Case No. VSO-0032, 25 DOE ¶ 82,765 (H.O. Lipton Sept. 1, 1995)

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 XXXXX's.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Hearing Officer's Opinion

Case Name: Personnel Security Hearing

Date of Filing: May 3, 1995

Case Number: VSO-0032

This Opinion concerns the eligibility XXXXX (hereinafter "the individual") for access authorization. The regulations governing the individual's eligibility are set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, "Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material." The Department of Energy's XXXXX Field Office (DOE/XXXXX) has declined the individual's request for access authorization under the provisions of Part 710. This opinion will consider whether, based on the record testimony and other evidence presented in this proceeding, the individual's request for access authorization should be granted.

The individual is XXXXX years old and is employed at the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX as a XXXXX. In that capacity she writes XXXXX and other matters. The allegations forming the basis of the denial of access authorization in this proceeding stem from the individual's bitter divorce and custody battle. The divorce decree was issued in XXXXX. The record in this matter indicates that the individual and her husband continue to have severe disputes and highly confrontational contacts with each other. The individual declared bankruptcy in May 1991. The results of a number of psychological examinations performed several years ago in connection with the custody dispute indicated that the individual was unstable and had judgment problems.

I. BACKGROUND

This administrative review proceeding was commenced by the issuance of a Notification Letter dated April 11, 1995. In that letter, the individual was informed that information in the possession of the DOE/XXXXX created a substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for authorization. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. §710.21, the Notification Letter included a statement of the derogatory information in the possession of the DOE/XXXXX that created the substantial doubt concerning the individual's eligibility for access authorization. The letter specified that information in the possession of the DOE indicates that she "has an illness or mental condition of a nature which, in the opinion of a board-certified psychiatrist, other licensed physician or a licensed clinical psychologist, causes, or may cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability." 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h).

The April 11, 1995 Notification letter informed the individual she was entitled to a hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to present evidence in support of her eligibility for access authorization. In a letter of April 19, 1995, the individual requested a hearing. The individual's request for a hearing was forwarded by the DOE/XXXXX to the Office of Hearings and Appeals. On May 12, 1995, I was appointed the Hearing Officer in this matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. §§710.25(e) and (g), the hearing was convened at the DOE's XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

II. STATEMENT OF DEROGATORY INFORMATION

The Notification Letter developed in considerable detail the support for the allegation that the individual had a mental condition which causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability. A summary of this supporting detail, as recounted by the Notification letter, is set out below.

A. In March 1991, the individual allegedly threatened to commit suicide. The individual made this suicide threat to both her lawyer and her psychologist. In connection with this threat, the individual was transported to a hospital for a psychological evaluation.

B. During a July 1992 Personnel Security Interview (PSI), the individual indicated that from October 1990 through January 1991 she was ordered to attend court-ordered therapy in connection with her divorce proceeding. <1> She stated in the PSI that the court felt that her family was dysfunctional. She also indicated that she was under a lot of stress during the period of her divorce proceeding.

C. During the July 8, 1992 PSI, the individual indicated that she was required to undergo two custody evaluations and seven psychological examinations in connection with the divorce proceeding to determine custody of the two children. The first evaluation was conducted by a psychologist, Dr. XXXXXXXXXXX and a social worker, XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter the XXXXX report). This evaluation, dated July 9, 1990, found that "the individual is characterized by exaggerated emotional expression, a defensive self-centeredness, rigidity, a need to be the center of attention and a high concern for public appearance." XXXXX Report at 12. The report found that she "is in serious need of long-term and intensive individual psychotherapy if she is to come to grips with the problems she faces in interpersonal relationships and in parenting." Id. at 16.

D. The record includes another evaluation of the individual, performed in connection with the divorce, and conducted by a psychologist, Dr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The evaluation is dated July 12, 1990. Dr. XXXXXXXX concluded that the individual "demonstrates marked instability, and exhibits pathological character traits similar to individuals with a mixed personality disorder." She found the individual's judgment and her ability to perceive reality to be impaired.

