PSH-26-0002

*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 8, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0002
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 19, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires a security clearance.
In January 2025, the Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP)
for his security clearance application, disclosing that he had been disciplined multiple times by
employers and charged with an alcohol-related offense within the last year. As a result, the DOE
Local Security Office (LSO) requested a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) to
evaluate the Individual. Based on the information gathered by the LSO, including a June 2025
report produced by the DOE Psychologist (Report), the LSO informed the Individual by letter
(Notification Letter) that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding
his eligibility to possess a security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled
Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised
security concerns under Guidelines E, G, and I of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
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 Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual provided his own testimony and the testimony of his
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor (sponsor), his wife, and his psychologist (Individual’s
Psychologist). The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist. The Individual
submitted twenty-three exhibits, marked Exhibits A through W. The LSO submitted fifteen
exhibits, marked Exhibits 1 through 15.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated, the LSO cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption),
and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the bases for concern
regarding the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1.
Guideline E provides that “[c]onduct 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.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. “Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid
answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.” Id. Conditions that could
raise a security concern include:
. . .
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline
and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when
combined with all available information, supports a whole-person assessment of
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor,
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics
indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive
information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: . . . any disruptive,
violent, or other inappropriate behavior; [and] . . . a pattern of dishonesty or rule
violations[.]
. . . .
Id. at ¶ 16.
The SSC recounts the following information, copied verbatim below:
A. In December 2023, [the Individual’s current employer (Employer)] terminated [the
Individual] for sending inappropriate text messages to his management.
2 References to the LSO exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in the top right corner of
each exhibit page.
- 3 -
B. On November 13, 2023, [Employer] administratively restricted [the Individual] from
the site and placed him on administrative leave after sending inappropriate text
messages to his management.
C. In March 2022, [Employer] reprimanded [the Individual] for sending his supervisor
text messages in the evening.
D. On February 10, 2020, [Employer] issued [the Individual] an oral reminder and placed
him on six months of probation due to a continued pattern of unprofessional conduct
and behavior including damaging a wall by kicking a chair into it, inappropriate use of
email, and texting work-related complaints to a supervisor’s personal cell number at
10:44 pm on one occasion.
E. On January 31, 2019, [Employer] issued [the Individual] a written reminder and placed
him on nine months of probation for a vehicular incident. He was operating a van and
struck a fence post causing damage to the van’s mirror.
F. On February 9, 2017, [Employer] placed [the Individual] on decision making leave and
twelve months of probation for insubordination after he left work without permission
when he had been notified not to leave work without permission.
G. On March 16, 2015, [Employer] issued [the Individual] a written reminder and placed
him on six months of probation for a vehicular incident after he drove a vehicle with
an expired inspection.
H. On April 14, 2014, [Employer] issued [the Individual] an oral reminder and placed him
on six months of probation for a vehicular incident. He was travelling at 36 mph in a
25-mph zone.
I. In August 2009, [a former employer] terminated his employment.
Ex. 1 at 6–7.
This information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline E.
Guideline G provides that “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that
could raise a security concern include “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as . . .
fighting, . . . disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern”; and “[d]iagnosis by a duly
qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist
. . .) of alcohol use disorder . . . .” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (d). The SSC cites that the DOE Psychologist
concluded in the June 2025 Report that the Individual met sufficient criteria under the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, for a diagnosis of
Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Ex. 1 at 7. The SSC also cites that in June 2024 the Individual was arrested and
- 4 -
charged with Public Intoxication and admitted to consuming ten alcoholic beverages prior to his
arrest. Id. This information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
Guideline I provides that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. “A formal diagnosis of
a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline.” Id. Conditions that could
raise a security concern include the following:
(a) behavior that casts doubt on an individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness, not covered under any other guideline and that may indicate an
emotional, mental, or personality condition, including, but not limited to,
irresponsible, violent, self-harm, suicidal, paranoid, manipulative, impulsive,
chronic lying, deceitful, exploitative, or bizarre behaviors; [and]
(b) an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a
condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness;
. . . .
Id. at ¶ 28.
