Case No. VSO-0257, 27 DOE ¶ 82,805 (H.O. Gray June 10, 1999)

Case No. VSO-0257, 27 DOE ¶ 82,805 (H.O. Gray June 10, 1999)

For full history of this case, and links to other cases, click here.

* The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXXX’s.

June 10, 1999

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Hearing Officer's Opinion

Name of Case:Personnel Security Hearing

Date of Filing:January 19, 1999

Case Number: VSO-0257

This Opinion addresses the eligibility of XXXXX (the Individual) for access authorization. The regulations governing the Individual’s eligibility are found at 10 C.F.R., Part 710. Pursuant to these regulations, the Individual requested a hearing to resolve concerns about his eligibility for access authorization. 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(3)(ii). As explained below, I do not believe that the Individual has resolved the concerns. It is therefore my opinion that his access authorization should not be restored.

Background

The Individual formerly held access authorization at a facility of the Department of Energy (the Department). Approximately a year and a half before the hearing, the Individual’s wife found him in a disoriented state in the back yard of their house. She says the Individual was disoriented and did not recognize her or know where he was. After bringing him inside, she found a suicide note the Individual had written. She persuaded the Individual to check into a hospital for psychiatric treatment.

After the Individual’s release from the hospital, the personnel security office at the facility referred him to a consulting psychiatrist for a mental health evaluation. The psychiatrist issued a Report of Examination, in which he diagnosed the Individual as suffering from the following conditions.

Alcohol use or abuse disorder with mixed chronic abuse and episodic excessive misuse, with alcohol dependency of both a psychological nature (used to treat distress) and a physiological nature (inability to stop after one or two drinks of alcohol).

Chronic Depression with periodic major depressive episodes, likely partially induced or exacerbated by an alcohol abuse disorder resulting in a combination of (1) dysthymia, periodic depressive neurosis denied and sublimated for years; and (2) recurrent episodes of major depression with some psychotic features, perhaps alcohol-induced.

An anxiety disorder, with mixed (1) paranoid defense features; and (2) a symptom complex like post traumatic stress disorder when symptoms are augmented by depression and alcohol abuse. An atypical bipolar disorder is another possible consideration.

In addition, the consulting psychiatrist found a mixed-type personality disorder including avoidant personality features, dependent personality traits, and depressive personality features. He also noted that the Individual had shown signs of marital discord in four relationships with symptoms of irritability and explosiveness, suspected maladjustment at work, and lack of insight relative to his psychodynamics and behavior problems, depression, alcohol abuse, and his need for professional help.(1)

Besides referring the Individual for a psychiatric examination, the personnel security office conducted two personnel security interviews (PSI-1 and PSI-2). When the psychiatric examination and PSI's failed to resolve the security concerns, the manager of the facility suspended the Individual’s access authorization. In a Notification Letter to the Individual, the manager informed him that his access authorization was suspended due to information that created substantial doubt about his continued eligibility.(2) The Notification Letter identified the following four categories of derogatory information that applied to the Individual.

The Individual has "an illness or mental condition of a nature which, in the opinion of a board-certified psychiatrist, other licensed physician, or licensed clinical psychologist, causes, or may cause, a significant defect in judgment or reliability." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h) (Criterion H). The basis for this charge is the Report of Examination issued by the Department's consulting psychiatrist.

The Individual "has been, or is, a user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has been diagnosed by a board-certified psychiatrist, other licensed physician or a licensed clinical psychologist as alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol abuse." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j) (Criterion J). The basis for this charge is also the consulting psychiatrist's Report of Examination.

The Individual has "deliberately misrepresented, falsified, or omitted significant information from a . . . personnel security interview . . . on a matter that is relevant to a determination regarding eligibility for DOE access authorization." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(f) (Criterion F). The basis for this charge is a group of apparently contradictory statements the Individual made during the two PSI's.

The Individual has "engaged in any unusual conduct or is subject to any circumstances which tend to show that [he] is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that [he] may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress which may cause [him] to act contrary to the best interests of the national security." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l) (Criterion L). The basis for this charge is a group of statements the Individual made during the two PSI's suggesting that he is not committed to his rehabilitation programs.

The Individual requested this hearing to attempt to resolve the concerns about his eligibility. At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of the consulting psychiatrist and a personnel security specialist. The Individual testified on his own behalf, and presented the testimony of his psychologist, his wife, and his current and former supervisors at the facility.

