PSH-24-0181 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline J (Criminal Conduct); Guideline I (Psychological Conditions); Bond Amendment

Office of Hearings and Appeals

January 17, 2025
minute read time

On January 17, 2025, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be granted. The Individual is a prospective employee of a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor seeking a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. In March 2023, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions ( QNSP), in which he disclosed that he was arrested for Felony Burglary in April 2009 and incarcerated for approximately five years. Upon performing a background investigation, the Local Security Office ( LSO) uncovered additional charges, arrests, citations, and warrants attributed to the Individual between 1998 and 2020. The Individual subsequently underwent a psychiatric assessment with a DOE consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist). The DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), as set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition - Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). 
At the hearing, the Individual accepted responsibility for the various charges, arrests, citations, and warrants attributed to him with the exception of a 1998 traffic-related citation. He noted that he had not been arrested since 2020 and testified that he has been generally abstinent from drugs over the last four years. The DOE Psychiatrist testified that although he believed the Individual was showing gradual improvement, because symptoms of APD generally take years to diminish, he could not conclude that the Individual's APD was in sustained remission. Ultimately, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual failed to mitigate the Guideline J and Guideline I concerns and was disqualified from holding an access authorization under the Bond Amendment. Therefore, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-24­0181, Quintana). (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0181, Quintana) 

PSH-24-0181.pdf (247.6 KB)