E. A December 6, 1990 report for the custody evaluation was prepared by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Chief Domestic Relations, eighteenth Judicial District, State of XXXXXXXX. Ms. XXXXXXXXXX found the individual had some significant emotional difficulties.

F. At the request of the DOE, the individual was evaluated three times by Dr. XXXXX, a board-certified psychiatrist. The first evaluation, which took place on August 20, 1992, was based on an interview with the individual, as well as some medical and other records requested by the psychiatrist. In this evaluation, the DOE psychiatrist found that the individual was not always truthful in the interview, and seemed to exaggerate. He believed that she was "trying to come across better than she is." August 24, 1992 Letter at 9. He diagnosed her as suffering from features of borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders, and from a mixed personality disorder within Cluster B. <2> He therefore found that she had "an illness or mental condition which causes and may cause a significant defect in her judgment or reliability." Id. at 11.

The second XXXXX evaluation, dated April 12, 1993, was based on the XXXXX Report, and the reports of Dr. XXXXX and Ms. XXXXX, but did not include a personal interview. Dr. XXXXX's third evaluation, dated August 26, 1994, was based on reviewing the transcript of a PSI with the individual that took place on August 2, 1994. <3> This evaluation also did not include a personal interview. In both the second and third reports, the DOE psychiatrist confirmed his initial evaluation of the individual.

III. The Individual's Documentary Evidence

Prior to the hearing the individual submitted substantial documentary evidence intended to rebut the derogatory information set out in the Notification Letter. The key pieces of this evidence included: (a) An October 10, 1994 letter from Dr. XXXXX; (b) a June 12, 1995 Letter from XXXXXXXXXXX, Manager of the XXXXXXXXXXX Employee Assistance Program; (c) a June 28, 1995 letter from her former pastor; (d) a March 19, 1991 letter from Dr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; and (e) a June 20, 1995 evaluation performed by a psychologist, Dr. XXXXXXXXXXn. <4>

These documents do support the individual. For example, in his letter, Mr. XXXXXXX recommends that her request for access authorization should be granted. He found her "mentally intact." However, Mr. XXXXXXXe's evaluation had several caveats. First, he stated: "providing her testimony was accurate, I found her to have no mental disorder...."(emphasis added). Further, Mr. XXXXXXX stated: Dr. XXXXX's findings of [the individual's] being somewhat histrionic are confirmed, although it has no bearing on her job performance or clearance."

The letter from Dr. XXXXXXXX states that the original July 1990 evaluation was based on a crisis that the individual was undergoing at the time, and concludes: "It is my understanding that things are much more normal now. [The individual] appears to be a mature and developmentally appropriate woman."

The letter from the individual's pastor simply stated that in the past the individual participated in church activities, and seemed to handle the stress of coping with her divorce.

The letter from Dr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX found that the individual was not suicidal, and that she was angry over her divorce, but that this should not interfere with her work.

The psychological evaluation performed by Dr. XXXXX concluded that the individual's overall psychological profile appears normal. She found no underlying personality disorder, or mood disorder.

Thus, this body of written evidence submitted by the individual is in her favor. Nevertheless, as I indicate below, there are other indicia that outweigh this favorable evidence.

A brief discussion is in order about one other item of evidence involved in the proceeding. It concerns the XXXXX Report, which the individual provided to the DOE in connection with her background investigation. The individual has objected to the introduction of that report in this proceeding. See Letter of June 5, 1995. The individual alleges that the report was sealed by a court proceeding, and that it is unclear how the report became unsealed. The individual claims that her ex-husband sent the report to her, but she says he will not admit how he obtained the copy. She further claims that since the version of the report which is now before the DOE is unsigned, it is not clear whether this is the actual report that was sealed by the court, or some other report that was fabricated by her ex-husband. Transcript of June 13, 1995 Hearing at 18 and 212 (hereinafter abbreviated as Tr.).

