Too often I read cases where individuals, often not represented by counsel experienced in security clearance hearings, where they do not submit enough evidence. For instance in PSH-22-0053, the Administrative Judge determined that, "the Individual has not submitted sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by his AUD." AUD is an abbreviation for Alcohol Use Disorder. Alcohol Use Disorders can be designated as mild, moderate, or severe, in partial or full remission or even with other specifiers in certain instances.
In PSH-22-0053 Administrative Judge Fine, noted that "the only material evidence submitted by the Individual that he had mitigated the security concerns associated with these two disorders was his own testimony; two laboratory test results indicating that he had not consumed excessive amounts of alcohol for most of the past two-and-a-half months; a one-paragraph letter from his treating psychiatrist indicating that he has been receiving treatment for both disorders and that his prognosis is “good”; and a recent one-page letter from the LCSW outlining the treatment programs for the Individual’s PTSD that he had successfully completed and indicating that that his PTSD is “well-managed,” but failing to reach a similar conclusion about the Individual’s AUD, noting only that the Individual had recently started to attend a substance abuse program and had been “highly engaged” in treatment."
That might sound like a lot, but when the "regulatory standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance" half measures are inadequate and it is better to retain counsel and submit as much relevant evidence as possible to resolve the concerns identified in the summary of security concerns. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988)
In security clearance hearings, conducted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 710, the person seeking to have their clearance granted or restored labels their exhibits alphabetically and the Department of Energy numbers theirs numerically. We have submitted in excess of seventy-eight (78) exhibits in some hearings. Though every case is different, we routinely submit twenty-six (26) plus exhibits going past the A-Z in our exhibit labels and going to AA, BB, CC, DD, EE etc.
If you receive a summary of security concerns and are contemplating a security clearance hearing, then contact the Law Firm of Daniel L. Ellis at 865-235-1787 without delay. If you have a question about how to fill out a SF-86, eQIP, QNSP, then consult first and get legal advice to mitigate concerns before they cost you your career.