Hearing Testimony and Analysis

1. Criteria H and J - Mental Illness and Alcohol Disorders

The core issue in assessing the Individual’s mental condition is the extent of his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a standard reference for mental health professionals, describes PTSD as “the reexperiencing of an extremely traumatic event accompanied by symptoms of increased arousal and by avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma.(3)

Both the Department’s consulting psychiatrist and the Individual’s psychologist agree that the Individual has PTSD, and the Individual himself acknowledges that he suffers from this condition.(4) The Individual says that the traumatic events that underlie his condition occurred when he served in combat with the U.S. military.

The psychologist who testified for the Individual specializes in the evaluation and treatment of PTSD. At the hearing, he discussed some of the varieties of behavior that are associated with PTSD: blackouts and flashbacks, suicidal gestures, explosive temper, excessive alcohol consumption, paranoia, difficulty dealing with authorities, depression, and anxiety.(5) Each of these varieties of behavior has been exhibited by the Individual.

With regard to blackouts and flashbacks, for example, the psychologist reported that the Individual told him that, prior to his hospitalization, he “was blacked out for nearly two days and ended up in the. . . VA hospital. He wakes up screaming and fighting, according to his wife. . . He states that he has had flashbacks, recurring.” The psychologist also noted that the Individual said that “he doesn’t remember much of what was going on in his life from that time [his divorce] to the present," and that “he says things to people that he doesn’t remember.” He also recorded the Individual's wife as saying the Individual “has nightmares, night sweats, and ends up screaming in [a foreign language] during his sleep.(6)

Another pattern of behavior noted by the psychologist is the Individual's excessive alcohol consumption. The psychologist stated that he believes the Individual has an alcohol abuse disorder.(7) He pointed out that the Individual “often would self-medicate with alcohol when environmental and psychological distress occasioned a flare up of the symptoms associated with PTSD.(8) One such episode of self-medication was sufficiently severe to result in the Individual’s suicidal gesture and subsequent hospitalization.

The psychologist also reported examples of how PTSD renders the Individual psychologically unstable. He recorded that the results of standard psychological testing suggest the Individual may be “vulnerable to psychological symptoms under stressful conditions.” He noted that the Individual “has been divorced four times. He states that he has had too many jobs to count.” The Individual explained that he left jobs because, among other reasons, “somehow he didn’t get along with authorities on the job.” The psychologist also quoted the Individual’s wife as reporting that the Individual “has no patience” and “blows up frequently.(9)

The psychologist concluded his evaluation of the Individual's mental condition by commenting that the PTSD “may be of a moderate nature at the present time but it is rendering him somewhat dysfunctional in terms of maintaining employment and making informed and useful choices in

marriage and other living situations.(10) It is this "dysfunctional" mental state, in my view, that raises questions about the Individual's judgment and reliability, and casts doubt on his eligibility for access authorization. The description of the Individual's behavior given above convinces me that his PTSD causes a serious defect in his judgment and reliability.

The Individual does not dispute the diagnosis of PTSD or the effects that the condition has had on his mental health. Instead, he contends that he has now attained rehabilitation from his mental and alcohol disorders. There is no evidence in the record, however, that any mental health professional believes the Individual is rehabilitated. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Individual has completed any recommended therapeutic regime for either PTSD or alcohol abuse.

The Individual testified that he is currently attending therapeutic sessions and taking his prescribed medication. However, the record indicates that the Individual is finding it difficult to follow through with any treatment.

For example, the Individual has failed to take prescribed medication. He was diagnosed with PTSD as long ago as 1993, and was prescribed Paxil, an antidepressant. Medical records show that approximately twenty-one months before the hearing, he told a nurse that the Paxil was successfully controlling the effects of PTSD, and reported no adverse side-effects. Four months later, he stopped taking Paxil for reasons that he is unable to articulate. A few days after he stopped taking Paxil, he experienced the two-day blackout and made his suicidal gesture.

In addition, the Individual has demonstrated a reluctance to follow through with counseling programs. The psychologist who testified at the hearing had recommended a program consisting of: (1)one-on-one counseling, four times a month, focusing on PTSD and depression symptoms; (2) participation in one of several free group therapy programs for veterans; (3) desensitization and cognitive therapy, for reducing the effects of PTSD; and (4) participation in a twelve-step substance abuse group for alcohol abuse.(11) He also acknowledged that treatment for the Individual is "going to be a long-term situation."(12) Except for participating in a few counseling sessions on a sporadic basis, the Individual has failed to follow the psychologist's recommendations. Thus, he has failed to establish that he has attained rehabilitation from PTSD and alcohol abuse.

