PSH-13-0090

*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 16, 2013 ) Case No. PSH-13-0090
)
_________________________________________ )
Issued: October 23, 2013
_______________
Hearing Officer Decision
_______________
Diane DeMoura, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (“the Individual”) to hold a
Department of Energy (DOE) 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 detailed below, I find that the DOE should
not restore the Individual’s access authorization at this time.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor and currently holds a suspended DOE access
authorization. DOE Exhibit (“Ex.”) M. In April 2012, the Individual was arrested for Driving
Under the Influence (DUI) of Alcohol, which he reported to the Local Security Office (LSO) in
June 2012 upon notification that he had been formally charged with the offense.2 DOE Ex. C
(June 21, 2012, Incident Report). This information prompted the LSO to request that the
1 Access authorization, also known as a security clearance, is an administrative determination that an individual is
eligible for access to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5.
2 In the June 21, 2012, incident report, the Individual explained that he did not report the April 2012 arrest sooner
because it was “unclear” to him whether he had, in fact, been arrested that evening since he was not taken to jail or
informed of any charges filed against him at that time. DOE Ex. C. Rather, the arresting officer transported the
Individual to a hospital after the Individual agreed to provide a blood sample for a blood-alcohol test and, upon
completion of the test, the officer drove the Individual home. Id. The Individual was notified by mail on June 20,
2012, that he had been formally charged with DUI and other related offenses. Id.
- 2 -
Individual participate in a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) in January 2013. DOE Ex. 8.
After the PSI, the Local Security Office (LSO) referred the Individual to a DOE consultant-
psychiatrist (“the DOE psychiatrist”) for an evaluation. The DOE psychiatrist evaluated the
Individual in May 2013, and issued a report in June 2013. DOE Ex. L. In July 2013, the LSO
informed the Individual that there existed derogatory information that raised security concerns
under 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j) (Criterion J).3 See DOE Ex. N (Notification Letter, July 1, 2013).
The Notification Letter also informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before a
Hearing Officer in order to resolve the security concerns. Id.
The Individual requested a hearing on this matter. The LSO forwarded his request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals, and I was appointed the Hearing Officer. At the hearing, the DOE
counsel introduced fourteen exhibits into the record (DOE Exs. A-N) and presented the
testimony of one witness, the DOE psychiatrist. The Individual submitted three exhibits and
presented his own testimony, as well as the testimony of two witnesses: his fiancée and a
substance abuse counselor who evaluated the Individual for the purposes of preparing a report of
evaluation and providing testimony during this proceeding. See Indiv. Exs. 1-3; Transcript of
Hearing, Case No. PSH-13-0090 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”).
II. REGULATORY STANDARD
The regulations governing the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization 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 regulations identify certain types of derogatory
information that may raise a question concerning an individual’s access authorization eligibility.
10 C.F.R. § 710.10(a). Once a security concern is raised, the individual has the burden of
bringing forward sufficient evidence to resolve the concern.
In determining whether an individual has resolved a security concern, the Hearing Officer
considers relevant factors, including “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 of the individual at the time of the conduct; the
voluntariness of 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,” and the impact of the foregoing on the relevant security concerns. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.7(c). In considering these factors, the Hearing Officer also consults adjudicative
guidelines that set forth a more comprehensive listing of relevant factors and considerations. See
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).
Ultimately, the decision concerning eligibility is “a comprehensive, common-sense judgment
made after consideration of all relevant information, favorable and unfavorable . . . .” 10 C.F.R.
3 Criterion J relates to conduct indicating that the Individual has “been, 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 -
§ 710.7(a). In order to reach a decision favorable to the individual, the Hearing Officer must find
that “the grant or restoration of access authorization to the individual will not endanger the
common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.27(a). “Any doubt as to an individual’s access authorization eligibility shall be resolved in
favor of the national security.” Id. See generally Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531
(1988) (the “clearly consistent with the interests of national security” test indicates that “security
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual began consuming alcohol in 2002, at age eighteen, typically drinking beer with
friends. DOE Ex. J at 45-46. During the PSI, the Individual provided a detailed account of his
drinking history since 2002. He reported that he generally drank five to ten beers over several
hours, becoming intoxicated. Id. at 48. Based on the Individual’s account, the quantity of
alcohol that he consumes on a typical drinking occasion has remained relatively unchanged over
the years, but the frequency of those occasions has decreased over time.4 Id. at 47-51. Since he
began drinking in 2002, the Individual has been involved in a number of legal incidents in which
alcohol was a factor. He was cited for “underage drinking” in May 2003, at age eighteen, and
for “disorderly house” in May 2006 and in April 2007. Id. at 33, 38, 40. Each citation resulted
from local police responding to complaints regarding a party that was either hosted by the
Individual or at which he was a guest. Alcohol was served at each of those parties. Id. at 33-42.