The SSC cites that the DOE Psychologist concluded the following:
[The Individual] demonstrates a pattern of disruptive behavior at work which he
attributes to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and/or his disabilities
not being adequately accommodated. He is not taking responsibility for these problems
or adequately addressing his purported diagnosis. Further he is not following medical
advice to rule out other contributing factors to these problems (sleep apnea). The
symptoms he is attributing to ADHD have led to impairment in his judgment, reliability
and stability. Furthermore, he has demonstrated a willingness to be dishonest about his
alcohol use and treatment, which suggests an impairment in judgment, reliability,
stability, and trustworthiness. Lastly, he demonstrates a pattern of using his purported
problems to gain sympathy and justify his behaviors, often externalizing blame and
avoiding taking responsibility for his problems. These traits can impair judgment,
reliability, stability, and trustworthiness.
Ex. 1 at 7.
This information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I.
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
- 5 -
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with
the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d
1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Personal Conduct
There is no dispute that the Individual has been disciplined by his employers over the years.
Starting in 2009, he was terminated by his then employer. Ex. 12 at 239. The president of that
employer declined to provide detail into the reasons for the termination but told an investigator
that the Individual was not reliable and described the Individual as confrontational, which did not
improve despite “attempt[s] to work with [the Individual] on this repeatedly . . . .” Ex. 15 at 564.
The Individual explained that he was terminated because he complained about an unsafe condition,
which angered the employer. Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0002 (Tr.) at 97–98.
According to the Individual, he eventually filed a complaint in response, and the investigating
federal agency determined that he was wrongfully terminated. Id.; see also Ex. 15 at 568
(Individual stating that this employer falsely claimed that he threatened to leave his work vehicle
on the side of the road as a reason for his termination). The remaining instances of discipline
involve Employer.
The Individual started working for Employer in 2014. Ex. 11 at 198. During his tenure, he was
disciplined several times, which resulted in being terminated in December 2023. Id. at 196–197,
199–200. In his first year of employment, he was placed on probation for speeding. Ex. 15 at 389.
In the response submitted to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) in March 2025, he questioned whether
there was any proof he exceeded the speed limit, citing the absence of cameras in the area. Ex. 7
at 31.
In 2015, he received a written warning for driving a work vehicle with expired inspection. Ex. 15
at 389. In his LOI response, he explained that while he overlooked the expiration date he only
violated his employer’s rule since the federal agency that issues the registration had a less rigid
interpretation of when inspection expires. Ex. 7 at 32.
- 6 -
In 2017, he was placed on leave and a year of probation for insubordination for leaving work
without permission. Ex. 15 at 389. The Individual explained in a 2020 QNSP that he was written
up for leaving the worksite for lunch after asking his supervisor for permission, which was denied.
Ex. 12 at 235. To explain his behavior, he stated that his supervisor “had worked [him] well past
the cafeteria hours” and his supervisor was “trying to prevent [him] from getting . . . lunch.” Id.
However, he also claimed in the LOI response that the supervisor would have allowed him to leave
the worksite if he had said it was for a reason other than lunch, which he was unwilling to do. Ex.
7 at 33. Unrelatedly, the Individual claimed that Employer was violating federal regulations
regarding driver fatigue. Id.
In 2019, he received a warning and was placed on nine months of probation for causing damage
to a work van by striking a fence post. Ex. 23 at 235. He stated that he was fatigued from working
overnight and accidentally hit the fence post. Ex. 7 at 34.
In 2020, he was placed on six months of probation due to “a continued pattern of unprofessional
conduct and behavior” for kicking a chair, inappropriately using email, and texting work-related
complaints to management at night. Ex. 15 at 389. Regarding the chair-kicking incident, the
Individual explained that he had his feet in a chair one morning, which a manager asked him to
remove. Ex. 11 at 236. He “pushed the chair away with [his] foot[,] . . . the chair that is on wheels
traveled 8 feet and hit a wall” and he was held responsible for a resultant small hole in the
sheetrock. Id. The Individual disputed the damage in the LOI response. Id. However, in his
interview with an investigator in 2020, he stated that the chair did cause the small hole and that he
would not repeat the behavior. Ex. 15 at 380. Regarding the late-night complaints, Employer
reported that the Individual sent a manager messages at the manager’s personal cell number at
10:44 p.m. Id. at 389.
He was most recently disciplined in November 2023 and March 2022 after he again sent text
messages to his management that Employer deemed inappropriate. Ex. 11 at 197, 199–200. The
March 2022 discipline was for an incident in January 2022, when the Individual sent his supervisor
a late-night text message complaint after he was told to complete a task before being able to leave
on the date of his grandmother’s death. Id. at 200; Ex. 8 at 36. In November 2023, the Individual
again sent late-night text messages to his supervisors, on this occasion complaining about the
handling of classified documents, which he claims were not properly addressed.3 Ex. 11 at 199–
200; Ex. 8 at 58. He was placed on leave in November 2023 and terminated the following month.
