PSH-14-0002

*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: January 6, 2014 ) Case No. PSH-14-0002
)
_________________________________________ )
Issued: April 1, 2014
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Diane DeMoura, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (“the Individual”) to hold a
Department of Energy (DOE) access authorization.1 This Decision will consider whether, based
on the testimony and other evidence presented in this proceeding, the Individual’s suspended
DOE access authorization should be restored. For the reasons detailed below, I find that the
DOE should restore the Individual’s access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor and currently holds a suspended DOE access
authorization. DOE Exhibit (“Ex.”) 3. In July 2013, the Individual timely reported his arrest for
Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Second Offense, and related charges to the Local Security
Office (LSO). DOE Exs. 6 (July 11, 2013, Incident Report), 7 (July 9, 2013, Incident Report).
This information prompted the LSO to request that the Individual participate in an August 2013
Personnel Security Interview (PSI). DOE Ex. 9. After the PSI, the Local Security Office (LSO)
referred the Individual to a DOE consultant-psychologist (“the DOE psychologist”) for an
evaluation. The DOE psychologist evaluated the Individual in October 2013, and issued a
report. DOE Ex. 4. In November 2013, the LSO informed the Individual that there existed
derogatory information that raised security concerns under 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.8 (h), (j), and (l)
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 -
(Criteria H, J and L, respectively).2 See DOE Ex. 1 (Notification Letter, November 18, 2013).
The Notification Letter also informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge3 in order to resolve the security concerns. Id.
The Individual requested a hearing on this matter. DOE Ex. 2. The LSO forwarded his request
to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and I was appointed the Administrative Judge. At the
hearing, the DOE counsel introduced nine exhibits into the record (DOE Exs. 1-9) and presented
the testimony of one witness, the DOE psychologist. The Individual submitted three exhibits and
presented his own testimony, as well as the testimony of five witnesses: his father; his girlfriend;
his supervisor; a co-worker; and his site’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor, who
evaluated the Individual following his July 2013 DWI arrest and met with him on multiple
occasions thereafter to provide education and counseling regarding alcohol abuse. See Indiv.
Exs. A-C; Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-14-0002 (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 Administrative Judge
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 Administrative Judge 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
2 Criterion H concerns information that a person has “an illness or mental condition of a nature which, in the opinion
of a board-certified psychiatrist, other licensed physician 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 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).
Criterion L pertains to circumstances tending 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." l0 C.F.R. § 710.8(1).
3 Effective October 1, 2013, the titles of attorneys in the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) changed from
Hearing Officer to Administrative Judge. See 78 Fed. Reg. 52389 (August 23, 2013). The title change was
undertaken to bring OHA Hearing Officers in line with the title used at other federal agencies for officials
performing identical or similar adjudicatory work. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. PSH-13-0114 at 1 n.1
(2014).
- 3 -
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.
§ 710.7(a). In order to reach a decision favorable to the individual, the Administrative Judge
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
A. The Individual’s Alcohol Consumption
The Individual is currently thirty-two years of age. He began consuming alcohol at age sixteen,
typically drinking six or more cans of beer once or twice per month on social occasions with
friends. DOE Ex. 4 at 4; DOE Ex. 9 at 9-12. The Individual’s alcohol consumption increased to
three or four times per week after his twenty-first birthday, and this remained his drinking pattern
for the next several years. DOE Ex. 4 at 2-3. One evening in December 2006, the Individual
consumed five or six beers over nearly six hours, and proceeded to drive home. During the
drive, a local police officer pulled the Individual over after observing him swerving in his lane.
The officer ultimately arrested the Individual for DWI, First Offense, after the Individual failed a
battery of field sobriety tests. Id. at 3; DOE Ex. 8 at 11. According to the Individual, the arrest
scared him, and he reduced his alcohol consumption. DOE Ex. 9 at 24.