The individual also points out that the report is now more than five years old. She maintains that in assessing her eligibility for access authorization the DOE should focus on her current mental status, rather than on this report which does not reflect her situation today. Tr. at 198. After reviewing the record in this matter, I am able to reach a conclusion as to the eligibility of this individual for an access authorization, without resorting to the information in the XXXXX Report that the individual views as outdated and objectionable. See Personnel Security Hearing, 25 DOE ¶ 52,573 (1995) (incidents that formed basis for diagnosis that individual had Intermittent Explosive Disorder took place more than six years ago, and since there were no current incidents involving serious loss of temper, there was no reason to believe individual was a current security risk).

IV. The Hearing

A. The Individual's Witnesses

At the hearing the following persons, who were co-workers, supervisors and/or friends of the individual, testified on her behalf: XXXXX. It was the general testimony of these witnesses that they had not noticed any signs of instability, irrationality or unreliability in the individual. They also testified as to her good judgment and truthfulness.

The individual also presented the testimony, by telephone, of her personal physician, Dr. XXXXXXXXXXXXX, D.O. It was Dr. XXXXXXXX's testimony that when the individual was in his office she was "cognizant of her surroundings and has been appropriate for time, place and person." Tr. at 138. However, Dr. XXXXXXXX stated that he was not qualified to judge whether the individual has a personality disorder, and admitted that he only knows "the portion of the story that she is relaying to me." Tr. at 139, 141.

The individual also presented the telephone testimony of Dr. XXXXX. On June 20, 1995, Dr. XXXXX administered four psychological tests: a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, a Thematic Apperception Test, a Rorschach Test and a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. According to Dr. XXXXX, the results of these tests, along with a 20-minute interview, revealed no underlying personality disorder, mood disorder or psychotic functioning. Tr. at 162. See also Letter of July 11, 1995. Dr. XXXXX admitted, however, that it is possible that these tests would not pick up a personality disorder. Tr. at 163-64. She also stated that during her interview with the individual, she did not explore any of the contradictions noticed by Dr. XXXXX. Tr. at 165.

B. The DOE Security Specialist's Testimony

The DOE called a Security Specialist who testified as to the security concerns of the DOE in the case of an individual diagnosed with a mental illness affecting judgment or reliability. She stated that "the security concern is that it is not known what such an individual will do with the information they have access to, how they will respond to the information given to them, who they may give the information to if their state of mind is not intact." Tr. at 15. However, as the security specialist pointed out, the DOE calls in a qualified mental health specialist to make an evaluation as to whether a particular individual's judgment or reliability are affected by mental illness. Id. It was for this purpose that the DOE called Dr. XXXXX.

C. Dr. XXXXX's Testimony

It was Dr. XXXXX's opinion that the individual suffers from a mixed personality disorder, which has features of various personality disorders that include borderline personality, narcissism, hysterical and antisocial traits. <5> Dr. XXXXX discussed at length the borderline personality. He stated that a person with these traits would have intense difficulties with modulating their emotions, manifested in difficulties in relationships. Tr. at 67. According to Dr. XXXXX, the features of borderline personality displayed by the individual include a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, impulsivity around spending, affective instability, marked shifts in mood, irritability and depression, inappropriate and intense anger, a lack of control of anger, and suicide threats. Tr. at 70. In support of his diagnosis, Dr. XXXXX stated that these traits surfaced when the individual was dealing with her ex-husband. Tr. at 70. He pointed to instances of arrest, financial problems and suicide threats. He characterized this relationship as "very chaotic." Id. He stated that the chaos continued beyond the marriage and into the separation. Dr. XXXXX also testified that the individual did not perceive that she bore any responsibility for the chaos in her life, and did not acknowledge that her own character traits were causing her difficulties. Tr. at 72.