In addition to the three citations, the Individual received a code of conduct violation during his
junior year of college, after he and his roommates were found to be in possession of alcohol
during a room inspection, in violation of the applicable housing rules. Tr. at 82.
In April 2012, the Individual spent an afternoon with coworkers and friends, during which he
drank ten or eleven beers over a four- to five-hour period, while tailgating at a local sporting
event and then dining at a local restaurant. DOE Ex. J at 13-15. The Individual had planned to
attend a house party that evening with two other friends, but one of the friends – the designated
driver – chose not to go. Id. at 15-16. Rather than change his plans to account for the missing
designated driver, the Individual chose to drive to the party himself, despite having spent the
afternoon drinking. Id. at 16- 17. The Individual remained at the party for several hours, where
he continued to drink, and then decided to drive himself and his friend home. Id. at 17. At
approximately 3:30 a.m., the Individual was pulled over by a police officer for speeding. After
failing the field sobriety tests, the Individual was transported to a local hospital for a blood test to
determine his blood alcohol content (BAC).5 Id. at 19-23. In June 2012, the Individual was
notified by mail that he was formally charged with DUI and other related charges. DOE Ex. C.
He also learned that, based on the results of the blood test, his BAC on the night of his arrest was
0.222, nearly three times the legal limit of 0.08. Id.; DOE Ex. J at 20. Ultimately, the Individual
4 The Individual estimated that, from 2002 to 2006, while attending college, he consumed alcohol three times per
week. Id. at 47. After college, the frequency of his drinking decreased to two to three times per week from 2006 to
2008, and once a week from 2008 to 2010. Id. at 50. From 2010 to 2012, the Individual drank “two times monthly
on average.” Id. at 51.
5 The police criminal complaint indicates that the Individual’s blood test took place at 4:05 a.m., approximately
twelve hours after the Individual first began drinking and approximately one hour after he stopped drinking, based
on the Individual’s account of events preceding his arrest. See DOE Exs. C, D.
- 4 -
was accepted into an accelerated rehabilitative disposition (ARD) program, a pre-prosecution
probation program available to first-time offenders in his state. DOE Ex. F. The Individual’s
probation carried several conditions, among them that he remain abstinent from alcohol for the
duration of the program. DOE Ex. L at 4. However, the Individual admitted to drinking on two
occasions while on probation. Id.
After evaluating the Individual, the DOE psychiatrist diagnosed him with “Alcohol Abuse
Disorder.” DOE Ex. L at 8. The DOE psychiatrist based the diagnosis on the Individual’s April
2012 DUI arrest, his history of alcohol-related legal incidents, noted above, and his drinking
while in the ARD program, in violation of one of the terms of his probation. Id. In addition, the
DOE psychiatrist opined that the Individual was a user of alcohol “habitually to excess” based on
the Individual’s self-reports of the frequency and quantity of his alcohol consumption. Id. at 9.
The DOE psychiatrist noted in his report that habitual excessive drinking is problematic because
“regular alcohol consumers . . . have a greater risk of problems related to alcohol use including
medical . . . legal, social, occupational, and psychiatric (e.g. depression, irritability, insomnia,
interpersonal problems, and impaired judgment).” Id. (emphasis added).
IV. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As stated above, the LSO issued a Notification Letter identifying security concerns under
Criterion J of the Part 710 regulations. DOE Ex. N. In support of its Criterion J concerns, the
LSO cited the Individual’s pattern of alcohol consumption, his 2012 DUI arrest, his history of
other alcohol-related incidents, and the DOE psychiatrist’s diagnosis. Id. It is well-established
that excessive use of alcohol raises security concerns because “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.” Adjudicative Guidelines,
Guideline G, ¶ 21. In this case, given the facts regarding the Individual’s history of excessive
alcohol consumption, particularly the events precipitating his 2012 DUI arrest, there is ample
information in the record regarding the Individual’s excessive alcohol consumption that raises
valid security concerns. Therefore, I find that the LSO properly invoked Criterion J.