In a report written two days before the hearing, the psychologist commented that the Individual “exhibits sound judgment, appears to be responsible in pursuing his career. . . and other facets of his life, show reliability and conscientiousness and has been completely honest with me.(13) These statements are corroborated by the testimony of the Individual’s former and current supervisors, and by my observations of the Individual at the hearing.

In forming my opinion of the Individual’s eligibility, however, I must consider not only the Individual’s mental condition at the time of the hearing, but must also make a predictive assessment of his behavior in the future. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a); Personnel Security Hearing (Case No. VSO-0044), 25 DOE ¶ 82,780 (1995). In making that predictive assessment, I must rely on the Individual's history. Given the Individual’s long history of PTSD and alcohol abuse, and the absence of an adequate rehabilitation program, I believe that he has not resolved concerns about his eligibility for access authorization under Criteria H and J.

2. Criterion L - Honesty, reliability, and trustworthiness

The charges listed in the Notification Letter under Criterion L principally concern the Individual's failure to follow a consistent treatment plan. As we have observed before, a pattern of irresponsible behavior raises questions about the Individual's ability to deal responsibly with security requirements.Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0133, 26 DOE ¶ 82,782 (1997). In the Individual's case, there is pervasive irresponsibility in acknowledging the seriousness of his mental and alcohol conditions and in pursuing recommended treatments.

For example, although the Individual has consistently received recommendations to attend individual and group therapy sessions, he has a long-established pattern of neglecting these recommendations. In PSI-1, for example, the Individual said he was seeing a psychiatrist once a month.(14) However, in PSI-2, he admitted that he had not seen the psychiatrist since the PSI- 1.(15) The Individual also acknowledged that he could go to group therapy sessions at a nearby clinic, but he does not like group sessions and does not intend to go.(16)

After seeing the psychologist three months before the hearing, he did not see him again until one month before the hearing. It was only at this time that the Individual began to attend weekly counseling sessions with the psychologist and with a social worker.

Also in PSI-2, the Individual said he had seen a psychiatrist only twice since his discharge from the hospital six months earlier. He described his sessions with the psychiatrist as primarily relating to his medication. He said he had no additional counseling, and claimed that he had no need for counseling.(17)

The Individual has also been reluctant to attend free counseling sessions at the local veterans' center. According to a letter from the veterans' center, since the Individual was diagnosed with PTSD in 1993, he has been seen sporadically by counselors there as shown in the following chart.(18)

1999: 4 times

1998: 2 times

1997: 6 times

1996: 3 times

1995: 3 times

1994: 5 times

1993: 15 times

This spotty attendance indicates a lack of commitment to obtain the recommended therapy for his condition.

The Individual shows a similar irresponsible attitude toward taking medication. On the one hand, he acknowledges that, for at least a while, the Paxil he was taking seemed to be working in staving off symptoms of PTSD.(19) He said he experienced no adverse effects from the Paxil, and related that his wife felt it was doing him some good. On the other hand, he admitted that "they had to find me to get me to take the Paxil."(20) Ultimately, he stopped taking Paxil without consulting a physician. He cannot articulate a reason for discontinuing Paxil.(21)

The Individual has also shown a irresponsible attitude about his excessive alcohol consumption. He acknowledged that alcohol had a significant negative impact on him when he was drinking heavily in the period before 1982. Nevertheless, he did not seek treatment for his condition. Furthermore, he resumed drinking in 1997, and considers this an insignificant event in his life.(22) He was unable to explain why he resumed drinking shortly before his suicide gesture. Moreover, he believed his resumption of drinking was not a "big deal," and felt that it was not related to his blackout and suicide gesture.(23) He stated that it does not seem important whether he started drinking again or not.

According to the Individual's psychologist, the denial of problems and reluctance to pursue therapy are characteristic of PTSD in combat veterans.(24) Assuming this is true, it does not affect the responsibility of the Individual to deal with his problems is he is to be deemed eligible for access authorization. The argument that these irresponsible characteristics are part of his condition, and not unique to the Individual, does not resolve the security concerns. I therefore conclude that the Individual has not resolved security concerns raised under Criterion L.

3. Criterion F - Falsification

The charge of falsifications arises from statements the Individual made in the course of two Personnel Security Interviews. The first interview (PSI-1) was conducted about three months after the Individual's suicide gesture and hospitalization, and fourteen months before the hearing. The second interview (PSI-2) was conducted approximately two and one half months later. Some of the statements alleged to be falsifications in the Notification Letter appear to be misunderstandings between the personnel security specialist and the Individual. The significant allegations are discussed below.