Dr. XXXXX testified that this diagnosis was supported by the fact that the individual's own statements contained significant discrepancies, which led him to conclude that "there was covering up and manipulation and lying on her part." Id. Dr. XXXXX pointed out incidents that the individual discussed with him at her August 1992 interview which involved discrepant information. Among the discrepant information pointed out by Dr. XXXXX was a suicide threat that the individual allegedly made to her therapist, but later denied. An example of manipulation pointed to by Dr. XXXXX concerned the individual's allegation that she gave her ex-husband a business that she built in order to make it appear that her ex-husband would be able to pay child support. He further pointed out that the individual stated that she was paralyzed in a car accident, but that when he received further information on this issue, he learned that she actually had a pinched nerve in her neck and temporarily lost partial use of her hand.

Dr. XXXXX further pointed out that when he interviewed the individual in 1992, she was still not able to come to terms with these earlier events, admit that they took place at a chaotic time in her life, and reconcile what had taken place. He stated "It meant to me that she was covering up, trying to appear better than she was, involved in a chaotic situation that she still wasn't able to reconcile. And it points to being unable to tell the truth." Tr. at 78. Dr. XXXXX testified that this is part of the borderline personality: "you have the chaotic relationship. You have the manipulation. You have some degree of dishonesty, intensity, anger, rage." Tr. at 78-79. <6>

Dr. XXXXX also discussed what treatment is available for individuals with a personality disorder. He stated that:

"You have to have someone who is very eager to change, and someone who is able to see a pattern of behavior that they can accept responsibility for....The course of treatment is difficult and lengthy....[The individual] was not a good candidate, because she still was not able to reconcile enough to be truthful. I don't believe that if she went to a psychiatrist or a psychologist or a social worker at that time [1992] that she would have been wholly truthful with him too. I don't think she was capable of it, because she couldn't accept the despair, the anger the sadness that would have come from being totally truthful about how poorly her life was going at the time." Tr. at 84.

Overall, it was Dr. XXXXX's opinion that "Given the chaotic relationship, and the financial chaos, and the child-rearing chaos, I believe that her judgment and reliability was impaired. More than that and worse was the difficulties with maintaining honesty, which creates even a more difficult situation regarding judgment and reliability. The pervasiveness of these problems creates a difficulty with judgment and reliability." Tr. at 90. <7>

This portion of Dr. XXXXX's testimony was certainly useful in understanding the background of the individual, and the basis for his evaluation in 1992 that the individual suffered from a personality disorder. However, Dr. XXXXX's most recent evaluation of the individual was set out in a letter of August 26, 1994, nearly 10 months old before the time of the hearing. Further, this last evaluation was based only on other written evidence, including an August 2, 1994 PSI, and not on a personal interview with the individual. This evaluation was very brief. It stated that there was nothing in the material he reviewed that would alter his opinion of the individual. He indicated that he noticed in the August 1994 PSI the same previously-identified character flaws that caused her to have difficulties in judgment or reliability. However, in the letter he provided no examples from the text of the PSI to support this judgment.

At the hearing I expressed my concern that Dr. XXXXX was basing his diagnosis on information that might be outdated. Tr. at 110-112. See Personnel Security Hearing, 25 DOE ¶ 82,755 (1995) (discussing the importance of testimony relating to current mental status of individual). He admitted that things might have changed since 1992, when he conducted his personal interview with her. <8> Accordingly, Dr. XXXXX, with the assent of the individual, agreed to conduct a brief interview at the hearing in order to bring himself up to date. Tr. at 113.

I view the exchanges at the hearing between Dr. XXXXX and the individual as providing key evidence concerning the individual's current mental status. These interchanges allowed me to observe the individual, and judge her credibility and reliability directly. Through my observation of the individual's overall demeanor, of the way in which she responded to questions and of her interaction with me, the DOE Counsel and Dr. XXXXX, I formulated my ultimate judgment that she should be denied access authorization.

D. The Examination of the Individual by Dr. XXXXX

Dr. XXXXX first asked the individual to bring him up to date from 1992 on her relationship with her ex-husband. A series of three exchanges between the individual and Dr. XXXXX provided me with direct evidence that the individual is evasive and manipulative. This questioning proceeded as follows:

Q. What's happened in your relationship with your ex-husband since then.

A....I have turned it over to an attorney...He [ex-husband] has not paid child support....The attorney handles it now. I'm out of it.