Ex. 7 at 37; Ex. 11 at 198.
Employer rehired the Individual a year later in December 2024. Ex. 11 at 196. The Individual
testified that when he returned to his job in 2024, he decided that he to needed change his life. Tr.
at 76–77. His wife testified that he expressed regret that he sent the text messages to his supervisor
and “should have approached it in a different way.” Id. at 22. However, the wife also testified that
she did not believe his late-night text messages were inappropriate because he was trying to bring
attention to work issues and management was not listening to him. Id. at 25, 34.
The Individual’s wife testified that, since being rehired, he uses the union steward process to
mediate issues rather than directly contacting his supervisors. Id. at 28, 47 (wife testifying that he
3 The Individual confirmed that a security review of his allegation failed to substantiate his claim. Ex. 8 at 58.
- 7 -
had always used the union steward process but would sometimes move ahead with contacting the
supervisor directly if he “couldn’t get a hold” of the steward). The Individual testified that he had
completed a course on communication, which helped him understand other points of view, that
written communication is susceptible to misinterpretation, and that text messages should be sent
during business hours instead of late at night. Id. at 82–83. He testified that he is in a “total[ly]
different place” and realizes that some of his past mistakes were “ridiculous.” Id. at 158. He finds
it beneficial to speak with somebody else, such as his wife or union steward, to decide how he
should best communicate an issue. Id. at 84. He testified that it was absolutely inappropriate for
him to have kicked the chair into a wall and explicitly took responsibility for speeding in 2014. Id.
at 157–59.
B. Alcohol Use
The Individual admitted to a twenty-five-year history of binge consuming alcohol at the rate of
twelve beers, two to three times a month. Ex. 10 at 167; see also Tr. at 105.
As stated above, the Individual’s grandmother passed away in January 2022. He testified that his
alcohol consumption worsened prior to his grandmother’s passing. Tr. at 85, 103–04. He reported
the same information to his physician in February 2022, disclosing that he had been “drinking
heavily (binge drinking)” to the point that his “supervisor put him on leave.” Ex. 10 at 168 (original
quotation from physician in medical records). However, the Individual failed to report this
information to the DOE Psychologist during the psychological evaluation where he denied that his
consumption increased around the time of his grandmother’s health decline and death. Ex. 8 at 57.
The Individual reported in the LOI that he “completely stopped drinking alcohol” for “almost two
years” after his grandmother passed away. Ex. 7 at 44, 47. He made the same statement to the DOE
Psychologist. Ex. 8 at 61. But both statements are false by his own admission. Tr. at 103–04. He
reported to the Individual’s Psychologist4 that he had only abstained for about six months after his
grandmother passed and disclosed that his alcohol consumption “became more of a problem after
his grandmother died in 2022”: he intended to stop drinking altogether but would often “slip.” Ex.
A at 2–4. At the hearing, he confirmed that he only abstained for about six months after his
grandmother passed before consuming beer “on two different occasions.” Tr. at 86. He then
testified that, in 2023, he consumed an unrecalled amount of alcohol a couple of times in brief
attempts to return to controlled drinking. Id. at 87–88. He denied that his consumption constituted
binge drinking. Id. at 88. However, his medical records indicate that he reported consuming
enough alcohol in 2023 to become “drunk twice.” Ex. 10 at 107.
After he was terminated by Employer, he started consuming alcohol a few times a month at the
rate of one to six beers per episode. Tr. at 88, 108, 110 (describing his behavior as “battling with
the fact that [he] shouldn’t be drinking at all”). In June 2024, the Individual was arrested and
charged with Public Intoxication after getting into an altercation with his brother. Ex. 7 at 42; Ex.
11 at 213. When the police arrived, the Individual refused to answer any questions. Ex. 7 at 42.
According to the Individual, his refusal angered the police officer and the officer arrested the
4 The Individual’s Psychologist interviewed the Individual on August 29, 2025, September 5, 2025, and September
12, 2025, to “determine if there are psychiatric, psychological, and/or emotional difficulties that may need to be
considered in assessing whether he may retain his security clearance.” Ex. A at 2. The Individual’s Psychologist
produced a report of his findings on January 23, 2026. Id.
