On May 6, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored 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 psychological condition. The LSO alleged that after undergoing a psychological evaluation conducted by DOE -contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist), the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual suffers from traits associated with narcissistic personality disorder and avoidant personality disorder, which can impair his reliability, trustworthiness, and stability. Further, the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual's prognosis for rehabilitating himself from these traits was poor.

At the hearing, the Individual, his therapist, and the DOE Psychologist testified. The testimony and the evidence in the record revealed that the Individual first sought therapy in 2019. After discontinuing this therapy, the same year, the Individual began seeing his therapist once a week in 2021 and was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). At the time the DOE Psychologist performed the psychological evaluation, she did not have information regarding the traumatic event that caused the Individual's PTSD. Accordingly, the DOE Psychologist changed her initial opinion from the report . During the hearing, the DOE Psychologist summarized the diagnostic criteria of PTSD that she believes the Individual meets and acknowledged that there was some improvement in his symptoms and that some of the symptoms she had seen during the psychological evaluation were no longer present. The DOE Psychologist opined that while, as of the time of the hearing, the Individual did not meet all the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, he did possess symptoms associated with PTSD. The Individual's therapist also testified that the Individual continued to exhibit PTSD symptoms. Although the Individual's reliability had improved since the psychological evaluation, the DOE Psychologist could not be certain about how the Individual's reliability and judgment would be impacted in the event he was triggered. Although mitigating factor 29(b) was arguably relevant in this case, given the questions surrounding the Individual's future conduct raised by the DOE Psychologist, the Administrative Judge could not find that the Individual's prognosis was sufficiently favorable to invoke this factor or determine that this factor alone would sufficiently resolve the security concerns raised by the Guideline I derogatory information. Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that the Individual has mitigated Guideline I concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0038, Cronin)