlfriend 1 failed to appear at a hearing concerning the matter. Id. at 185, 218.
In April 2009, law enforcement officers were summoned to the home of Girlfriend 1. Id. at 214;
see also id. at 185 (Individual indicating that the information obtained by the investigator, which
was redacted to omit the name of the person who contacted law enforcement, pertained to
Girlfriend 1). The Individual and Girlfriend 1 had broken up, and the Individual had damaged
some of Girlfriend 1’s property and communicated threats via text and phone calls because she
had not returned a calculator belonging to him which he needed for an academic program in which
he was enrolled. Id. at 214‒15. Law enforcement officers recovered the calculator for the
Individual who left Girlfriend 1’s property without further incident. Id.
The Individual was arrested and charged with Use of a Telephone to
Terrify/Intimidate/Harass/Annoy/Offend in 2011 in connection with a dispute with a former
girlfriend (Girlfriend 2). Id. at 213, 222. Girlfriend 2 alleged that he had harassed her by phone
since she notified him that she was pregnant with his child, that he was pressuring her to obtain an
abortion against her wishes, and that he had a history of violent behavior. Id. at 213; but see id. at
185‒86 (Individual denying allegations in an interview with an investigator); Tr. at 37 (Individual
testifying at the hearing that he broke up with Girlfriend 2 due to her erratic behavior). The charges
against the Individual were eventually dismissed nolle prosequi. Id. at 222. Girlfriend 2
subsequently obtained an order of protection prohibiting the Individual from contacting her. Id. at
227‒28; see also Tr. at 38 (Individual testifying that he did not contest the order of protection
sought by Girlfriend 2 because he alleged that she was harassing him, and he believed that
Girlfriend 2 being granted the order of protection would result in her ceasing her harassment of
him).
In June 2019, the Individual was arrested and charged with Criminal Damage to Property and
Disorderly Conduct in connection with an alleged act of domestic violence against a woman
(Girlfriend 3) with whom the Individual shares two children. Id. at 187, 234, 261. By the
Individual’s own account of the incident, he damaged Girlfriend 3’s home and personal property
by dropping, swiping, and throwing objects during an argument. Id. at 187; see also Ex. 5 at 37‒
38 (summarizing information obtained from a “protected source,” who was almost certainly
Girlfriend 3, largely corroborating the Individual’s account of the event); Tr. at 27. The
Individual’s outburst occurred in the presence of children Girlfriend 3 shared with another man.
Ex. 9 at 187‒88. The man with whom Girlfriend 3 shared those children obtained an order of
protection, which was in effect for approximately six months, against the Individual in favor of his
children after learning of the Individual’s behavior. Id. The charges against the Individual were
eventually dismissed after the Individual entered into a domestic violence diversion program
pursuant to which he attended court-ordered counseling and paid fines and fees. Id. at 236.
The Individual was charged with Disorderly Conduct and Preventing Use of Telephone in
Emergency in October 2021. Id. at 237. The Individual claimed to an investigator that he and
Girlfriend 3 engaged in a verbal argument and that he “grabbed [her] phone” when he saw that she
was texting their address to law enforcement. Id. at 188. However, the protected source who is
- 6 -
almost certainly Girlfriend 3 claimed that the Individual damaged property and pushed her during
the argument before taking their young son and disappearing for several days. Ex. 5 at 37. The
charges against the Individual were eventually dismissed. Ex. 9 at 237; see also id. at 188
(indicating that Girlfriend 3, who was likely the only witness to the Individual’s alleged conduct,
left the state in which they resided shortly after the incident); Tr. at 19 (Individual confirming that
Girlfriend 3 and their children left the state in which they resided at the time of alleged 2021
domestic violence shortly after the incident occurred).
Following the October 2021 incident that led to the Individual’s arrest, he and Girlfriend 3
separated. Tr. at 19. The Individual and Girlfriend 3 shared custody of their children. Id. at 20. At
some point in 2023, the Individual came to Girlfriend 3’s residence after arguing with her over the
telephone, according to him for a scheduled custody exchange, and Girlfriend 3 said that she was
calling the police. Id. The Individual grabbed Girlfriend 3’s phone and, according to him, set it
down, after which he left Girlfriend 3’s residence when she again threatened to call the police. Id.