- 8 -
Individual because the Individual had alcohol on his breath and the officer “was only looking for
a quick arrest so he could go back to doing whatever . . . .”5 Ex. 11 at 213. The Individual admitted
that he had consumed ten alcoholic beverages on the day leading up to the incident, which
represents a significantly greater level of consumption than one to six beers. Ex. 7 at 42. He
reported that this level of consumption was not typical but did not explain why he decided to drink
so heavily that particular day. Ex. 8 at 59.
There are additional examples of the Individual providing conflicting information regarding his
alcohol use. For example, during the psychological evaluation, he denied being prescribed
medication to assist in abstaining from alcohol. Id. at 57. However, shortly after his 2024 arrest,
he was prescribed medication for that exact purpose. Tr. at 112; see also Ex. 8 at 60 (DOE
Psychologist noting the Individual, despite his denial, was prescribed medication “to treat alcohol
use disorder”). He also stopped taking the medication without first consulting a physician. Tr. at
114.
Another example is his denial during the psychological evaluation that he ever had a problem with
alcohol or that alcohol had a negative impact on his life other than his June 2024 arrest. Ex. 8 at
58–59. In his LOI, he also denied having a problem with alcohol, attempting to cut back, or having
a pattern of binge drinking. Ex. 7 at 46. However, as stated above, his medical records contain the
Individual’s statement that he was “drinking too much” around the time he decided to text his
supervisor late at night in January 2022 and show that he has a history of binge consumption of
alcohol. Ex. 8 at 58; Ex. 10 at 125–29. The Individual’s medical records contemporaneous with
the June 2024 arrest indicate that a physician advised him to abstain from alcohol. Ex. 8 at 60; Ex.
10 at 159. Furthermore, a physician diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Abuse, Uncomplicated
in January 2022, noting that the Individual “heavily” consumed alcohol “several days a week[.]”
Ex. 10 at 173. And he was advised by a physician in 2024 to reduce his alcohol consumption due
to his liver enzyme test results. Id. at 159.
The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual as having an AUD, Moderate, based on the
Individual’s history of alcohol use and self-report that he had been abstinent from alcohol for
approximately five months. Ex. 8 at 59, 67; see also Tr. at 117 (Individual’s Psychologist agreeing
that the Individual “presents a history of alcohol abuse”). The Individual underwent a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test at the time of the evaluation, which provided a negative result and
therefore provided some support for his claim of abstinence dating back to January 2025.6 Ex. 8 at
59–60, 72. To address the AUD, the DOE Psychologist recommended (1) at least twelve months
of abstinence documented by employer-administered breath tests and monthly PEth testing; and
(2) at least three AA meetings a week. Id.
Based on the recommendation, the Individual started attending AA in September 2025, five
months before the hearing. Ex. M at 50. He typically attended AA three or more times a week. Tr.
at 90. At the AA meetings, he referred to himself as an alcoholic. Id. at 62. The Individual obtained
an AA sponsor and worked the AA steps. Id. at 53–54, 57, 59. He never disclosed his future intent
5 The Individual believed that his brother was under the influence of drugs at the time. Ex. 8 at 59.
6 “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 8 at
72. The DOE Psychologist explained that PEth tests “can only examine alcohol consumption in the last 28-30 days .
. . .” Id. at 60.
- 9 -
regarding alcohol use to his sponsor. Id. at 57. The sponsor testified that the Individual stated he
has shared and discussed his work in AA, like his written self-inventory, with his wife. Id. at 62–
63. The Individual testified that he had worked with his wife to help him come up with a “moral
inventory” as part of working the AA steps. Id. at 95. By contrast, his wife testified that he has
never talked to her about his AA meetings, his sponsor, or what he has learned in AA. Id. at 20.
The Individual testified that AA made him “realize a lot of the things that [he] was doing . . . was
wrong, and it’s also helped [him] come up with better forms of communication and just a whole
new outlook on things.” Id. at 71. He testified that he never intends to consume alcohol again. Id.
at 68. However, he vacillated regarding whether he has a problem with alcohol. At first, he testified
that he did not have a current problem with alcohol even though he “still kind of consider[s]
[himself] an alcoholic . . . .” Id. at 133. Later, he testified, “[o]bviously, my alcoholism is a
problem.” Id. at 158. He also denied that anybody had expressed concern regarding his alcohol
use. Id. at 134. However, he previously told the Individual’s Psychologist otherwise. Ex. A at 4
(reporting “the Individual has been concerned about his level of [alcohol] use as have other family
members”). And his testimony is contradicted by the medical advice he received regarding his
liver function. Supra p. 8.
