PSH-18-0030 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On June 28, 2018, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. In July 2017, the individual self-reported that he had been arrested and charged with battery on a peace officer; assault against a household member; resisting, evading or obstructing an officer; and operations of vehicles on approach of authorized emergency vehicles. He subsequently reported that a restraining order had been issued against him.  As a result, the local security office (LSO) held a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) with the individual in October 2017. In response to information gathered at the PSI, a DOE consulting psychologist evaluated the individual and concluded that the individual met the DSM-5 criteria for Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood and for Unspecified Disruptive, Impulse-Control and Conduct Disorder. The psychologist also concluded that the individual's feelings and behaviors were consistent with the DSM-5 features of Other Specified Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: Obsessional Jealousy. She ultimately opined that these findings rendered the individual with emotional, mental, and personality conditions which can impair his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. During the hearing, the individual testified that he has engaged in counseling and is currently attending a court ordered domestic violence prevention program. He additionally revealed that he has been violating the restraining order by having weekly contact with this ex-wife. The DOE psychologist indicated that although the individual has been attending the court ordered domestic violence prevention program and engaging in some counseling, the individual had not disclosed a comprehensive history of his domestic violence to his mental health providers, inhibiting him from receiving effective treatment. Furthermore, the psychologist noted that the domestic violence prevention program is not a treatment program sufficient to help the individual make lasting changes. She concluded that the individual has not been adequately treated and opined that there is a moderate risk of recurrence. As such, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual did not resolve the security concerns associated with Guidelines I and J, and she concluded that the individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA case no. PSH-18-0030 (Katie Quintana).