PSH-11-0024

* 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
XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of Personnel Security )
Filing Date: November 28, 2011 )
) Case No. PSH-11-0024
)
____________________________________)
Issued: March 22, 2012
__________
Decision and Order
__________
Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx hereinafter referred to as “the
individual”) to hold an access authorization 1/ under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations
set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart A, entitled, “General Criteria and Procedures for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.” As discussed
below, after carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations, I have
determined that the individual’s access authorization should be granted.
I. Background
The individual is an applicant for a DOE security clearance. In March 2011, as part of a background
investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the
individual to address his alcohol use. In addition to the PSI, the LSO requested the individual’s
medical records and recommended a psychiatric evaluation of the individual by a DOE consultant
psychiatrist (DOE psychiatrist). The DOE psychiatrist examined the individual in August 2011 and
memorialized his findings in a report (Psychiatric Report). According to the DOE psychiatrist, the
1/
Access authorization is defined as an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified
matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a).
- 2 -
individual has been a user of alcohol habitually to excess without adequate evidence of rehabilitation
or reformation.
In October 2011, the LSO sent a letter (Notification Letter) advising the individual that it possessed
reliable information that created a substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to hold an access
authorization. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information fell within the purview of one potentially disqualifying criterion set forth in the security
regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8, notably subsection (j) (hereinafter referred to as Criterion J). 2/
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the individual filed a request for a hearing. The LSO
transmitted the individual’s hearing request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), and the
OHA Director appointed me as the Hearing Officer in this case. At the hearing that I convened, the
DOE Counsel called one witness, the DOE psychiatrist. The individual presented the testimony of
two witnesses - his wife and a family friend. He also testified on his own behalf. The LSO and the
individual submitted a number of written exhibits prior to the hearing.
II. Regulatory Standard
A. Individual’s Burden
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 is not a criminal matter, where the
government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, the
standard in this proceeding places the burden on the individual because it is designed to protect
national security interests. This is not an easy burden for the individual to sustain. The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err,
if they must, on the side of denial”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
his access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be clearly
consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a full
opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part 710
regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at personnel
security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
B. Basis for the Hearing Officer’s Decision
2/
Criterion J relates to information that a person has “[b]een, or is, a user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has been
diagnosed by a psychiatrist or a licensed clinical psychologist as alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol abuse.”
10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j).
- 3 -
In personnel security cases arising under Part 710, it is my role as the Hearing Officer to issue a
Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all
the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting or continuation of a
person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly
consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I am instructed by the regulations to
resolve any doubt as to a person’s access authorization in favor of the national security. Id.
III. The Notification Letter and the Security Concerns at Issue
As stated above, the LSO cites one criterion as the basis for denying the individual’s security
clearance: Criterion J. To support Criterion J, the LSO cites the DOE psychiatrist’s opinion and the
following additional information: (1) in May 2011, the individual became intoxicated daily after
consuming one bottle of wine by himself in two and a half hours; (2) the individual’s primary care
physician advised him to abstain from alcohol because he believed alcohol negatively affects his
anxiety problems; (3) the individual’s physician recommended that he enter Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA), but despite this recommendation, the individual has not attended AA; and (4) the individual
admitted that he has used alcohol primarily to “self-medicate” his excessive anxiety and to relieve
stress. See DOE Exh 1.
I find that the information set forth above constitutes derogatory information that raises questions
about the individual’s alcohol use under Criterion J. The excessive consumption of alcohol is a
security concern because that behavior can lead to the exercise of questionable judgment and the
failure to control impulses, which in turn can raise questions about a person’s reliability and
trustworthiness. See Guideline G of the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility
for Access to Classified Information issued on December 29, 2005, by the Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs, The White House (Adjudicative Guidelines).
IV. Findings of Fact
By his own account, the individual began drinking alcohol at the age of 17. See DOE Exhs. 3 and
6. When he was in college, he began drinking socially “off and on” and drank to excess
approximately two times a month. Id. This pattern of drinking to excess continued for a number of
years. Id. In 2010, the individual drank one bottle of wine about twice a week, becoming
intoxicated. Id. The individual acknowledges that he drank more in early 2011, drinking one bottle
of wine a day, because of the anxiety associated with the fear of losing his job and not being able to
support his family. Id. In May 2011, the individual’s primary care doctor prescribed him an anxiety
medication as well as a medication for his alcohol use. Id. The individual’s primary care doctor also
told him to quit drinking. Id. According to the individual, he last drank alcohol on May 15, 2011.
The individual asserts that he has continued on his anxiety medication under medical advice and no
longer “self-medicates” with alcohol. Id.
V. Analysis
- 4 -
I have thoroughly considered the record in this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. In resolving the question of
the individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors
prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). 3/ After due deliberation, I have determined that the individual’s
access authorization should be granted. I find that granting the individual’s security clearance will
not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest.
10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The specific findings that I make in support of this decision are discussed
below.
A. The Individual’s Habitual Use of Alcohol - Criterion J
1. Lay Testimony
At the hearing, the individual acknowledged that he has had an alcohol issue in the past. Transcript
of Hearing (Tr.) at 13. He described his drinking habits as drinking a bottle of wine nearly every day
for about five months until he quit drinking on May 15, 2011. Id. at 16 and 17. Prior to this period,
the individual testified that he was more of a “social drinker.” Id. He further acknowledged that he
“self-medicated” with alcohol to deal with his anxiety stemming from the loss of a previous job and
the loss of his house. Id. at 13 and 16. According to the individual, he met with his primary care
physician on May 15, 2011. His doctor prescribed him anxiety medication and advised him to quit
drinking because the alcohol would counteract the medication. Id. at 20. The individual testified
that since he met with his physician, he has taken the anxiety medication as prescribed and has had
no temptation or urge to drink. Id. at 21. He asserted that the anxiety medication has been a “life
saver” and has worked very well for him, adding that since taking the medication he has no “ups and
downs” and feels better about himself. Id. Although the individual acknowledged that he still has
stressors in his life, he testified that he has the ability to deal with stressful situations without
panicking. Id. at 28. He added that he has not had a panic attack since starting his anxiety
medication. Finally, the individual testified that he does not plan to drink in the future. He considers
his wife and family to be his support system. Id. at 32.
During the hearing, the individual also offered the testimony of a family friend and his wife. The
individual’s friend, who attends the same church as the individual and is a medical doctor, testified
that she was not aware the individual had a problem with alcohol. Id. at 40. She stated that she last
saw the individual consume a glass of wine with dinner was over six months ago. Id. at 42. The
individual’s friend further testified that the individual confided in her that he had a problem with
anxiety and wanted to quit drinking. Id. at 44. He further told the friend that after taking anxiety
medication, he lost his desire to drink. Id. at 46. The friend testified that when she visited the
individual’s home a few months ago for Thanksgiving dinner, the individual declined a glass of
3/
Those factors include the following: the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, the circumstances
surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation, the frequency and recency of the conduct, the age and
maturity at the time of the conduct, the voluntariness of his participation, the absence or presence of rehabilitation or
reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes, the motivation for the conduct, the potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress, the likelihood of continuation or recurrence, and other relevant and material factors.
- 5 -
wine. Id. at 47. The individual’s wife, who has been married to the individual for six years, testified
that she last saw the individual drink in May 2011. Id. at 56. She stated that her husband does not
have the urge to drink now and that they have no alcohol in their house. Id. at 58. She testified that
the individual has not struggled with alcohol since he began taking anxiety medication. She further
testified that the individual’s anxiety level has been significantly reduced and that he is more
engaged with his family. Id. at 62. Finally, the wife testified that her husband is very reliable. Id.
at 67.
2. Expert Testimony
After listening to the testimony of all of the witnesses in this case, the DOE psychiatrist testified that
the testimony confirmed his own observations of the individual. Id. at 70. He reiterated that he did
not believe the individual suffered from Alcohol Abuse or Dependence, but rather has been a user
of alcohol habitually to excess. Id. However, after hearing the testimony of the individual regarding
the nature of his anxiety, the DOE psychiatrist stated that the individual’s diagnosis probably would
rise to Generalized Anxiety. Id. at 71. He opined that the “driving force” of the individual’s need
to drink was chronic anxiety and once the individual began taking medication to treat his anxiety,
the urge to drink subsided. Id. The DOE psychiatrist testified that it is not uncommon for
individuals who suffer from anxiety to self-medicate with alcohol. Id. In his report, he indicated
that the individual had not yet established adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation in that
he had only established three months of absolute sobriety at the time of evaluation and would need
an additional six months of sobriety. Id. at 72. However, after hearing the testimony of all the
witnesses, the DOE psychiatrist opined that, based on the individual’s compliance with his anxiety
medication as well as his sobriety, he has demonstrated adequate evidence of reformation. Id. at 73.
He further opined that the individual does not require the typical alcohol treatment or AA monitoring
because the individual does not possess a primary alcoholic diagnosis, but drank in response to
situational anxiety. Id. at 74. The DOE psychiatrist testified that the risk of relapse is low as long
as the individual continues to take his medication. He testified that the probability of drinking again
is very low. The DOE psychiatrist noted that the individual’s current anxiety medication has low
side effects and is not habit forming, sedating or cognitive impairing. Id. at 78.
3. Hearing Officer’s Evaluation of the Evidence
In the administrative process, Hearing Officers accord deference to the expert opinions of
psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals regarding rehabilitation and
reformation. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0728 (2009). 4/ Regarding
rehabilitation, I gave considerable weight to the opinion of the DOE psychiatrist, who opined that
the individual has demonstrated adequate evidence of reformation and does not require the typical
treatment and AA monitoring associated with an alcohol diagnosis. During the hearing, the
individual testified that since taking his anxiety medication, he has not had the urge to drink and that
4/
Decisions issued by OHA are available on the OHA website located at http:www.oha.doe.gov. The text of a
cited decision may be accessed by entering the case number of the decision in the search engine located at
http:www.oha.doe.gov/search.htm.
- 6 -
he has been sober for about nine months. He submitted a letter from his primary care physician
confirming that he is compliant in taking his anxiety medication, that his anxiety symptoms are well-
controlled and that he has remained sober for the last nine months. Ind. Exh. A. The DOE
psychiatrist was convinced that the driving force of the individual’s need to drink was his chronic
anxiety, and that because the individual has addressed his anxiety and has been sober for nine
months, he has demonstrated adequate evidence of reformation from his habitual use of alcohol to
excess. Based on the foregoing, I find that the individual has demonstrated adequate evidence of
reformation at this time. For this reason, I find that she has mitigated the security concerns under
Criterion J.
VI. Conclusion
In the above analysis, I have found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession
of the DOE that raises serious security concerns under Criterion J. After considering all the relevant
information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive common-sense manner, including
weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the individual has
brought forth convincing evidence to mitigate the security concerns associated with Criterion J. I
therefore find that granting the individual’s access authorization would not endanger the common
defense and security and would be consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I find that the
individual’s access authorization should be granted. The parties may seek review of this Decision
by an Appeal Panel under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: March 22, 2012