In PSI-1, the Individual said that he never pointed a gun to his head during the suicide gesture.(25) In PSI-2, he said that he had pointed a loaded gun to his head while sitting in his vehicle and contemplating suicide.(26)

In PSI-1, the Individual said he had abstained entirely from alcohol use from 1982 until the night of the suicide gesture.(27) In PSI-2, he admitted he began to drink again, a shot or two at a time, about a week before the suicide attempt.

In PSI-1, the Individual said he had been taking Paxil regularly for about a year before the attempted suicide.(28) In PSI-2, he added that he was taking Paxil regularly as prescribed. The consulting psychiatrist, however, in his Report of Evaluation, recorded the Individual saying that he was taking a reduced dosage of 10 milligrams per day rather than the prescribed dosage of 20 milligrams.

Of the charges of falsification listed above, only one was resolved at the hearing. The Individual explained that the third item, concerning the dosage of Paxil that he was taking, involved a simple mistake on his part. He said that he initially told the psychiatrist that he was taking ten milligrams per day, but added that he was unsure of the dosage. When the psychiatrist showed the Individual photographs of the different pill sizes, the Individual pointed out the twenty milligram pill as the one he was taking. The psychiatrist confirmed that the Individual's account of this matter was correct. I therefore conclude that the Individual did not falsify the dosage of Paxil he was taking.

The other charges of falsification seem to involve attempts by the Individual at minimizing the truth about his mental condition and drinking. At the hearing, I asked the Individual to give his explanation for each of the remaining two charges of falsification. With regard to whether he pointed a gun at his head, he replied that he could not explain the discrepancy except to say that he was embarrassed and in a state of denial about the suicide gesture. With regard to when he resumed drinking, the Individual said that the matter did not seem important to him.(29)

The Individual's contradictory statements indicate that he falsified details about his suicide gesture and alcohol consumption. I therefore conclude that the Individual has not resolved security concerns under Criterion F.

Conclusion

The Individual testified convincingly at the hearing to his long-standing patriotism. In recommending against the restoration of the Individual's access authorization, however, I am in no way implying that he was, or may be, disloyal to the United States. The Individual's loyalty to the United States is unquestioned. A finding of disloyalty, however, is not a prerequisite for a recommendation to deny access authorization to an individual. Molerio v. FBI, 749 F.2d 815, 824 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0029, 25 DOE ¶ 82,766 (1995).

The record in this case clearly establishes that the Individual has a mental condition that causes a significant defect in his judgment and reliability, and that he has a history of alcohol abuse. There has been no showing of adequate rehabilitation for either condition. In addition, the record shows that the Individual has shown unreliable behavior in failing to follow recommended treatment regimes, and that he has falsified information during PSI's. Therefore, in view of the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 710, and the testimony and documents in the record, I believe that the derogatory information presented in this case casts substantial doubt as to whether restoring the Individual’s access authorization would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. The substantial doubt has not been resolved by the administrative review process. It is therefore my opinion that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.

Warren M. Gray

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: June 10, 1999

(1) DOE Exhibit 9, Report of Consulting Psychiatrist

(2) DOE Exhibit 5, Notification Letter.

(3)” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, 4th ed. 393.

(4) While the Individual’s psychologist and the consulting psychiatrist agree that the Individual has PTSD, they are not in complete agreement on the origin of the condition and how it relates to the Individual's history of excessive alcohol consumption. However, the origin of the Individual's condition is irrelevant to the question of the Individual's eligibility for access authorization. The relevant issues are whether the individual’s alcohol use and PTSD cause a significant defect in his judgment or reliability, and whether he has undergone sufficient rehabilitation to resolve the Department's security concerns.

(5) Transcript of Hearing (Tr.) 14, 17, 19, 23, 24, 34, 37, 42.

(6)” Exhibit 12, Report of Psychologist.

(7) Tr. 24.

(8)” Exhibit 12.

(9)” Ibid.

(10)” Ibid.

(11) The psychologist stressed that his relationship with the Individual was restricted to performing evaluations, not conducting counseling. He referred the Individual to a center where he could obtain counseling. Tr. 11.

(12) Tr. 29.

(13)” Exhibit 14.

(14) PSI-1, 26.

(15) PSI-2, 31.

(16) PSI-1, 29.

(17) PSI-2, 23-25.

(18) Exhibit 18, Letter from veterans' center.

(19) PSI-2, 35.

(20) PSI-2, 29.

(21) PSI-2, 6.

(22) PSI-2, 28.

(23) PSI-2, 21.

(24) Tr. 42-46.

(25) PSI-1, 18.

(26) PSI-2, 16.

(27) PSI-1, 22.

(28) PSI-2, 5.

(29) Tr. 186.