Q. Since 1992 have you and he avoided arguing?

A. I've not been around him except in court.

Q. Have you managed to avoid legal repercussions?

A. The attorney is taking care of it.

Tr. at 113-114.

However, later on, after a direct question by the DOE counsel, the individual admitted that in May 1995 she was sentenced to jail time after an incident with her ex-husband. Tr. at 126-127. At this point Dr. XXXXX resumed his questioning of the individual:

Q. So you were in jail?

A. Yes.

Q. But I just asked you that, and you said that you didn't have any police problems.

A. Well, that wasn't police problems. I went to jail directly from the court. The police didn't come and arrest me....It was done by a judge in the courtroom.

Q. So I just asked--I don't know if I asked you if you had legal problems or not.

A. And I said the attorney is handling it, and he did. He appealed it, and that's why I'm out here today. Tr. at 127

Subsequently, the following exchange took place between the individual and the DOE Counsel:

Q.[by DOE Counsel] ...my contention is, is that it [the jailing incident] may have relevance in the sense that Dr. XXXXX saw some issue there of whether you were being open and forthcoming about involvement with the law.

A. Dr. XXXXX did not say with the law. He said, have you had any encounters with the police. The police were not in the courtroom. It was the judge who did this. So I was not being dishonest in my response. Tr. at 151-52.

I find that these interchanges in the hearing bear out Dr. XXXXX's diagnosis, that this individual suffers from a personality disorder involving judgment and reliability problems. These problems relate to honesty, discrepancies, avoidance and evasiveness. As is evident from the first interchange set out above, Dr. XXXXX asked the individual specifically if she had "managed to avoid any legal repercussions." She avoided answering this question directly, by stating that her "attorney is taking care of it." This was simply evasive. Then, when pressed further on this issue, she denied being asked if there were legal problems and argued that she was only asked if there were police problems. She contended that she was sent to jail by a judge, but not arrested by police. This is manipulative and not forthright. Finally, the individual simply denied that she had been asked if she experienced any legal problems, when, in fact, she had already responded to such a question earlier, albeit with an evasive answer.

The individual offered similarly evasive responses when Dr. XXXXX questioned her about whether she had had any "treatment" since 1992. The individual had already stated that she had "seen" counselors. Tr. at 115. However, when Dr. XXXXX asked her how many times she had been to the "Employee Assistance Program for treatment," she became defensive and refused to provide a straightforward answer. She asserted that she did not understand the question. She delayed answering. She asked Dr. XXXXX for a "definition of formalized psychiatric treatment." Tr. at 116-118.

Because of the difficulty in obtaining a response to this question, the DOE Counsel asked her simply to respond to the following: "how often and who you have seen." Tr. at 118. She indicated the name of a particular psychologist. However, once again, she did not give an answer as to how often.

The following interchange then took place:

Q. And how often?

A. As I say on an as needed basis.

Q. And how many times have you seen her up to this date?

A. She is no longer with the program.

Q. How many times have you seen her?

A. I don't have those records before me.

Q. Approximately 10?

A. Probably 10 in about 12 months.

Tr. at 118.

This is another instance in which the individual, when pressed to discuss information which could be perceived as unflattering to her, was evasive and manipulative. She appeared unable to freely admit that she had had "treatment," and could only respond by saying that she "had seen someone." She could not admit that this constituted a form of treatment. She was also unable to freely admit the extent of the treatment.

I find that these interchanges confirm Dr. XXXXX's opinion that this individual's personality disorder leads her to cover-up, and hide the truth "in order to appear better than she is." Tr. at 78. <9> This failure to provide immediate, straightforward answers to simple questions leads me to believe that there is an underlying reliability problem with this individual.

The individual offered an explanation for the difficult exchanges between her and Dr. XXXXX. She asserted that she had "a problem with his phraseology." Tr. at 179-180. She suggested that he was trying to "entrap" her. Tr. at 179.

These contentions persuade me that the individual is still unable to accept responsibility for the consequences of her own character traits. She places blame on others for her own personality defects. In this case, she placed the blame for her inability to be straightforward and honest on Dr. XXXXX's style of questioning.

E. Post-Hearing Documentation

After the hearing, the individual herself introduced additional written evidence which supports Dr. XXXXX's diagnosis. The evidence consisted of a transcript of a May 18, 1995 court proceeding in connection with her ongoing post divorce difficulties. The transcript provides additional information regarding the eight days that the individual spent in jail in May 1995.

At the hearing, she described the reason for this incarceration in the following way:

Well, it was just that [my former husband] told the court that I denied visitation on Easter Sunday. But what happened was that he came an hour early and the children were not outside and so he left. And the decree does not have a time and he came at 7:30 instead of 8:30. And so the kids were ready at 8:30 and he was there at 7:30, so he just went on and said that he was denied his visit.

Tr. at 126-27. She made a similar statement earlier in the hearing. Tr. at 56.

In this, the individual was once more manipulating and covering up the truth. According to the transcript, the children were not ready for visitation because the individual simply forgot that her ex-husband had visitation on that day. The individual's own attorney made this admission to the court. <10> Thus, here again, the individual failed to tell the entire truth, even at her own security hearing. The incident, once again, involved information that, if revealed, would put her in an unfavorable light.

Moreover, the individual also failed to acknowledge that she was sentenced to jail for contempt of court for failure to follow court orders and resolve her post-divorce disputes through mediation.<11> This additional information was revealed in the transcript.

V. CONCLUSION

The decision as to access authorization is a comprehensive common sense judgment, made after consideration of all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether granting of access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).

In this case I have concluded that the DOE properly invoked Section 710.8(h). I find that the evidence supports Dr. XXXXX's diagnosis that this individual suffers from a personality disorder, known as borderline personality, that may cause a defect in her judgment or reliability. The testimony at the hearing and the court transcript submitted after the hearing confirm Dr. XXXXX's diagnosis that this individual still has a significant level of unresolved chaos in her life. As discussed above, she spent eight days in jail in May 1995, only four months ago. Her full sentence for contempt was six months in jail. If that sentence is not reduced on appeal, the individual will spend considerable additional time in jail. She has had other involvement with the police within the past year. Tr. at 114. She does not admit that she is even partly at fault in this upheaval.<12>

This individual's personality disorder has not abated since Dr. XXXXX interviewed her in 1992. Dr. XXXXX's opinion, based on her earlier behavior, was that she was involved in a chaotic relationship, was experiencing financial and child-rearing chaos which creates problems with judgment and reliability. Tr. at 90. With the exception perhaps of the financial chaos, these same issues are present for the individual today. Her relationship with her former husband continues to cause upheaval in her life and this spills over into child rearing issues, such as the visitation issue discussed above. <13>

The individual still shows the same pattern of providing discrepant information, manipulating, and evading, that were diagnosed three years ago. As is obvious from the hearing interchanges cited above, the individual has difficulty being forthright when she feels she does not present herself well.

I agree with Dr. XXXXX's view that although the individual's difficulties are closely tied to her relationship with her ex-husband, they are not restricted to that single aspect of her life. The dishonesty, discrepancies, avoidance and evasiveness are evidence of a more pervasive problem in judgment and reliability, which extends beyond that relationship. Tr. at 155-156.

Security concerns are justified in a case such as this, where the individual's personality disorder causes her to hide the truth in order to "appear better than she is." Tr. at 22. She is reluctant to divulge information that might put her in a bad light. See Personnel Security Hearing, 25 DOE at 85,505, 508. This reluctance could cause her to be susceptible to pressure, coercion, and exploitation. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).

I therefore find that the DOE/XXXXX properly invoked 10 C.F.R. Section 710.8(h) in denying the individual's access authorization. In view of the record before me, I am not persuaded that granting the individual access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I find that the individual should not be granted access authorization.

The regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Section 710.28(a) provide that the Office of Security Affairs or the individual may file a request for review of this Hearing Officer Opinion within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Opinion. Any such request must be filed with the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585, and served on the other party. If either party elects to seek review of the Opinion, that party must file a statement identifying the issues on which it wishes the OHA Director to focus. This statement must be filed within 15 calendar days after the party files its request for review. The party seeking review must serve a copy of its statement on the other party, who may file a response within 20 days of receipt of the statement.

Virginia A. Lipton

Hearing Officer

Office of Hearings and Appeals

<1>According to the individual, the divorce decree was signed on April 28, 1991. July 8, 1992 PSI at 16.

<2>Some of the individual's traits within the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, as set out in the Notification Letter, include a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships; inappropriate and intense anger and lack of control of her anger, and suicide threats. Her traits in the histrionic and narcissistic personality disorder include the need to be the center of attention, reaction to criticisms with intense feelings and exploitation of others. The Cluster B traits include, failure to honor financial obligations, and a disregard for the truth.

<3>The fact that this report was based on the August 1994 PSI is not specifically stated in the Notification Letter. Rather, it appears in the report itself.

<4>Other documentary evidence, not directly related to the individual's mental status, included performance appraisals and customer feedback to the individual in connection with her employment, showing that she meets or exceeds expectations. There is also a June 8, 1995 letter from the school counselor concerning the individual's children. The counselor indicates that the individual is involved in her sons' education and that her children are progressing well. Finally , a June 22, 1995 credit report indicates that the individual is current on all of her accounts.

<5>Dr. XXXXX defined a personality disorder as a defect in one's personality. Personality, according to Dr. XXXXX is a style and manner of living, how one intervenes with the environment around them. It is pervasive and prevailing and does not change. It usually does not respond to treatment. Tr. at 64.

<6>Dr. XXXXX also testified as to what traits he saw in the individual that demonstrated the narcissistic, hysterical and antisocial personalities. Tr. at 79-82. In view of the considerable time and attention that was given to the borderline personality issue, which forms the basis for my opinion, I will not give these other disorders separate consideration here.

<7>Dr. XXXXX also commented on the difference between Dr. XXXXX's opinion and his own. He suggested that since Dr. XXXXX did not interview other sources and did not have the volume of outside information that he had gathered about the individual, Dr. XXXXX was not in a good position to be able to detect the discrepancies that he noticed. Tr. at 92-93. He testified that the opinion expressed in Dr. XXXXXXXXs' letter of October 10, 1994 was unfounded, because it was based on a few phone calls. With respect to Mr. XXXXXXX's June 12, 1995 letter, Dr. XXXXX stated that he did not agree with Mr. XXXXXXX's opinion that if the individual had a borderline personality it would have emerged in the work place. Although Dr. XXXXX was in agreement with Mr. XXXXXXX that the individual had symptoms of depression, he disagreed with Mr. XXXXXXX's assertion that these were normal adjustment reactions, citing the length of time she had them and the extent of treatment that was required. Tr. at 105.

<8>For example, Dr. XXXXX cited in his original diagnosis that one of the individual's symptoms was that she suffered from financial instability. He acknowledged at the hearing that according to her credit report, the individual has "done a good job in the last [48] months to reestablish her credit. That's to her credit." Tr. at 111-12.

<9>See Personnel Security Hearing, 25 DOE ¶ 82,751 (1995) (DOE psychiatrist found that even though an individual suffered from minimal depression there was no defect in her judgment, pointing out that the individual "seemed honest even about issues that might put her in a bad light").

<10>The attorney stated to the court: "On Easter Sunday my client did indeed forget that it was a day that [ex-husband] had visitation."

<11>One of the individual's witnesses mentioned that she had told him that the judge jailed her for failure to mediate her disagreements with her ex-husband. However, this information never came directly from the individual. She also failed to fully reveal that she was cited for contempt, and not just for failure to mediate.

<12>At the hearing, the individual stated "I have no one to blame except him [her ex-husband] for this." Tr. at 201.

<13>Child care difficulties also arose when the individual was sent to jail. She needed to make immediate arrangements for her children's care during her incarceration. Tr. at 220.