On May 9, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In January 2021, the local security office (LSO) received a report that the Individual had been arrested for Aggravated Battery Against a Household Member (Battery) after a domestic dispute with his girlfriend (Girlfriend). In response to a letter of interrogatory (LOI) from the LSO, the Individual denied that he committed the offense and asserted that he had defended himself after an argument with the Girlfriend about her communications with an ex-boyfriend "briefly turned physical." In September 2021, the Individual was arrested for Battery again after a dispute with the Girlfriend. At the hearing, the Individual represented that the Girlfriend had initiated both disputes as a result of her alcohol abuse, another man had caused her injuries that law enforcement officers observed when they arrested him in September 2021, and counseling had helped him to be more discerning in his relationships and avoid situations that could lead to similar incidents in the future. The Administrative Judge concluded that, in light of the strong evidence that the Individual committed repeated acts of violence, his poor decision making, and his efforts to shift responsibility for his conduct, the Individual had not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline J. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0039, Harmonick)