He testified that he last consumed alcohol in January 2025. Tr. at 67; see also id. at 15 (wife
testifying the Individual last consumed half a beer at their home at that time). Since then, he has
used exercise to maintain abstinence, and he benefited from the support of his wife. Id. at 7, 17.
The Individual submitted nine negative PEth tests of samples collected in August 2025 through
January 2026. Exs. E–L, V. The DOE Psychologist concluded that Individual provided evidence
of six months of abstinence, as demonstrated by the PEth test results. Tr. at 140–41 (considering
the period covered as July 2025 to January 2026). However, she conceded that the PEth test the
Individual underwent during the June 2025 evaluation would corroborate abstinence beginning in
at least early May 2025, which represents approximately nine months of abstinence preceding the
February 2026 hearing date. See id. at 152. She concluded, however, that he had not demonstrated
adequate evidence of reformation or rehabilitation. Id. at 139, 141. She testified that he did not
complete her recommendation of twelve months of AA and abstinence and explained that her
recommendation was based on the Individual’s self-report of having abstained for two years with
some relapses, which demonstrated he was vulnerable to relapse. Id. at 142–43.
By contrast, the Individual’s Psychologist, while he agreed with the diagnosis of AUD, moderate,
gave the Individual a positive prognosis based on a year of self-reported abstinence without
relapse, PEth testing, and AA participation. Tr. at 121; see Ex. A at 5–6 (report concluding that
the Individual “appears to be adequately addressing [his AUD] through abstinence and AA
meetings”). However, the Individual’s Psychologist could not provide the date the Individual
began attending AA. Tr. at 125. He also did not critically evaluate the Individual’s claimed period
of abstinence not covered by the PEth test results because “it seemed plausible . . . .” and he found
“no reason to doubt [the reported one year of abstinence.]” Id. at 130.
C. Psychological Condition
The Individual has been diagnosed with ADHD, a treatable condition. Ex. 8 at 63, 66. The
Individual attributed his tendency to engage in unprofessional behavior at work, evinced by his
numerous reprimands, to having a disorder that his management does not understand nor
- 10 -
accommodate. Id. at 64. He also has been diagnosed with sleep apnea, and the DOE Psychologist
stated the symptoms of sleep apnea overlap with those of ADHD, including irritability and
difficulty concentrating. Id. These conditions can exacerbate one another if untreated. Id. During
the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI-3) to assess potential psychopathology and personality structures. Id. at 63. The
Individual’s results, consistent with having ADHD, indicated that he may have “complaint[s]
about memory problems, have a low tolerance for frustration, [] not cope well with stress, and
experience difficulties in attention and/or concentration.” Id. The DOE Psychologist reported that
the Individual did not follow his doctor’s advice to take medication to treat his ADHD or use a
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machine to treat sleep apnea. Id.
The DOE Psychologist concluded after the evaluation that the symptoms the Individual attributes
to his untreated ADHD, which the Individuals blamed for his disruptive behaviors, had led to
“impairment in his judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness.” Id. at 67. Furthermore, the
DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual has a “pattern of using his purported problems to
gain sympathy and justify his behaviors, often externalizing blame and avoiding taking
responsibility for his problems,” which are traits that “can impair judgment, reliability, stability,
and trustworthiness.” Id. The DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual has a “victim
mentality,” demonstrated by his attempt to use his ADHD to portray “himself as a victim and/or
exaggerating problems . . . in order to manipulate others’ sympathies and gain their support and
justify his behavior.” Id. at 65. People with victim mentality have difficulty learning from their
mistakes and “therefore increase[] the likelihood that they will continue to repeat them.” Id.
(stating it is a “persistent, habitual tendency [] to see themselves as a victim and attribute
responsibility for negative experiences to external factors often at the expense of personal agency
and accountability”). As support for this conclusion, the DOE Psychologist referenced that the
Individual has been reprimanded, counseled, and suffered consequences for his behavior—such as
texting supervisors inappropriately several times—and continued to defend his actions “by
pointing out shortcomings in work policies, inadequate supervisor responses, and/or attributing his
behavior to his self-described disabilities.” Id. The DOE Psychologist concluded that the traits
characteristic of a victim mentality can and have “impair[ed] [the Individual’s] judgment,
reliability, stability, and trustworthiness.” Id. at 67.