V. ANALYSIS
In making a determination regarding the Individual's eligibility for DOE access authorization, I
have thoroughly considered the record in this proceeding, including the hearing testimony and
the documentary evidence. For the reasons set forth below, I am unable to find that restoring the
Individual's suspended DOE 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).
At the hearing, the Individual acknowledged that there had been occasions in the past when he
abused alcohol, but he disagreed with the DOE psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse
Disorder, maintained that he did not have any alcohol-related condition necessitating treatment,
and attempted to establish at the hearing, through his own testimony and that of his witnesses,
that his alcohol consumption in general was not of concern. Tr. at 80, 110.
- 5 -
The Individual stated that he drinks socially with friends, drinking “on average . . . about seven
or eight beers . . . in a four- to five-hour window.” Tr. at 87. He added, “if you do the math
there . . . it’s basically about two beers an hour. And, yes, it brings you up to the point of
intoxication, right at the point of intoxication, at 0.08. Okay? And that’s kind of where I say . . .
you know, when I drink, yeah. I mean, I probably am drunk. I’m at the point of intoxication.
Not really above it. Not like, you know, where I got my DUI.” Tr. at 87. The Individual does
not believe that he meets the criteria for Alcohol Abuse Disorder because alcohol has not
interfered in his life, and he has not “had any issues in life” due to his drinking. Tr. at 93-94. In
addition, the Individual denies that alcohol has ever impaired his judgment, other than the night
of the April 2012 DUI. Tr. at 120.
With respect to the college code of conduct violation and the 2003, 2006, and 2007 legal
citations, the Individual did not dispute that the underlying incidents took place. Rather, he
offered explanations for each incident which either minimized his involvement or downplayed
the role of alcohol in the incident itself. Tr. at 82-85. Similarly, the Individual acknowledged
his poor judgment which led to his April 2012 DUI arrest. However, he explained that his
behavior on that occasion was “not a normal occurrence.” Tr. at 85. According to the
Individual, on the day of his DUI arrest, he “probably” reached the “higher limits” of how much
he drinks. Tr. at 85. In addition, he “even drank it a little quicker than usual,” and he “continued
to drink [after tailgating] and [went] on to this party, which is not normal.” Id. Finally, he
contended that he does not generally “stay out for 12 hours at a time.” Tr. at 86. According to
the Individual, the combination of these factors made for an “atypical” day. Tr. at 87.
The Individual noted that he completed the terms of the ARD program, including participation in
required alcohol education courses, attendance at three Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and
payment of a fine, and that he was released from probation early. Tr. at 98, 123; see also Indiv.
Ex. 1. However, he acknowledged that abstinence from alcohol was also a term of his ARD
probation, which he violated by consuming alcohol on two occasions during the probationary
period. Tr. at 123. He further admitted that his probation officer, the district attorney, and the
court were unaware that he violated of one of the terms of his probation when he petitioned for,
and was granted, early release from the ARD program. However, the Individual downplayed his
probation violation, and maintained that he would likely have been granted early release despite
his violation. Tr. at 123-127. The Individual alleged that, despite the abstinence requirement,
someone told him at the outset of his participation in the ARD program that, “really what it
comes down to is, you know, your probation officer doesn’t really care. They just – they want to
see that you don’t have any alcohol-related incidents.” Tr. at 126. He added that, in retrospect,
he wished he had not violated his probation so that it would not have been an issue during the
PSI and the DOE psychiatrist’s evaluation. Tr. at 127-28.
Regarding his future intentions toward alcohol, the Individual does not plan to stop consuming
alcohol, but he does intend to be more careful in his drinking. Tr. at 108. He does not plan to
seek treatment for alcohol abuse at this time. Tr. at 111. However, he stated that he attended the
required alcohol education courses with “a learning mindset,” and he learned some information
that has helped him. Tr. at 95. The Individual maintains that he has “somewhat” reduced his
alcohol consumption, now “probably drinking . . . eight beers in five hours.” Tr. at 106.
- 6 -
The Individual’s fiancée corroborated the Individual’s testimony that he only drinks socially. Tr.
at 71. However, her testimony regarding the quantity of alcohol that the Individual consumes
differed from the Individual’s account. She testified that the Individual now drinks “maybe . . .
two to four, five drinks,” far fewer than the eight drinks that the Individual reported during his
testimony.6 Tr. at 72. According to the fiancée, the Individual has become “a lot more cautious”
with respect to his alcohol consumption, and drinks less frequently. Tr. at 71-72. She stated that
the Individual’s DUI arrest and its aftermath “made him really aware that . . . he does need to be
careful.” Tr. at 72. She testified that the Individual does not intend to abstain from drinking in
the future, but he is more aware that he can drink in moderation and he plans to “keep [his
consumption] to a minimum.” Tr. at 77.
