PSH-13-0078

*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: June 20, 2013 ) Case No.: PSH-13-0078
)
____________________________________)
Issued: October 25, 2013
______________
Decision and Order
_______________
Robert B. Palmer, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
individual”) for access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710,
entitled "Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or
Special Nuclear Material.” 1 For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the individual’s
security clearance should be restored. 2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor and was granted a
security clearance in connection with that employment. In December 2012, the individual was
arrested for Domestic Assault. Because this information raised security concerns, the local
security office (LSO) summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security
specialist in February 2013. After this Personnel Security Interview (PSI) failed to resolve these
concerns, the LSO referred the individual to a local psychologist (hereinafter referred to as “the
1An access authorization is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for
access to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will
also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (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.
2
DOE psychologist”) for an agency-sponsored evaluation. The DOE psychologist prepared a
written report based on that evaluation, and submitted it to the LSO. After reviewing that report
and the rest of the individual’s personnel security file, the LSO determined that derogatory
information existed that cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility for access authorization. It
informed the individual of this determination in a letter that set forth the DOE’s security
concerns and the reasons for those concerns. I will hereinafter refer to this letter as the
Notification Letter. The Notification Letter also informed the individual that she was entitled to a
hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to resolve the substantial doubt concerning her
eligibility for access authorization.
The individual requested a hearing on this matter. The LSO forwarded this request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals, and I was appointed the Hearing Officer. The DOE introduced 13
exhibits into the record of this proceeding and presented the testimony of the DOE psychologist
at the hearing. The individual presented the testimony of four witnesses, in addition testifying
herself.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE DOE’S SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter (the Letter) included a statement of derogatory
information that created a substantial doubt as to the individual’s eligibility to hold a clearance.
This information pertains to paragraphs (h) and (j) of the criteria for eligibility for access to
classified matter or special nuclear material set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8.
Under criterion (h), information is derogatory if it indicates that an individual has an illness or
mental condition which, in the opinion of a psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist causes,
or may cause, a significant defect in the individual’s judgment or reliability.10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h).
Criterion (j) defines as derogatory information indicating that the individual “has been, or is, a
user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or licensed clinical
psychologist as alcohol dependant or as suffering from alcohol abuse.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j). As
support for these criteria, the Letter cites the diagnosis of the DOE psychologist that the
individual suffers from Alcohol Use Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), his finding that
she is a user of alcohol habitually to excess, and his conclusion that these conditions cause, or
may cause, a significant defect in the individual’s judgment or reliability. As additional support
for criterion (j), the Letter cites statements that the individual made during her 2013 PSI
indicating that, just before her December 2012 arrest, she had consumed three 16-ounce beers
and two “shots;” that, since 2011, she had consumed four 16-ounce beers and two shots once per
week and had become intoxicated eight times; and that, from 1986 to 2005, she drank to
intoxication 98 times.
These circumstances adequately justify the DOE’s invocation of criteria (h) and (j), and raise
significant security concerns. Mental conditions that involve the excessive consumption of
alcohol often lead to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and
can therefore raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. See Revised
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The
White House (December 19, 2005), Guidelines G and I.
3
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The criteria for determining eligibility for security clearances set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710
dictate that in these proceedings, a Hearing Officer must undertake a careful review of all of the
relevant facts and circumstances, and make a “common-sense judgment . . . after consideration
of all relevant information.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I must therefore consider all information,
favorable or unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of whether granting or restoring a
security clearance would compromise national security concerns. Specifically, the regulations
compel me to consider the nature, extent, and seriousness of the individual’s conduct; the
circumstances surrounding the conduct; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and
maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or
reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence
of the conduct; and any other relevant and material factors. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).
A DOE administrative proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is “for the purpose of affording the
individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization.”
10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(6). Once the DOE has made a showing of derogatory information raising
security concerns, the burden is on the individual to produce evidence sufficient to convince the
DOE that granting or restoring 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). See
Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0013, 24 DOE ¶ 82,752 at 85,511 (1995) (affirmed
by OSA, 1996), and cases cited therein. The regulations further instruct me to resolve any doubts
concerning the individual’s eligibility for access authorization in favor of the national security.
10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS
At the hearing, the individual did not contest the DOE psychologist’s diagnosis. Instead, she
attempted to demonstrate, through her testimony and that of her friend, her coworker, her
daughter, and her therapist, that she is no longer a user of alcohol habitually to excess, and no
longer suffers from Alcohol Use Disorder NOS. For the reasons set forth below, I agree, and I
find that she has provided compelling evidence to convince me that no valid security concerns
remain under criteria (h) and (j).
First, I find that the individual has established a pattern of responsible alcohol usage. At the
hearing, she testified that in the eight and one-half months since her alcohol-related arrest for
domestic abuse in December 2012, she has consumed alcohol on nine occasions. During none of
these instances did the individual’s consumption exceed three standard-sized drinks, nor did the
individual have more than seven such drinks during any one-week period. Hearing Transcript
(Tr.) at 51-54. This level of consumption is consistent with the guidelines set forth in the DOE
psychologist’s report. DOE Exhibit (DOE Ex.) 6 at 12. 3 The individual said that she was able to
3 The DOE psychologist observed that the safest course of action was for the individual to
completely refrain from alcohol use. However, he continued, if she chose to indulge, she should
4
give an accurate account of her alcohol usage because she tracks it using an application for her
cell phone. Tr. at 58. This level of usage was corroborated by testimony from the individual’s
friend and her daughter. Tr. at 71-72, 110. The record in this matter also indicates that she has
not consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication or encountered any alcohol-related legal
problems since the December 2012 Domestic Assault arrest. Tr. at 64. 4
Second, I find that the individual’s chances of relapsing into an abusive pattern of drinking are
low. The individual is participating in counseling with a therapist who is a certified substance
abuse counselor. Tr. at 126. Although the majority of her work with the individual has concerned
other issues, she has counseled her about alcohol, and has monitored her usage. Tr. at 137. She
intends to continue seeing the individual indefinitely. Tr. at 139. Moreover, I believe that the
individual is highly motivated to continue her current pattern of responsible use. This is
evidenced by the facts that she began seeing her therapist and began her current pattern of
alcohol usage before she saw the DOE psychologist and received his recommendations for
counseling and for, at most, moderate alcohol use. She is also acutely aware of the importance of
remaining sober for purposes of retaining her security clearance and maintaining her
employment. Tr. at 59. I also find it to be a positive factor that the individual ended her
relationship with her boyfriend largely because of what she perceived as his abusive level of
alcohol consumption. Tr. at 24-25, 31.
Finally, at the hearing, the DOE psychologist testified that the individual was currently
exhibiting adequate evidence of reformation and rehabilitation from Alcohol Use Disorder NOS,
and that the risk of her relapsing into an excessive pattern of consumption was low. Tr. at 167-
168, 170. In his report, the DOE psychologist recommended that, in order to demonstrate
adequate evidence of rehabilitation, the individual should abstain from alcohol or practice
moderate consumption for at least six months, participate in counseling with a mental health
professional, inform this professional and her primary care physician of her alcohol use history,
and comply with any guidelines set forth by these medical professionals. DOE Ex. 6 at 12. After
hearing all of the testimony, including testimony indicating that each of these requirements had
been met, the DOE psychologist concluded that the individual has “made a significant change in
her drinking,” Tr. at 167, and that her prognosis is now “good.” Tr. at 170. I therefore conclude
that no significant security concerns remain regarding criteria (h) and (j).
V. CONCLUSION
consume no more than three drinks on any one occasion, and no more than seven standard-sized
drinks during any given seven-day period. This standard, which purports to differentiate
moderate alcohol usage from unhealthy usage, was taken from a 2005 article published in the
New England Journal of Medicine entitled “Unhealthy Alcohol Use,” by R. Saitz. DOE Ex. 6 at
8, 11-12.
4 During this incident, which occurred in the midst of a contentious break-up between the
individual and her boyfriend, the individual threw a shot glass, allegedly in the vicinity of the
boyfriend. No one was injured.
5
For the reasons set forth above, I find that the individual has adequately addressed the DOE’s
security concerns. Consequently, I am convinced that restoring her access authorization would
not endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.
Accordingly, I conclude that the DOE should restore the individual’s security clearance. Review
of this Decision by an Appeal Panel is available pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Robert B. Palmer
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: October 25, 2013