After the evaluation, the Individual began addressing his ADHD symptoms with doctor-prescribed
medication. Tr. at 74. His wife testified that he takes his ADHD medication as prescribed and that
she has observed a big difference: he is more focused and motivated. Id. at 42. The Individual
agreed. Id. at 79. He testified that his doctor was “very pleased” with his ability to get “healthier,”
lose weight, and reverse his sleep apnea problems—which an overnight test confirmed. Id. at 81;
Ex. D at 22 (October 2025 sleep test results).
The DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual is adequately addressing his ADHD and his
prognosis is good based on the effect of the medication and exercise. Tr. at 148–49, 151; see also
Id. at 120 (Individual’s Psychologist concluding the same). She also concluded that he had
resolved his sleep apnea. Id. at 151. However, the DOE Psychologist opined that nothing in the
record demonstrated that the Individual was taking responsibility for his dishonesty in reporting
his alcohol use or his past behavior to a degree that she would change her opinion regarding his
pattern of behavior that created a concern regarding his judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness—
i.e., the victim mentality. See id. at 155. The Individual’s Psychologist offered the alternative
- 11 -
conclusion that some of the Individual’s history of issues at work occurred in the context of grief
over his grandmother’s death and some were related to the Individual’s “poorly treated ADHD
and lack of treatment for sleep disorder.” Ex. A at 5. The Individual’s Psychologist opined that,
instead of representing a psychiatric condition, the Individual’s “difficulties at work likely are
related to his problems focusing and being able to retain even ordinary tasks, leading to help-
seeking and resulting frustration on his part.” Id. at 6. The Individual’s Psychologist testified that
the Individual had “made some progress” with his ADHD that indicates “he’s going to be able to
manage it more effectively.” Tr. at 121.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on personal conduct include the following:
(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 reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply
with rules and regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
- 12 -
I conclude that none of the above mitigating conditions apply to resolve the Guideline E concerns.
The SSC identifies several instances of the Individual’s behavior that resulted in employer-meted
discipline for inappropriate written communications with management, insubordination, and
vehicle-related incidents. Therefore, ¶ 17(a) and ¶ 17(b) are not applicable because the behavior
outlined in the SSC does not include instances of the Individual omitting, concealing, or falsifying
information.
I further conclude that ¶ 17(c) does not apply for the following reasons. While viewed separately
the several offenses may be minor, especially the ones related to his work vehicle such as speeding
and expired registration, his problematic communications and insubordination are not because they
evince a pattern of inappropriate behavior and rule breaking. Given that there are several instances
of concerning behavior at the rate of approximately an incident a year spanning almost a decade
from 2014 to 2023, I conclude that the behavior is not infrequent. Finally, I find that his behavior
did not happen under “such unique circumstances” because there is nothing in the record to support
this or to suggest that his conduct is unlikely to recur. To the extent he argues that his conduct was
attributable to his ADHD, which he is now addressing, I do not conclude that untreated ADHD
presents “unique circumstances.”
Turning to ¶ 17(d), I conclude that it does not apply to resolve the concerns. Although the
Individual acknowledged his behavior at the hearing, I question the credibility of his testimony
based on my reasoning below and the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that he has a victim mentality,
and therefore conclude that he has not yet fully accepted responsibility for his conduct.
Accordingly, I remain skeptical that the steps he has taken to address the factors that contributed
to his inappropriate behavior make it unlikely that he will repeat the behavior. Since he has treated
his ADHD and resolved his sleep apnea, the conditions should not impact his behavior going
forward so long as he continues his treatment. However, he continues to provide conflicting and
contradictory accounts of his alcohol use, described in greater detail below, which weakens his
credibility in general and therefore undermines his testimony regarding his workplace behavior,
reliability, and trustworthiness. Even if I were to set aside my general skepticism, his testimony
that he has since learned that he should not send text message complaints to his supervisor late at
night seems questionable given that he was warned about this behavior on more than two
occasions. Asserting at the hearing that he has since learned his lessons does not go far enough to
demonstrate that his testimony is sincere and the conduct is unlikely to recur. Nor does evidence
of completing communication training: it was not difficulty in expressing himself that led to his
decision to continue to send messages at inappropriate times. And the fact that he will avail himself
of the steward process does not mitigate my concern. The steward process can be misused too.
Furthermore, at least one of the inappropriate late-night text messaging occurred when he was
consuming too much alcohol, and, as discussed below, he has not yet resolved the concerns derived
from his alcohol use. It may therefore again impact his behavior.
Lastly, ¶ 17(e)–(g) do not apply because the behavior outlined in the SSC does not indicate the
Individual is particularly vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; the information
contained in the SSC has not been demonstrated to be unreliable; and the allegations do not relate
to association with persons involved in criminal activity.
- 13 -
B. Guideline G Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on alcohol consumption include the
following:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
I conclude that none of the above mitigating conditions apply to resolve the Guideline G security
concerns. I find that ¶ 23(a) does not apply because I do not conclude that the passage of time,
frequency of the conduct, or circumstances are such that the concerning conduct is unlikely to
recur. In reaching my conclusion, I am persuaded by the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the
Individual has not rehabilitated or reformed from his AUD based on the inferences she drew from
the Individual’s inconsistent reporting of his alcohol use and history of relapse. Since the AUD is
unresolved, I do not conclude that his behavior is unlikely to recur and he has not resolved the
resultant concern regarding his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment.
Second, I find that ¶ 23(b) does not apply. The Individual technically acknowledged his pattern of
maladaptive alcohol by testifying that he does have a problem with alcohol, albeit only after first
testifying that he did not have a current problem, but the entire record demonstrates his persistent
tendency to provide conflicting information regarding his alcohol use, including at the hearing
(e.g., testifying that his admitted instances of consumption in 2023, during his previously claimed
period of two-year abstinence, were not binge episodes while medical records reflect that he
reported being drunk; testifying that he worked with his wife on his AA steps but she denied the
same; and denying that anybody expressed concern regarding his alcohol use despite stating the
opposite to the Individual’s Psychologist and receiving documented medical advice to reduce his
consumption). While he did attend AA and abstain from alcohol at the DOE Psychologist’s
recommendation, I do not conclude he has thereby provided a clear and established pattern of
abstinence because he did not meet the year of documented abstinence, he has a history of relapse
after stints of abstinence, his testimony regarding his progress lacks credibility given the concerns
- 14 -
referenced above, and the DOE Psychologist concluded that he has not demonstrated rehabilitation
or reformation.
For the reasons cited above under ¶ 23(a) and ¶ 23(b), I further conclude that ¶ 23(c) does not
apply to resolve the concern. The Individual has not adequately addressed his AUD and therefore,
even if AA were considered “treatment,” his progress is not satisfactory.
Lastly, ¶ 23(d) does not apply because he has not successfully completed a treatment program or
required aftercare.
C. Guideline I Considerations
Under Guideline I, the following relevant conditions can mitigate security concerns associated
with a psychological condition:
(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.
I find that ¶ 29(a) and ¶ 29(c) apply to resolve the concerns related to the Individual’s ADHD. The
condition is readily controllable and the Individual has been taking medication under care of a
physician and made positive lifestyle changes such that the DOE Psychologist concluded, after
review of the evidence, that the prognosis is good. I therefore conclude that the Individual put
forward sufficient evidence to demonstrate ongoing and consistent compliance with a treatment
plan and that his condition is under control and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation.
Turning to the opinion that the Individual has engaged in behavior that demonstrates a victim
mentality, I find that none of the above conditions apply to resolve the concerns derived from that
behavior. First, regarding ¶ 29(a), there is no evidence or opinion in the record that the condition
is readily controllable with treatment or that the Individual has demonstrated ongoing and
consistent compliance with a treatment plan to address that behavior.
- 15 -
Similarly, there is no evidence, under ¶ 29(b) or ¶ 29(c), that the Individual is undergoing
counseling or treatment to address the concerns raised by the DOE Psychologist, nor has he
received a favorable prognosis or opinion that the condition is under control or in remission.
Lastly, there is no opinion, under ¶ 29(d) or ¶ 29(e), that the condition is temporary or that there is
no indication of a current problem. While the Individual’s Psychologist did not reach the same
conclusion as the DOE Psychologist, I am persuaded by the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the
constellation of behaviors the Individual exhibits amount to a victim mentality and is therefore a
trait that can impair his judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness based on the several
instances of concerning conduct and accompanying lack of accountability cited by the DOE
Psychologist in reaching her conclusion.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline E, Guideline G, and Guideline I of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and
unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony
and other evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth
sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns. 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.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals