PSH-12-0131

* 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 Hearing )
)
Filing Date: November 14, 2012 )
) Case No.: PSH-12-0131
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 5, 2013
_______________
Hearing Officer Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold a security clearance 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 conclude that the Individual’s security clearance should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The administrative review proceeding began with the issuance of a Notification Letter to the
Individual. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21. The letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security
clearance. Specifically, the Local Security Office (LSO) characterized this information as
indicating that the Individual habitually uses alcohol to excess.1
The Notification Letter informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before a Hearing
Officer in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for a security clearance.
1 The Notification Letter alleges that the Individual has: (1) “[a]n illness or mental condition of a nature which, in
the opinion of a psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist, causes or may cause, a significant defect in judgment
or reliability,” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h); and (2) “[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).
2
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the Hearing Officer in
this matter on November 15, 2012.
At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e) and (g), I took testimony from the
Individual, a coworker, his supervisor, his spouse, his treating counselor (the Counselor), and a
DOE consultant psychologist (the Psychologist). See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-12-
0131 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 24 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through
24, while the Individual submitted no exhibits.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual has a history of two alcohol-related arrests or citations. On November 19, 2005,
he was charged with Public Intoxication. Exhibit 21 at 136-138. On February 2006, he was
cited for having an Open Container in a motor vehicle. Id. On June 26, 2012, the Individual’s
employer administered a random breath alcohol test to the Individual at his workplace. That test,
and a repeat test administered shortly after the initial test, revealed that the Individual had blood
alcohol level readings of .074 and .069 respectively. Exhibit 15 at 7.
At the request of the LSO, the Psychologist evaluated the Individual on September 10, 2012.
Exhibit 13 at 2. After completing his evaluation of the Individual, the Psychologist issued a
report in which he found that the Individual did not meet the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-Text Revised (DSM-IV-TR) for any
mental condition or disorder.2 Id. at 7. However, the Psychologist, noting that the Individual
was consuming alcohol to (or near to) the point of intoxication on a weekly basis, opined that the
Individual “has a problem with alcohol that earns consideration in DOE's parlance, of being a
user of alcohol habitually to excess and that is a condition that can cause significant defects in
his judgment and reliability.” Id. The Psychologist opined that the Individual was neither
reformed nor rehabilitated. Id. The Psychologist further opined: “To obtain confidence in his
control over his intoxication I would like to have [the Individual] commit to four more months of
not drinking to intoxication,” and continue seeing the Counselor on a weekly basis during this
four month period. Id.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Hearing Officer's role in this proceeding is to evaluate the evidence presented by the agency
and the Individual, and to render a decision based on that evidence. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a).
The regulations state that “[t]he decision as to access authorization is a comprehensive,
common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all the relevant information, favorable or
unfavorable, as to whether the 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 rendering this opinion, I have considered the Adjudicative Guidelines and
following factors: the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances
surrounding the conduct, including knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of
the conduct; the Individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; the voluntariness of the
2 A copy of this Report appears in the record as Exhibit 13.
3
Individual's 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. See 10 C.F.R. § § 710.7(c), 710.27(a). The discussion below reflects my
application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits presented by both sides in this case.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Criteria H and J
The Individual has a history of two alcohol-related arrests and a recent alcohol-related incident at
work. These two alcohol-related arrests and alcohol-related incident at his work indicate that his
use of alcohol is problematic and therefore raise security concerns about the Individual under
Criterion J. In addition, the Psychologist found that the Individual habitually uses alcohol to
excess. The Psychologist’s finding that the Individual uses alcohol habitually to excess, along
with the derogatory information concerning alcohol use discussed above, raises security concerns
under Criterion H. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual's
reliability and trustworthiness. 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) at ¶ 21. In the present
case, an association exists between the Individual’s consumption of alcohol and his repeated
subsequent failures to exercise good judgment and to control his impulses, as evidenced by his
repeated engagement in activities that required the intervention of law enforcement to protect
him and those around him.
I find that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns raised by his habitual use of alcohol
to excess. The Individual agrees with the Psychologist’s conclusions and has acted upon the
Psychologist’s recommendations. Tr. at 10. In fact, the Individual has exceeded the
recommendations of the Psychologist. The Psychologist recommended, in his September 10,
2012, Report, that the Individual “commit to four more months of not drinking to intoxication.”
The Individual presented convincing evidence (in the form of his own testimony and that of his
spouse and the Counselor) that he has abstained from using alcohol since July 2012 (seven
months before the hearing). Tr. at 26, 62-63, 96, 99. The Individual further convincingly
testified that he intends to permanently abstain from using alcohol. Id. at 27, 39, 53. The
Psychologist, in his September 10, 2012, Report, recommended that the Individual continue with
his individual counseling sessions on a weekly basis for four more months. The Individual
complied with this request, and has been receiving individual counseling from the Counselor on
a weekly basis since October 2012, a period of four months. Id. at 25, 46, 49-50. The
Individual’s weekly counseling was preceded by his enrollment in an Intensive Outpatient
Treatment Program (the IOP) at the recommendation of the Counselor. Id. at 89-92 . The 100-
hour IOP program required that the Individual attend four two and one-half hour sessions a week
for a five-week period. Id. at 18. After completing the IOP, the Individual began attending
aftercare. Id. at 22.
The Counselor testified on the Individual’s behalf at the hearing. The Counselor testified that
4
she thought the Individual has an Alcohol-Related Disorder (Not Otherwise Specified) as defined
in the DSM-IV-TR. Tr. at 89. After the Individual successfully completed the IOP, he began
attending aftercare, on a weekly basis, at her recommendation. Id. at 92-93. She testified that
the Individual is committed to abstaining from alcohol use and reported to her that he does not
miss using alcohol. Id. at 96, 99. She further testified that the Individual’s prognosis is “good”
if he stays with his current program. Id. at 97, 100. She further testified that the Individual is
responding well to his treatment and that she expects that he will continue his current program.
Id. at 102-103.
At the hearing, the Psychologist observed the testimony of each of the other witnesses before he
testified. The Psychologist testified that the Individual had a “higher than average” chance of
sustaining his abstinence from alcohol. Id. He further testified that the Individual had fully
complied with the treatment recommendations set forth in his Report. Id. at 108, 114. The
Psychologist described the Individual's character as “genuine, truthful.” Id. at 113.
Based upon the evidence in the record, including the Psychologist’s testimony that the Individual
had fully complied with the treatment recommendations set forth in his Report, I find that the
Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised under Criteria H and J, by the
Individual’s two alcohol-related arrests, his work-related alcohol incident and the Psychologist’s
finding that he habitually used alcohol to excess. In addition, I was persuaded by convincing
testimony provided by the Counselor that the Individual is reformed and rehabilitated from his
habitual use of alcohol to excess.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Criteria H and J. I
find that the Individual has successfully mitigated the security concerns raised under each of
these criteria. Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that restoring his security clearance
would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national
interest. Therefore, the Individual's security clearance should be restored at this time. The DOE
may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: March 5, 2013