A few years later, the Individual abstained from alcohol during his former wife’s pregnancy with
their son and for several months after his birth. Tr. at 84 When he resumed drinking, he
generally drank only on weekends. DOE Ex. 4. After the Individual’s marriage ended in 2010,
he and his ex-wife agreed to joint custody of their son, dividing their time with the child equally.
The Individual did not drink alcohol during the times that he had his son with him. Tr. at 78-79.
At other times, the amounts and frequency of the Individual’s drinking during the week varied,
ranging from no alcohol at all to one to three beers one or two weekdays and up to six beers on a
weekend day. DOE Ex. 4-5.
The Individual began a new relationship in May 2013. In July 2013, during an evening out with
his girlfriend, the Individual consumed approximately six beers in two hours. During their drive
home, a police officer witnessed the Individual commit a traffic violation and pulled him over.
DOE Ex. 4 at 5; DOE Ex. 9 at 44-50. The officer suspected that the Individual had consumed
alcohol prior to driving, and administered field sobriety tests to the Individual, which he failed.
The Individual was arrested for DWI, Second Offense, having registered a breath alcohol content
(BAC) of 0.14. Id.; DOE Ex. 6.
- 4 -
In October 2013, the DOE psychologist evaluated the Individual and determined that he did not
meet the diagnostic criteria for an alcohol-related disorder. DOE Ex. 4 at 6. However, the DOE
psychologist concluded that the Individual was a user of alcohol habitually to excess, and his
pattern of alcohol consumption caused or may cause a significant defect in judgment or
reliability. Id. at 7-8. In his report, the DOE psychologist noted as positive factors that the
Individual had established a three-month period of abstinence as of the evaluation and that he
appeared “honestly motivated to stop drinking for his own sake.” Nonetheless, the DOE
psychologist opined that the Individual’s established period of abstinence as of the evaluation
was too short to demonstrate that he could control his drinking. Id. With respect to how the
Individual could demonstrate adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from his
alcohol-related condition, the DOE psychologist recommended that he abstain from alcohol for
nine months. Id. at 8. In addition, he recommended that the Individual participate in the
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program, working with a sponsor, three times per week for a
minimum of six months. Id.
B. The Individual’s Non-Alcohol Related Citations
In addition to the two DWI arrests described above, the Individual’s criminal record includes
citations that he received for moving violations in 2000 and 2001. In August 2000, he received a
citation for Reckless Driving. He failed to pay the associated fine as required, which resulted,
unbeknownst to him, in a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested later that year when the warrant
was discovered during a subsequent unrelated traffic stop. DOE Ex. 9 at 57-59. In April 2001,
the Individual received a speeding ticket (97 miles per hour (mph) in a 75 mph zone), and again
neglected to pay the associated fine. The Individual was arrested for this violation in 2004.4 Id.;
DOE Ex. 4 at 3. See also Indiv. Ex. B.
IV. DEROGATORY INFORMATION AND ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As stated above, the LSO cited security concerns under Criteria H, J and L of the Part 710
regulations. See DOE Ex 1.
In support of its Criteria H and J concerns, the LSO cited the Individual’s history and pattern of
alcohol consumption, his previous alcohol-related arrests, and the DOE psychologist’s opinion
that the Individual was a user of alcohol habitually to excess, which causes, or may cause,
defects in his judgment or reliability. Id. at 1. 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. Similarly, certain mental
conditions “can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Id., Guideline I, ¶ 27.
Therefore, there is no question that the diagnosis of such a condition by a duly qualified mental
4 Although the Notification Letter lists this arrest as having occurred in May 2010, this is an error. As set forth in
the Individual’s criminal record, a copy of which he submitted as a hearing exhibit, the arrest took place in 2004.
See Indiv. Ex. B; see also Tr. at 87-92; DOE Ex. 3. The incorrect date appears to have originated in an Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) investigator’s report of investigation pertaining to the Individual (“the OPM
Report”), and then been inadvertently cited by the DOE psychologist in his October 2013 report. Tr. at 91; DOE Ex.
4 at 4. The LSO, in turn, obtained the date from the DOE psychologist’s report and noted it as the date of arrest in
the Notification Letter. DOE Ex. 1.
- 5 -
health professional may raise security concerns. In light of the Individual’s admitted pattern of
alcohol consumption, including two past alcohol-related arrests, and the DOE psychologist’s
determination that the Individual was a user of alcohol habitually to excess, I find that the LSO
had ample grounds to invoke Criteria H and J.
As a basis for invoking Criterion L, the LSO cited the Individual’s August 2000 and April 2001
citations, and the resulting arrests for failure to pay the associated fines, as well as his 2006 and
2013 DWI arrests. DOE Ex. 1 at 2. It is well-established that criminal conduct raises security
concerns under Criterion L. Such conduct “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.” See Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline J, ¶ 30. In
light of the Individual’s prior arrests and citations, I find that the LSO properly invoked Criterion
L.
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 conclude that restoring the
Individual’s suspended DOE access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and
security, and is clearly consistent with national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
A. Criteria H and J – Alcohol Use
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.
The Individual testified at the hearing that, since his July 2013 DWI arrest, he has learned about
the role that alcohol played in his life. Tr. at 73. According to the Individual, until he met with
the DOE psychologist, he never understood that his level of alcohol consumption constituted
“excessive drinking.” Tr. at 83. The Individual found that his sessions with the EAP counselor
further helped him to better understand “the effects of alcohol” and “people’s behaviors.” Tr. at
74-75.
- 6 -
The Individual has been abstinent from alcohol since July 2013, seven months as of the hearing.
Tr. at 77. He does not have any alcohol in his home, and alcohol is no longer part of his social
life. Tr. at 81-82. The Individual stated that his friends and family are aware that he does not
drink anymore. Tr. at 82. The Individual has not found it difficult to abstain from alcohol in
social settings, and is now usually the designated driver of his social group. Tr. at 82-83. He
stated that his abstinence from alcohol has been a positive experience. For example, he has
noticed improvements in his physical health. Tr. at 80. In addition, according to the Individual,
by not consuming alcohol, he has been able to be a better and more present parent for his son.
Tr. at 75-76, 79. According to the Individual, “it’s a whole different life now.” Tr. at 82.
After becoming abstinent from alcohol, the Individual began attending AA meetings. Tr. at 75;
Indiv. Ex. A. He has enjoyed his experience in AA. Tr. at 75. He currently has an AA sponsor,
with whom he is working the program’s twelve steps. Indiv. Exs. A, C. According to the
Individual, participating in AA meetings, and listening to the stories shared by other members,
has given him another perspective on life and the long-term effects that alcohol can have on
people. Id. The Individual has also noticed a positive change in his personality, which he
attributes to his participation in AA. Specifically, the Individual stated that he has become a
better listener, has learned to be more respectful of others, and has become more even-tempered.
Tr. at 76. As a result, the Individual believes that AA has helped strengthen his relationship with
his son. Id. Specifically, the Individual stated that he “enjoy[s] every second” with his son, and
he believes that he will now “be a better role model” for him, and “do things for [his son] now
that alcohol probably [would not] have let [him] do.” Id.
Through his participation in AA, the Individual came to realize that he did, in fact, have a
problem with alcohol. Tr. at 83. Although indefinite abstinence was not one of the DOE
psychologist’s recommendations, the Individual has found abstinence beneficial to him and
intends to maintain his abstinence in the future. Tr. at 78-80, 85. He has a strong support system
to help him attain that goal. Tr. at 78-79. For example, the Individual’s family and friends are
aware of his abstinence and participation in AA, and are supportive of his efforts. Tr. at 78, 82-
83. He also feels that he can go to his girlfriend or to his father for support whenever necessary.
Tr. at 78. The Individual is also comfortable relying on his sponsor and other AA members as
part of his support system. Tr. at 78. Most importantly, the Individual credits his young son as
his strongest motivation for remaining abstinent. Tr. at 78-79.
The Individual’s testimony regarding his abstinence and his participation in AA was
corroborated by the testimony of his other witnesses. Several of the Individual’s witnesses, from
his girlfriend, with whom he spends the majority of his time outside of work, to his coworker,
were aware not only that the Individual had stopped drinking alcohol, but also that he was
actively involved in AA and found the program beneficial. Tr. at 32, 42, 68. The Individual’s
girlfriend testified that the Individual has not consumed alcohol in the last seven months. Tr. at
41. She added that he regularly attends at least two AA meetings per week, but tries to attend
three meetings per week, depending on his schedule with his son. Tr. at 48. The Individual’s
girlfriend noted that the Individual’s work with his sponsor, as well as hearing the testimonials
from other AA members, have had an impact on the Individual. Tr. at 48-49. She noted that the
Individual has changed for the better since he stopped drinking, and that their relationship has
become more stable as a result. Tr. at 46-48. The Individual’s girlfriend is confident that the
- 7 -
Individual will remain abstinent in the future because their family life has improved since he
stopped drinking, and they both enjoy the stability of their life together. Tr. at 47, 50. Similarly,
the Individual’s father stated he sees the Individual regularly, and has not seen him drink alcohol
since his July 2013 DWI arrest. Tr. at 32. According to the Individual’s father, the Individual
told him that he does not miss drinking alcohol. Id. Finally, the Individual’s coworker, with
whom the Individual also occasionally socializes, testified that the Individual has talked with him
about his experience in AA. Tr. at 68. According to the coworker, the Individual has found the
program “beneficial,” and his involvement in AA is important to him. Id.
In addition to the Individual’s personal witnesses, who each know the Individual well, the EAP
counselor testified regarding his assessment of the Individual. The counselor noted that the
Individual was “very cooperative” and “very insightful” during their sessions. Tr. at 18. The
EAP counselor testified that the Individual spoke candidly with him about “the quality of life
improvements” that he noticed in his abstinence, particularly, “in the relationship that it was
affording him with his son.” Tr. at 17. The EAP counselor noted as positive factors the
Individual’s seven-month period of abstinence, his regular attendance at AA meetings, his stable
relationship with his girlfriend, and his stated motivation to remain abstinent. Tr. at 19-20.
Based on these factors, the EAP counselor testified that he was “very optimistic” that the
Individual will be successful in maintaining his abstinence from alcohol. Tr. at 19-20, 23.
After listening to the hearing testimony, the DOE psychologist stated that during his October
2013 evaluation of the Individual, he concluded that the Individual’s most recent pattern of
alcohol consumption “marginally” met the definition of problematic drinking. Tr. at 102.
Specifically, the Individual used to drink to intoxication once or more per month, but when he
did so, he did not “become seriously intoxicated. That is, his [BAC] was not high typically.” Id.
The DOE psychologist added that, in such cases, he would normally recommend one year of
abstinence to establish adequate rehabilitation, but instead recommended nine months of
abstinence for the Individual because he “believe[d] in [the Individual’s] honesty, his integrity,
and . . . in the lack of intensity of his drinking. . . .” Id.
While the DOE psychologist did not change his initial opinion at the hearing, he noted several
factors regarding the Individual’s rehabilitation that impressed him. Tr. at 97. Among these
factors were the Individual’s seven-month period of abstinence, his participation in AA and work
with his AA sponsor, his stable relationship with his girlfriend, and his work with the EAP
counselor. Tr. at 95-97. The DOE psychologist noted that the Individual demonstrated a
“genuine thoughtfulness around his recovery process.” Tr. at 95. Consequently, based on the
hearing testimony, the DOE psychologist stated that the Individual’s seven-month period of
abstinence, together with the other positive factors that he enumerated in his testimony, was
sufficient to persuade him that the Individual would not drink to intoxication in the future, and
would likely remain completely abstinent from alcohol. Tr. at 97. In fact, the DOE psychologist
expressly stated that he would not gain any more confidence in his opinion regarding the
Individual’s prognosis with the additional two months of abstinence that he had originally
recommended, noting that “seven months is perfectly fine in this situation.” Tr. at 97, 102. In
sum, he determined that the Individual’s future risk of drinking alcohol at all was “low,” and that
his risk of drinking alcohol to intoxication was “very low.” Tr. at 107.
- 8 -
After considering the hearing testimony and evaluating the record as a whole, I find that the
Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his consumption of alcohol.
The Individual has developed significant insight into the problems caused by his past use of
alcohol. He has been abstinent from alcohol for seven months as of the date of the hearing and
intends to remain abstinent indefinitely. His family and friends are aware and supportive of his
sobriety, and he is well able to abstain from alcohol in social settings when necessary. In
addition, the Individual has fully engaged in the AA program. He routinely attends meetings,
has a sponsor with whom he feels comfortable, and is actively working the program’s twelve
steps. Moreover, both the EAP counselor and the DOE psychologist believe that the steps that
the Individual has taken to address his alcohol problem are appropriate, and both professionals
believe that the Individual will be successful in his efforts to maintain his sobriety. Given these
factors, I find that the Individual no longer consumes alcohol, and has demonstrated adequate
evidence of rehabilitation and reformation. Accordingly, I am persuaded by the testimony of the
DOE psychologist that the risk that the Individual will drink to intoxication in the future is “very
low,” and that he has demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his habitual
consumption of alcohol to excess. See, e.g., Tr. at 107. Therefore, I conclude that the
Individual has presented sufficient evidence to fully resolve the Criteria H and J concerns cited
in the Notification Letter.
B. Criterion L – Past Arrests and Citations
As noted above, it well-settled that criminal conduct, by its very nature, raises security concerns.
See 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l); Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline J, ¶ 30. There are a number of
factors which may serve to mitigate such concerns. Among those factors are that “so much time
has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment” and that “there is evidence of successful rehabilitation;
including but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity . . . .”
Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline J, ¶¶ 32(a), 32(d); see also 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).
In this case, I find that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns raised by his DWI
arrests in 2006 and 2013, as well as from his citations for moving violations in 2000 and 2001,
and the related arrests pertaining to the non-payment of the associated fines. With respect to the
DWI arrests, the Individual demonstrated his remorse for his conduct. His girlfriend, father, and
supervisor each testified that the most recent DWI arrest deeply affected the Individual and that
he fully accepted the consequences for his behavior. Tr. at 32, 43-44, 58. Moreover, those two
arrests resulted from a behavior – consuming alcohol to excess – that the Individual has
discontinued, and that, as noted above, I have concluded is unlikely to recur in the future.
As to the citations and arrests related to the Individual’s moving violations, the Individual was
eighteen years of age when he received the first citation and failed to pay the required fine, and
nineteen years old when he committed the second set of violations. In addition, a substantial
amount of time has passed since the incidents, with the most recent non-alcohol related arrest
occurring over a decade ago as of the date of the hearing. The Individual attributed this previous
behavior to immaturity. Tr. at 92. Moreover, the Individual’s witnesses, whose testimony I
found candid and credible, characterized the Individual as a responsible, rule-abiding young
- 9 -
man. Tr. at 35, 44, 59, 62, 69-70. Based on my own observations at the hearing, it is clear that
the Individual has matured greatly in recent years and developed insight into his past behavior.
All of these factors lead me to conclude that the Individual’s past criminal behavior is unlikely to
recur in the future, and does not cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was reliable information that raised substantial doubts
regarding the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance under Criteria H, J and L of the Part
710 regulations. After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in
a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has presented sufficient information
to fully resolve those security concerns. Therefore, I 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 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
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: April 1, 2014