PSH-22-0018 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 2, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's finances. The LSO alleged that the Individual's wife had made claims against the Individual regarding his gambling in the context of the couple's divorce proceedings. Further, it was determined that the Individual had large amounts of gambling winning and losses as well as casino withdrawals and deposits. The LSO also alleged that the Individual had used some of the proceeds from the sale of his home to cover gambling debts . Regarding the Guideline I concern, the DOE alleged that a DOE -consultant Psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist) diagnosed the Individual with Gambling Disorder, In Early Remission, which can impair the Individual's judgement, stability, and trustworthiness.

At the hearing, the Individual and the DOE Psychiatrist testified. The testimony and record revealed that the Individual had not entered counseling or a treatment program for his gambling problem, and although the Individual did present an opinion of a qualified mental health professional, the DOE Psychiatrist explained his concerns with her opinion. The Administrative Judge found the DOE Psychiatrist's report and his testimony significantly more convincing concerning the state of the Individual's gambling issues. Finally, the DOE Psychiatrist indicated that the Individual   has   an ongoing problem and indicated only a fair prognosis.

Regarding the Guideline F concerns, the Administrative Judge questioned whether the LSO had sufficient cause to raise a concern, as the evidence did not indicate that the Individual was in any financial distress. Consequently, the Administrative Judge determined that none of the information cited under Guideline F itself raised a security concern that would bar the Individual from holding a security clearance.

Despite this finding, the Individual had not mitigated or resolved the Guideline I concern. Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had fully resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline I. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0018, Fishman)