The substance abuse counselor testified that, after evaluating the Individual, he concluded that he
did not currently meet criteria for an alcohol-related disorder. Tr. at 13; see also Indiv. Ex. 3
(August 2013 Report of Evaluation). However, the counselor opined that the Individual’s
history and experiences with alcohol were of “some concern,” and, therefore, it was “important”
that the Individual “be very careful” with respect to his alcohol consumption in the future. Tr. at
13. The counselor testified that he did not diagnose the Individual with Alcohol Abuse Disorder
due to the lack of recurring alcohol-related incidents within the previous twelve months. Id. He
added, however, that if he had evaluated the Individual closer in time to the April 2012 DUI
arrest, rather than over one year later, he would have recommended that the Individual seek
outpatient treatment for alcohol abuse. Tr. at 22. The counselor testified that, since the April
2012 DUI arrest, the Individual had made “significant changes” in his “lifestyle” and his
“relationship to alcohol” because he prioritized his relationships and his career. Tr. at 14.
However, the counselor was unable to give specific examples of the “significant changes” the
Individual has made, stating instead he “just got a general sense that, you know, drinking was not
that important” to the Individual, and that the Individual “did not seem to be so attached” to
alcohol. Tr. at 24.
The DOE psychiatrist disagreed with the substance abuse counselor’s opinion that the Individual
did not meet the criteria for an Alcohol Abuse Disorder diagnosis, noting that the counselor did
not consider the Individual’s entire history of excessive alcohol consumption and related
incidents. Tr. at 46. In contrast, in diagnosing the Individual with Alcohol Abuse Disorder, the
DOE psychiatrist considered a number of factors, including the Individual’s history of alcohol
consumption since 2002, which has been “fairly intense and regular,” and his five alcohol-related
“legal consequences,” the most recent of which – a DUI arrest following a twelve-hour period of
drinking – occurred in April 2012. Tr. at 38-39. The DOE psychiatrist also considered the
Individual’s driving after drinking “a couple of times a year,” which he described as “very
problematic” regardless of whether the person is arrested or there is an accident, and the
Individual’s statement that he had experienced a number of blackouts due to excessive drinking
in the past. Tr. at 39-40. Taken together, these factors were serious enough that the DOE
psychiatrist felt the Alcohol Abuse Disorder was appropriate, even though the Individual had not
6 Because the Individual and his fiancée provided contradicting accounts regarding the quantity of alcohol that the
Individual consumes, there is little corroborated evidence in the record regarding the Individual’s current alcohol
consumption. However, for purposes of this decision, I have assumed that the Individual’s testimony regarding his
own consumption - that he currently consumes, on average, eight beers over a five-hour period – is the more
accurate account.
- 7 -
had any new alcohol-related incidents within twelve months of his evaluation. Id. The
psychiatrist considered the Individual’s drinking while on probation significant because it was an
indication that the Alcohol Abuse Disorder diagnosis from the earlier period of misuse of
alcohol, dating back to the 2012 DUI arrest, had “persisted in the current 12 months.” Tr. at 44,
52. He added that this was significant not only because it demonstrated that the Individual
violated a legal condition imposed on him, but also because it raised questions regarding his
judgment. Tr. at 44-45. The DOE psychiatrist opined that there have been consequences to the
Individual’s drinking significant enough that “one would expect he would have tapered his
alcohol use in frequency or severity, but that had not occurred as vigorously as one might
expect.” Tr. at 39.
The DOE psychiatrist also opined that the Individual consumed alcohol habitually to excess. Tr.
at 40. In making this finding, the DOE psychiatrist used as a benchmark the standards set forth
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism, which indicate that men should not consume “more than four standard alcohol
drinks in a day, or 14 alcohol drinks in a week.” Tr. at 40; see also DOE Ex. L at 9. He added
that the Individual had “obviously exceeded that regularly over a period of years.” Id.
The DOE psychiatrist recommended that the Individual be abstinent from alcohol “because he
hasn’t learned how to drink appropriately,” given that he drinks to intoxication every time he
drinks. Tr. at 42. He also recommended that the Individual seek alcohol abuse treatment “to
learn to be able to drink appropriately, because if he’s going to go back to drinking five to ten
beers, even if it’s once a month . . . that’s a high risk for him . . . He needs to work on the
quantity of [his] drinking.” Tr. at 66-67. In that regard, the DOE psychiatrist opined that the
Individual did not yet demonstrate adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his diagnosis of
Alcohol Abuse Disorder. Id.
Among the factors that may serve to mitigate security concerns raised by an individual’s alcohol
use are that “so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” that “the individual acknowledges his or
her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this
problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if
an alcohol abuser),” and that “the individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient
counseling or rehabilitation along with any required aftercare, has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations such as participation in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar
organization and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional or a
licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment
program.” Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline G, ¶ 23.
In the present case, upon consideration of the evidence in the record, I find that the Individual
has not mitigated the security concerns cited in the Notification Letter. As an initial matter, the
Individual has disputed the DOE psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse Disorder, and the
record contains conflicting opinions from the DOE psychiatrist and the substance abuse
counselor regarding the Individual’s diagnosis. The DOE psychiatrist articulated the basis for
- 8 -
his diagnosis, which he supported with specific facts, he considered the entirety of the
Individual’s history and experiences with alcohol, and he appeared to have had a better-
developed record upon which to base his conclusions. Conversely, the substance abuse
counselor considered only the 12-months preceding his evaluation of the Individual in rendering
his opinion, gave more general and speculative statements to explain his conclusions, and
appeared to have been provided less information upon which to perform an evaluation. Given
these facts, I was persuaded by the DOE psychiatrist’s opinion that the Individual meets the
criteria for Alcohol Abuse Disorder, and has not demonstrated adequate rehabilitation from the
condition. Moreover, notwithstanding his disagreement regarding the diagnosis, even the
substance abuse counselor expressed reservations regarding the Individual’s alcohol
consumption similar to those of the DOE psychiatrist.
Considering the evidence in the record before me, I share the reservations of the two experts.
The Individual has refused to acknowledge that his pattern of alcohol consumption is of serious
concern. Consequently, he has taken no steps to address issues related to his alcohol
consumption, other than those required of him in order to resolve the criminal charges resulting
from his April 2012 DUI arrest. He has instead consistently attempted to either rationalize
drinking habits that he believes are harmless, or to minimize the impact of his alcohol
consumption.7 The Individual expressed remorse for his April 2012 DUI arrest, but adamantly
attributed the incident to an anomalous lapse in judgment, rather than a predictable eventual
consequence of his habitual excessive alcohol consumption. However, the Individual’s assertion
that his behavior preceding the DUI arrest was simply a lapse in otherwise good judgment is
belied not only by the facts established in the record that (1) he usually drinks to intoxication on
the occasions that he consumes alcohol and (2) has driven after drinking on a number of other
occasions. These facts, together with his dangerous behavior underlying the DUI arrest –
consuming enough alcohol to reach a BAC of 0.222, nearly three times the legal limit, and then
driving – raise serious concerns regarding the Individual’s judgment with respect to his use of
alcohol.
Given the presence of the Individual’s untreated Alcohol Abuse Disorder, together with his lack
of insight into the impact of alcohol on his life, the absence of his participation in any significant
alcohol abuse treatment or education, his stated intention to continue drinking, and a barely
perceptible decrease in his alcohol consumption, I cannot conclude that the concerns raised by
the Individual’s pattern of excessive alcohol consumption have been resolved such that they are
unlikely to recur and do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment. Therefore, I find that the Individual has not resolved the Criterion J concerns cited in
the Notification Letter.
VI. CONCLUSION
7 Though the record is replete with examples of such behavior, one example that was of particular concern in this
proceeding was the Individual’s reliance on “the math” of estimating BACs – calculations regarding the number of
drinks consumed relative to the amount of time over which the alcohol was processed by the body. The Individual
maintained several times throughout the hearing that, even on occasions when he consumed several drinks over a
number of hours, “the math” established that he was not “as intoxicated as you may think . . .” Tr. at 86-87.
- 9 -
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
doubts regarding the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance under Criterion J of the Part
710 regulations. I also find that the Individual has not presented sufficient information to fully
resolve those concerns. Therefore, I cannot conclude that restoring the Individual’s suspended
DOE access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security is clearly
consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE
should not restore the Individual’s suspended DOE access authorization.
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth
at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Diane DeMoura
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: October 23, 2013