Girlfriend 3 sought protective orders against the Individual based on allegations of domestic
violence in January 2023 and March 2023, both of which actions were dismissed.7 Ex. 9 at 223‒
24. In May 2023, a judge issued a restraining order prohibiting the Individual “from committing
further acts of abuse or threats of abuse” against Girlfriend 3 or from “any contact with” Girlfriend
3 until May 2025. Id. at 188‒89, 238.
C. Individual’s History of Traffic Citations and Other Unlawful Conduct
The Individual has a lengthy history of traffic infractions. From 2001 to 2024, the Individual was
charged or cited for traffic infractions on twenty occasions, ranging from speeding to reckless
driving to operating a vehicle without required registration or licensure. Id. at 210‒37; see also Ex.
5 at 37‒38 (protected source, who is almost certainly Girlfriend 3, describing occasions on which
the Individual engaged in risky, dangerous behavior while driving and attributing it to “road rage”);
Tr. at 56‒57 (Individual testifying that he was charged with Reckless Driving after he rearended
another vehicle, which the Individual attributed to the other driver’s aggressive and reckless
driving). While some of the citations and charges associated with these infractions were dismissed,
the Individual was required to pay fines and fees on numerous occasions after being found guilty
of the alleged offenses. Ex. 9 at 210‒37. Additionally, the Individual’s failure to attend hearings
7 The LSO alleged in the SSC that the Individual was charged with Domestic Violence in January 2023 and March
2023. Ex. 1 at 6. The Individual claimed during an interview with an investigator and in his hearing testimony that he
was never charged with this offense. Ex. 9 at 188; Tr. at 11‒12 (testifying that he believed the LSO’s allegation
referred to an order of protection sought against him by Girlfriend 3 in March 2023 in connection with a child custody
dispute); Tr. at 21‒22 (testifying that at least one of the dismissed actions was an attempt by Girlfriend 3 to obtain an
order of protection against the Individual in favor of their shared children). Upon review, the records of the background
investigation of the Individual support the Individual’s claim. First, the March 2023 entry refers to the case type as
“family/domestic violence” and includes acronyms that appear to refer to domestic violence protective orders sought
on behalf of minors along with redacted third-party information which is likely the name of the person seeking or
covered by a protective order. Ex. 9 at 223‒24. The January 2023 entry also indicates that the case type is “family,”
indicates that the case was brought by a “petitioner” rather than the state as plaintiff, and has redacted third-party
information which is, again, presumably the name of the person seeking a protective order. Id. at 224‒25. In the
absence of more concrete evidence that the Individual was charged with Domestic Violence twice in 2023, I accept
the Individual’s claims that the entries relied upon by the LSO relate to orders of protection sought by Girlfriend 3
and conclude that the Individual was not charged with Domestic Violence in January 2023 or March 2023.
- 7 -
and comply with judicial orders in connection with these infractions has resulted in the Individual
being found in contempt of court and bench warrants being issued for his arrest. Id. In September
2025, during the pendency of this proceeding, the Individual was cited for speeding in excess of
twenty-five miles per hour over the speed limit and was later found guilty and ordered to pay fines
and fees. See Ex. A at 1.8 The Individual testified at the hearing that he did not believe that his
traffic infractions reflected an unwillingness on his part to comply with laws, rules, or regulations
because, if he did not respect laws, rules, or regulations, he “wouldn’t have taken care of those
tickets.” Tr. at 15; see also id. at 59 (Individual testifying that he “ha[s] a lead foot 100 percent”).
However, the Individual admitted that he had not resolved all of his unpaid speeding tickets. Id. at
60 (testifying that he “ha[s not] been paying those” and that he “need[s] to get caught up with
those”).
Several other instances of alleged criminal conduct on the part of the Individual are of note. First,
in 2001 and 2004 the Individual was charged with felony offenses for fleeing a law enforcement
officer pursuing the Individual for traffic violations and, in the case of the 2004 offense, for battery
upon a police officer. Ex. 9 at 231, 233. The details of the resolution of the 2001 offense are not
present in the record. The Individual pleaded guilty to the 2004 offense, paid a fine, and served a
term of probation. Id. at 183, 233.
In 2011, the Individual was arrested and charged with DWI. Ex. 9 at 222. The Individual pleaded
guilty and, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, was required to attend a victim impact
panel, undergo an alcohol screening, and participate in educational classes related to alcohol
misuse. Id. at 223. The Individual successfully completed all required elements of the plea
agreement in 2013. Id.
Finally, in 2008, law enforcement investigated a potential battery by the Individual. Id. at 215. The
Individual’s manager at his job at that time filed a police report indicating that the Individual
became upset and used profanity after receiving an unfavorable workplace performance review.
Id. According to the manager, after the Individual was asked to leave, the Individual physically
attacked the manager, placed the manager in a headlock, and had to be removed by other
employees. Id. The manager told law enforcement that he did not wish to press charges and only
filed the police report because he was required to do so by his employer. Id. At the hearing, the
Individual denied having placed the manager in a headlock and claimed that he and the manager
had argued, the manager “pushed [him] up against the wall,” and in response the Individual
“clocked him in the face.” Tr. at 41.
D. Submission of the QNSP and Subsequent Investigation
The Individual completed and signed the QNSP on July 22, 2024. Ex. 7 at 96. As part of doing so,
the Individual certified that the information he provided therein was “true, complete, and correct
to the best of [his] knowledge and belief and [was] made in good faith.” Id. In a section of the
QNSP directing the Individual to disclose any occasions on which he had been arrested or charged
with a criminal offense in the seven years prior to completing the QNSP, the Individual disclosed
8 The Individual’s Exhibit A lists numerous judicial proceedings in which the Individual has been involved. A review
of the case number associated with the Individual’s September 2025 offense on a publicly-available website confirms
that the Individual was cited for speeding in excess of twenty-five miles per hour and required to pay fines and fees.
- 8 -
the domestic violence-related charges from October 2021 and June 20199 involving Girlfriend 3.
Id. at 82‒85. The Individual also disclosed the order of protection obtained against him by
Girlfriend 3 in May 2023 for alleged domestic violence. Id. at 88.
The Individual disclosed his 2011 DWI offense and August 2003 Criminal Penetration charge in
response to a question on the QNSP concerning whether he had “EVER” been charged with a
felony offense or an offense involving alcohol or drugs. Id. at 85 (emphasis in original). However,
the Individual did not disclose the other occasions on which he was charged with felony sex crimes
from 1997 to 2006 or the felony charges related to his encounters with law enforcement in 2001
and 2004 and checked a box marked “No” in response to a question asking if he had been charged
with any other felony offenses. Id. at 88.
In response to a question on the QNSP as to whether he had ever been court-ordered to consult
with a mental health professional, the Individual disclosed that he had been required to attend
counseling as part of his probation related to the August 2003 Criminal Penetration charge. Id. at
80‒81. However, he checked a box marked “No” in response to a question asking whether he had
any additional instances of court-ordered counseling to report and did not disclose that he attended
court-ordered counseling as part of the diversion program to resolve the charges related to his 2019
domestic violence-related offense. Id. at 81. Additionally, in a section of the QNSP related to
illegal drug use, the Individual checked a box marked “No” in response to a question asking
whether he had “illegally used any drugs or controlled substances” in the seven years prior to
completing the QNSP. Id. at 89.
A background investigation revealed aspects of the Individual’s criminal history that he had not
disclosed on the QNSP. During a series of interviews with an investigator, the Individual was
confronted with criminal conduct he did not disclose on the QNSP. Ex. 9 at 174‒75, 178‒79, 181‒
89. He denied having been charged with Felony Criminal Sexual Penetration in 1997. Id. at 181.
The Individual initially told the investigator that he did not disclose his 2004 Fleeing and Battery
on a Police Officer charges because he believed he was charged with a misdemeanor and not a
felony, but speculated during a later interview that the charges might have been reduced from
felonies to misdemeanors and that he omitted them due to oversight. Id. at 174, 182‒83; see also
Tr. at 13 (Individual testifying at the hearing that he was unable to locate the offenses on a state
court database and did not realize that they were felonies); Ex. C (showing that the charges do not
appear in the results of a query of a state court database when searching by the Individual’s name).
The background investigation also revealed that the Individual had attended court-ordered
domestic violence counseling in 2021, which the Individual did not disclose on the QNSP, to
resolve the charges associated with the 2019 domestic violence-related offenses. Ex. 9 at 236; Ex.
7 at 80‒81 (showing that the Individual did not disclose the counseling on the QNSP). In his
hearing testimony, the Individual claimed that he did not disclose the 2021 domestic violence
9 The Individual indicated in the QNSP and in a subsequent interview with an investigator that this event occurred in
May 2019. Ex. 7 at 83; Ex. 9 at 187. In his hearing testimony, the Individual asserted that the LSO’s allegation that
he was arrested for domestic violence-related offenses in both May and June 2019 was in error and that the two
allegations related to a single incident. Tr. at 12. Based on my review of the record, which does not appear to contain
any evidence of the Individual being charged with domestic violence-related offenses in May 2019, I conclude that
the alleged May and June 2019 offenses related to a single incident and that the Individual erroneously identified the
charges as having been made in May 2019, rather than June 2019, in the QNSP.
- 9 -
counseling on the QNSP because it was conducted in a group setting “like an AA meeting” and he
did not believe that the sessions were led by someone “qualified as a mental health professional.”
Id. at 15.
A protected source revealed the Individual’s use of hallucinogenic mushrooms during the
background investigation. See Ex. 5 at 37; see also Tr. at 60‒61 (Individual testifying that he used
the hallucinogenic mushrooms at the urging of a friend in 2021, they caused him to experience “a
lot of bad anxiety,” and he “had a horrible experience for several weeks after that”). The LSO
confronted the Individual in the LOI with the information from the protected source, and he
admitted that he had used hallucinogenic mushrooms on one occasion in October 2021. Ex. 6 at
40. At the hearing, the Individual claimed that he had volunteered this information during an
interview with an investigator as part of the background investigation without first having been
confronted with the information. Tr. at 11, 62. However, the report of the background investigation
contains no indication that the Individual volunteered this information before being confronted
with it in the LOI. Ex. 9 at 173‒90. Considering that the detailed notes of the investigatory
interviews make no mention of illegal drug use by the Individual, I find it more likely that the
Individual did not volunteer his hallucinogenic mushroom use before being confronted in the LOI
than that the investigator failed to include this information in the otherwise detailed report.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he omitted his 2006 charge of Felony Criminal Sexual
Penetration from the QNSP in error due to the offense not being listed on a state court database
that he consulted in completing the QNSP. Tr. at 12‒13; see also Ex. C (showing that the charge
does not appear in the results of a query of a state court database when searching by the Individual’s
name). He denied recollection of the details of the 2001 Fleeing offense and indicated that he did
not disclose it on the QNSP because he did not know that he was charged with a felony. Tr. at 13.
The Individual claimed that he did not disclose the 1998 Felony Criminal Sexual Penetration of a
Minor charge on the QNSP because he was unaware of it until he was confronted about it by the
investigator. Tr. at 14; but see Ex. C at 1 (showing that the charge appears on the state court
database that the Individual said that he consulted in completing the QNSP).
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline E include:
(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;
- 10 -
(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 reliability,
trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
Before addressing the mitigating conditions, I first address allegations in the SSC which do not
present security concerns. First, the SSC alleged that the Individual failed to disclose having been
charged with Domestic Violence in January 2023 and March 2023. However, I find that there is
insufficient evidence in the record to support the LSO’s claims that these charges occurred. Supra
note 7. As the LSO has not established that the charges occurred, I find that the Individual not
disclosing the charges on the QNSP did not present security concerns under Guideline E. Second,
the LSO alleged that the Individual failed to disclose having been charged with domestic violence-
related offenses on June 15, 2019. I find that the Individual did disclose the charges, though he
mistakenly stated that he was charged in May 2019 rather than June 2019. Supra note 9. As the
Individual did disclose the charges in question, I find that the LSO’s allegation does not present
security concerns under Guideline E.
Turning to the mitigating conditions, the Individual did not disclose the numerous felony charges,
illegal drug use, or court-ordered counseling that he omitted from the QNSP before being
confronted by the investigator or LSO. The Individual claimed at the hearing that he disclosed his
illegal drug use to the investigator before being confronted in the LOI. However, I see no indication
in the copious, detailed notes of the investigator’s interviews with the Individual that the Individual
disclosed illegal drug use in the seven years prior to completing the QNSP. Accordingly, I find the
first mitigating condition inapplicable to the facts of this case. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(a).
The second mitigating condition is irrelevant because the Individual does not assert that he failed
to disclose information in the QNSP on the advice of counsel or another representative. Id. at
¶ 17(b).
The Individual asserted in his hearing testimony that his omissions on the QNSP were
unintentional errors, and cited the passage of time since some of the oldest alleged criminal conduct
- 11 -
and a lack of records related to the alleged criminal conduct in a state court database he relied on
in completing the QNSP as contributing factors to his omissions. The Individual’s assertions are
not without merit. The most recent of the felony offenses the Individual failed to disclose on the
QNSP, the 2006 Felony Criminal Sexual Penetration charge, occurred over eighteen years prior to
the Individual’s submission of the QNSP. Moreover, numerous felonies that the Individual did not
disclose do not appear on the state court database and it is plausible that he was unaware of the
offenses, or that they were felony offenses, when he submitted the QNSP.
However, several factors weigh against the Individual. His 1998 Criminal Sexual Penetration
charge does appear on the state court database, undercutting the Individual’s argument that he
faithfully disclosed whatever information he found on the database. Furthermore, I find it notable
that the Individual omitted all of his alleged non-consensual sex offenses, which he might have
perceived as more serious than the Statutory Rape charge, from the QNSP. Additionally, I find it
extremely implausible that the Individual forgot his 2021 hallucinogenic mushroom use
considering his claim that he suffered ill effects from the drug for weeks after using it. His claim
to have disclosed the drug use to the investigator, which is not corroborated by the investigator’s
copious notes of interviews with the Individual, also undercuts the Individual’s credibility. Further
undermining the Individual’s credibility is his claim that he did not disclose his 2021 court-ordered
counseling because he did not perceive it to have been consultation with a mental health
professional because of the group nature of the counseling when he disclosed much older group
counseling he participated in in 2003. On balance, I find that the nature and extent of the
Individual’s omissions, the circumstances surrounding the conduct, the recency of the conduct,
and the potential motivation for the conduct all weigh against the Individual. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c)
(listing factors that must be considered in applying the mitigating conditions). Accordingly, I find
that the third mitigating condition does not resolve the security concerns presented by the
Individual’s omissions on the QNSP. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(c).
The remaining mitigating conditions are irrelevant to the facts of this case because the Individual
does not claim to have pursued counseling related to issues of honesty or forthcomingness, the
LSO did not allege that the Individual’s omissions on the QNSP placed him at elevated risk of
exploitation, manipulation, or duress, the Individual’s allegations which I found presented security
concerns under Guideline E were not unsubstantiated or based on sources of questionable
reliability, and the LSO did not allege that the Individual associated with persons engaged in
criminal conduct. Id. at ¶ 17(d)‒(g).
Although the Individual has established that some of the LSO’s allegations under Guideline E
were meritless, he has not established the applicability of any of the mitigating conditions to the
surviving concerns. Accordingly, he has not fully resolved the security concerns asserted by the
LSO under Guideline E.
A. Guideline J
- 12 -
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline J include:
(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
(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.
While I found that the Individual was not arrested or charged with domestic violence in 2023, he
was subject to an order of protection in favor of Girlfriend 3 based on allegations of domestic
violence which only expired in May 2025. This alleged domestic violence appears to be part of a
pattern on the part of the Individual of reacting in a volatile, violent manner when in conflict.
Likewise, while some of the Individual’s alleged traffic offenses are relatively minor, the sheer
volume of the offenses demonstrates a pattern of irresponsibility which persisted during the
pendency of this proceeding when the Individual was cited for speeding significantly in excess of
the posted speed limit. This is not to say that the Individual committed every criminal act of which
he was accused or that he reacted violently without provocation; however, the record clearly
establishes that the Individual has a history of failing to control his impulses and exercising poor
judgment leading him to repeat detrimental patterns of behavior. Considering the relative recency
of the Individual’s conduct, its repetition under similar circumstances, and the high probability of
recurrence, I find the first mitigating condition inapplicable to the facts of this case. Id. at ¶ 32(a).
The second mitigating condition is irrelevant to the facts of this case because the Individual does
not allege that he was pressured or coerced into committing unlawful conduct. Id. at ¶ 32(b).
While the Individual denies that he committed many of the offenses, the sheer volume of offenses
with which the Individual has been charged or cited is compelling evidence that the Individual is
not a victim of circumstance or false allegations. Moreover, he has been adjudicated guilty of or
pleaded guilty to numerous offenses. As the Individual has brought forward no evidence besides
his own accounts of the incidents, I find the third mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 32(c).
The Individual has repeatedly served terms of probation only to reoffend. He has not brought
forward recent evidence of job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement. As discussed above, the current passage of time without
recurrence of criminal activity is extremely brief, considering his lengthy history of alleged
criminal conduct. Accordingly, I find the fourth mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 32(d).
- 13 -
For the aforementioned reasons, I find none of the mitigating conditions applicable to the facts of
this case. Accordingly, the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline J.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines E and J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-
sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I
find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns
asserted by the LSO. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual should not be granted
access authorization. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth
at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals