PSH-13-0086

*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: July 11, 2013 )
) Case No.: PSH-13-0086
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 30, 2013
_______________
Hearing Officer Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXX X. XXX (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 when a Local Security Office (LSO) issued 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 LSO stated that the Individual had been
diagnosed by a psychiatrist with Alcohol Abuse, and engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior
which brought into question his honesty, reliability, and trustworthiness.1
1
Criterion H relates to information that a person has “[a]n illness or mental condition of a nature which, in the
opinion of a psychiatrist or a licensed clinical psychologist, causes, or may cause, a significant defect in judgment or
reliability . . .” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h). 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). Criterion L defines as derogatory information
that an individual has “[e]ngaged in any unusual conduct or is subject to any circumstances which tend to show that
the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual may be
subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best
interests of the national security.” 10 C.F.R. § 708.8(l).
2
The Notification Letter further 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. 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 July 11, 2013.
At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e) and (g), I took testimony from the
Individual, his spouse, a co-worker, his mother, his supervisor, his Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
sponsor, and a DOE consultant psychiatrist (the DOE Psychiatrist). See Transcript of Hearing,
Case No. PSH-13-0086 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 14 exhibits, marked as
Exhibits 1 through 14, while the Individual submitted eight exhibits, marked as Exhibits A
through H.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
On November 13, 2009, and again on March 7, 2013, police arrested and charged the Individual
with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI).
After the Individual’s first DUI, the LSO conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the
Individual and referred him to the DOE Psychiatrist. The Individual was evaluated by the DOE
Psychiatrist on May 7, 2010. Exhibit 9 at 2. After completing his evaluation of the Individual,
the DOE Psychiatrist issued a report on May 7, 2010, in which he found that the Individual met
the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth
Edition-Text Revised (DSM-IV-TR) for “Generalized Anxiety Disorder.” Exhibit 9 at 8.
However, the DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual’s Generalized Anxiety Disorder was
not an illness or condition that causes, or may cause, a significant defect in the Individual’s
judgment and reliability. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist also found that the Individual was not, and
had not been, a user of alcohol habitually to excess, or alcohol dependent or suffering from
alcohol abuse. Id. at 10.
After the Individual’s second DUI, the LSO conducted an additional PSI of the Individual on
March 27, 2013. See Exhibit 12. Because the March 27, 2013, PSI did not resolve the security
concerns raised by the Individual’s second DUI, the DOE Psychiatrist conducted a second
evaluation of the Individual on April 27, 2013, at the request of the LSO. Exhibit 8 at 1. After
completing this evaluation of the Individual, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a report on May 2,
2013, in which he found that the Individual met the criteria set forth in the DSM-IV-TR for
Alcohol Abuse. Exhibit 8 at 10. The DOE Psychiatrist further found the Individual’s Alcohol
Abuse to be an illness or condition that causes, or may cause, a significant defect in the
Individual’s judgment and reliability. Exhibit 8 at 11. Noting that the Individual was not yet
rehabilitated or reformed, the DOE Psychiatrist opined that in order to be reformed or
rehabilitated from his Alcohol Abuse, the Individual needed to attend “either a structured
inpatient or outpatient treatment program, with documented participation in 12-step recovery
meetings and familiarity with a recovery model,” and that “at least a year of complete sobriety
would be necessary for fulfillment of adequate rehabilitation.” Exhibit 8 at 10-11.
3
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 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 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. DEROGATORY INFORMATION AND ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The Individual has been arrested for two DUIs. 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) Guideline G at ¶ 21. In the present case, an association exists between the
Individual’s consumption of alcohol and his subsequent failure to exercise good judgment and to
control his impulses, as evidenced by his repeated operation of a motor vehicle on public roads
while in a state of intoxication.
On May 2, 2013, the DOE Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Abuse. This
information raises security concerns about the Individual under Criterion H, since the DOE
Psychiatrist opined that Individual’s Alcohol Abuse constitutes an illness or condition that cause,
or may cause, a significant defect in the Individual’s judgment and reliability. Exhibit 8 at 11;
Adjudicative Guidelines I at ¶ 27 and G at ¶21, 22(e).
The Individual’s two arrests for DUI constitute criminal conduct that raises security concerns
under Criterion L. “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's
reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.” Adjudicative Guideline
E at ¶ 15. “Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to
comply with laws, rules and regulations.” Adjudicative Guideline G at ¶ 30.
V. ANALYSIS
4
I find that the Individual has adequately mitigated the security concerns raised under Criteria H
and J by his Alcohol Abuse diagnosis, and two alcohol-related arrests.
The Individual has presented particularly evidence that he is reformed and rehabilitated form his
Alcohol Abuse. The Individual, who self-identifies as an “alcoholic,” testified that he
understands that alcoholism is a life-long disease and therefore he must permanently abstain
from alcohol use. Tr. at 130, 161, 168, 174, 184, 187-188 Exhibit A at 1. The Individual
testified that his last use of alcohol had occurred on March 7, 2013, over six months prior to the
hearing. Tr. at 130. The Individual testified that, on the day after his second DUI, he began
contacting treatment programs.2 Tr. at 133, 177. On March 17, 2013, he began an eight-week
Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP). Exhibit C at 1. The IOP included participation
in the AA Twelve-Step Program,3 individual counseling, and marital counseling. Exhibit 8 at
10; Exhibit H at 1. While he was attending the IOP, he came to the realization that he is an
alcoholic. Tr. at 142. He successfully completed the IOP on May 10, 2013. Exhibit A at 1;
Exhibit C at 1. He attends a weekly aftercare meeting at the IOP, and attends an average of three
AA meetings a week. Tr. at 157, 181; Exhibit A at 1. He meets with his individual counselor
on a bi-weekly basis. Tr. at 158; Exhibit A at 1; Exhibit H at 1. The Individual has been
working with an AA sponsor since April 2013. Tr. at 157. The Individual testified that hearing
the testimonies of other alcoholics at AA meetings helped him to realize how important it was to
address his alcoholism before it progressed further. Tr. at 179. The Individual testified that he
enjoys participating in AA and aftercare and plans to continue participating in AA for the rest of
his life. Tr. at 179-181, 184.
The Individual testified that he had received exceptionally strong emotional support from his
spouse and her family and that his faith community and clergy provide him with support for his
sobriety and alcohol-free social activities. Tr. at 132-133, 148, 168-169. He testified that he
believed that his marriage was strengthened as a result of his treatment and sobriety. Tr. at 149.
He testified that he has been a foster parent for two children with special needs (whose adoption
was pending) and that he needed to be sober in order to be a good father for those children. Tr.
at 149-150. He testified that fatherhood has reduced his anxiety. Tr. at 150-151. He has
changed his activities and social affiliations in order to avoid situations in which he used to drink
and the people who he used to drink with. Tr. at 152-157, 173, 193. The Individual testified that
his previous attempt to stop drinking (after his 2009 DUI arrest) did not succeed because he did
not recognize his problem and therefore did not receive the proper treatment for his alcoholism
and failed to develop the support system he needed to remain sober. Tr. at 171-172, 174-176.
He testified that since he now has a supportive spouse and two children, he has a greater
incentive to remain sober. Tr. at 176. He testified that sobriety has been a positive experience
for him. Tr. at 196-197. He described the present as “the high point in his life.” Tr. at 200.
The Individual’s mother testified on his behalf at the hearing. She testified that she and the
Individual have always been very close and that they have daily contact at work. Tr. at 91. She
testified that the Individual had informed her that he was an alcoholic while he was attending the
IOP. Tr. at 95. Most importantly she testified that, as a result of his sobriety, “his spirit is at
2 The Individual’s spouse’s testimony corroborated this testimony. Tr. at 56-57.
3 He is currently working on Step Three of the AA Twelve-Step Program. Tr. at 183.
5
peace for the first time.” Tr. at 97.
The Individual’s spouse, a licensed social worker, testified on his behalf at the hearing. Tr. at 44.
The Individual’s spouse’s testimony showed that she is a particularly strong, intelligent,
insightful, devoted, and emotionally-supportive person. She testified that the Individual is a very
open and honest Individual. Tr. at 45. She testified that she has stopped drinking and that
alcohol is not kept in the family home. Tr. at 47, 54, 71. She testified that they no longer
socialize with anyone who uses alcohol. Tr. at 65, 74-75, 86. They also generally avoid venues
where alcohol is being used by others. Tr. at 65. She testified that she and the Individual have
been becoming increasingly involved in their faith. Tr. at 47. She testified that the Individual
has a “really big support system.” Tr. at 49, 67-68. She testified that the Individual has not used
alcohol since the March 7, 2013, DUI arrest. Tr. at 52. The Individual’s spouse explained that
the Individual’s March 7, 2013, DUI resulted in extra scrutiny from the state agency overseeing
their foster care of two children. Tr. at 53-56. She testified that during the second week of the
IOP, the Individual began referring to himself as an “alcoholic,” and has told her that he plans to
never drink again. Tr. at 58-59. She testified that they had six weeks of family therapy through
the IOP. Tr. at 58. She also indicated that a local university had evaluated their relationship and
teamwork as part of a research study. Tr. at 58. She has attended several AA and Al-Anon
meetings in support of the Individual. Tr. at 59, 77. The Individual’s spouse testified that, as a
result of his sobriety, the Individual is: “Much happier now. Much more at peace with his life.
Much more excited about life in general I think.” Tr. at 66. She believes that the Individual
“loves” his therapy. Tr. at 69.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychiatrist observed the testimony of each of the other witnesses
before he testified. The DOE Psychiatrist testified that while he had originally found that the
Individual needed to abstain from using alcohol for at least twelve months to establish
reformation or rehabilitation form his Alcohol Abuse, he now was willing to adjust that
recommendation downward to six months. Tr. at 203. The DOE Psychiatrist testified that the
Individual was “doing an incredibly good job with his recovery.” Tr. at 203. He noted that the
Individual was the beneficiary of an exceedingly unusual set of circumstances: an insightful,
supportive, strong and capable spouse, the oversight and accountability of the foster care
program, the IOP and the oversight and accountability of the DOE security program and the
Individual’s “unique willingness and compliance” with all of the above. Tr. at 203. The DOE
Psychiatrist further noted that the Individual has: obtained a sponsor, participated in aftercare,
received family therapy, was a subject of the family study, was working out, was journaling, and
has an extraordinary support system, including a spouse that attends Al-Anon, and changed his
living situation. Tr. at 204. The DOE Psychiatrist concluded by stating: “The bottom line is I do
feel like he has had adequate amount of reformation and rehabilitation.” Tr. at 204-205.
The evidence in the record therefore shows that the Individual has successfully addressed his
Alcohol Abuse. Accordingly, I am convinced that the Individual has received sufficient
treatment, and abstained from using alcohol for a sufficient period of time to establish
reformation or rehabilitation from his Alcohol Abuse. Based upon the foregoing, I find that the
Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his Alcohol Abuse under
Criteria H or J.
6
The Individual’s two DUI arrests constitute criminal conduct that raises security concerns under
Criterion L. The DUIs were clearly symptoms of his Alcohol Abuse. Given the role that alcohol
played in the Individual’s misconduct and having found that the concerns raised by his Alcohol
Abuse are resolved, I find that the concerns raised under Criterion L about the Individual’s
judgment, reliability and trustworthiness by his two DUIs are also resolved.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Criteria H, J, and L.
After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a common sense manner, I
find that Individual has mitigated the Criteria H, J, and L security concerns. 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. 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: October 30, 2013