PSH-14-0031

*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: April 4, 2014 )
) Case No.: PSH-14-0031
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 18, 2014
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
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 granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves an Individual with five Driving Under the Influence (DUI) arrests. The LSO
conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the Individual and requested that he be
examined by a DOE consultant Psychologist (the Psychologist), who diagnosed him with
Alcohol Abuse in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition - Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Unable to resolve the
derogatory information, the 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 found to suffer from Alcohol Abuse without evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. This information comes within the purview of Criterion J.1
1 Specifically, the Notification Letter alleges that the Individual “has been diagnosed by . . . a licensed clinical
psychologist . . . as suffering from alcohol abuse,” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j) (Criterion J).
2
The Notification Letter informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge2 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 Administrative Judge in this matter.
At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e) and (g), I took testimony from the
Individual and the Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-14-0031 (hereinafter
cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted nine exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 9, while the
Individual submitted seven exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through G.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Administrative Judge'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.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Individual has a history of five DUI arrests, the most recent of which occurred on December
22, 2005. Tr. at 18. The Individual’s previous DUI arrests occurred in February 1997, February
1995, August 1993, and December 1992. Tr. at 16-18. In addition, the Individual regularly
consumed alcohol in 1992, 1993, 1997 and 2005, in spite of court orders to abstain from alcohol
use. Tr. at 25.
At the request of the LSO, the Psychologist evaluated the Individual on November 29, 2013.
Exhibit 6 at 2. The Psychologist reviewed selected portions of the Individual’s personnel
security file, administered a battery of standardized psychological tests to the Individual, and
2 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 staff in line with the title used at other federal agencies for officials performing identical
or similar adjudicatory work.
3
interviewed the Individual. Exhibit 6 at 2. After completing her evaluation of the Individual, the
Psychologist issued a report on November 30, 2013, in which she specifically found that the
Individual met the criteria for Alcohol Abuse set forth in the DSM-IV-TR. Exhibit 6 at 9-10.
The Psychologist concluded that the Individual was not reformed or rehabilitated from his
Alcohol Abuse. Exhibit 6 at 10. The Psychologist recommended that the Individual “attend
three [Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)] meetings per week for a minimum of one year and that
proof of attendance be required, . . . that [the Individual] meet with a therapist once weekly for a
minimum of one year, and that proof of attendance be required.” Exhibit 6 at 10.
IV. DEROGATORY INFORMATION AND SECURITY CONCERNS
The Individual’s five alcohol-related arrests and his Alcohol Abuse diagnosis raise security
concerns because his alcohol use might lead to the exercise of questionable judgment or the
failure to control impulses, or negatively impact his 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. The Adjudicative Guidelines state that:
“alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, . . .;
diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or
psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse. . .; [and] (g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol
education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence” are “conditions that could raise a security
concern and may be disqualifying.” Adjudicative Guideline G at ¶ 22 (a), (d), and (g).
V. ANALYSIS
At the hearing, the Individual acknowledged that he suffers from Alcohol Abuse and has a
problem with alcohol. Tr. at 33, 41. However, he notes that he has not exhibited any symptoms
of his Alcohol Abuse since the end of 2005. Tr. at 12. Since that time, he has matured, and has
built his life around his family (including his spouse and three sons), church, community, and
career. Tr. at 12- 15. He is highly motivated to address his alcohol disorder in order to maintain
the life he has built for himself. Tr. at 12-15, 41-42. He has attended AA meetings, but recently,
his attendance has fallen off because he has been busy coaching. Tr. at 30. He submitted
Exhibit A, which documents his attendance at five AA meetings, between December 5, 2013,
and February 12, 2014. The Individual testified that he has had an AA sponsor for several years.
Tr. at 36, 40. The Individual testified that he has been seeing a counselor, once every two to
three weeks, since March 17, 2014. Tr. at 31-32. He submitted Exhibits E and F, which
corroborate this testimony. The Individual testified that he has a strong support network. Tr. at
36.
The Individual testified that he quit drinking after his most recent DUI, in 2005. Tr. at 20. His
counselor at the time recommended that he permanently abstain from alcohol use. Tr. at 28. He
eventually began drinking again in 2010 or 2011, in a controlled fashion, after consultation with
his spouse and family. Tr. at 21-25, 28. The Individual, however, has abstained from using
alcohol since October 2013, and intends to continue abstaining. Tr. at 32, 39, 41. The Individual
testified that being subjected to a DOE Personnel Security Interview “kind of opened my eyes to
the fact that, . . . maybe alcohol doesn't belong in my life, you know, regardless if I can -- I feel I
4
can control it, minimize it or keep it under control with the family environment.” Tr. at 34. He
further testified that when he looked back at his life he could see that alcohol was hindering him.
Tr. at 34.
At the hearing, the Psychologist listened to the Individual’s testimony before she testified. She
testified that the Individual had a history of intermittent Alcohol Abuse, with several extended
periods of abstinence. Tr. at 45-46. She described the Individual as a “binge drinker.” Tr. at 46.
She noted that the Individual has had no difficulty in abstaining when he chose to do so. Tr. at
46. The Psychologist testified that the Individual was “heavily engaged in a recovery
community” as well as his community, his friends, and church. Tr. at 50. She believes that the
Individual is “really committed to not drinking” and has “support and structure.” Tr. at 50. The
Psychologist testified that the Individual’s one-on-one counseling is sufficient and appropriate.
Tr. at 56. She testified that having a long term sponsor has improved the Individual’s chances of
maintain sobriety. Tr. at 50. She also testified that she thought the Individual should continue
attending AA meetings at least once a month, but that three meetings a week was not necessary.
Tr. at 51. The Psychologist testified that she wasn’t concerned about the Individual relapsing in
the next six months or a year, but was concerned about the long term. Tr. at 51. She testified
that if the Individual continues in AA his prognosis is excellent. Without AA, however, she felt
his prognosis would not be “so great.” Tr. at 53. She testified that the Individual has “very clear
insight into the dangers” of alcohol, and that he understands the disease sufficiently. Tr. at 54-
55. She testified that the Individual has “a moderate chance of relapse in the future.” Tr. at 55.
The Psychologist testified that she did not see the Individual as a “big risk currently” but, as is
true of anybody who has an alcohol abuse problem, she was concerned that the Individual might
run into trouble in the long run if he is not sufficiently involved in a recovery community. Tr. at
56-57. The Psychologist testified that the Individual is currently “doing very well.” Tr. at 58.
Finally, the Psychologist testified that she did not believe that the fact that the Individual has
only abstained from alcohol use for eight rather than 12 months is significant. Tr. at 59-60.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth a series of conditions that can mitigate security concerns
arising from Alcohol consumption. Guideline G at ¶ 23. One of the conditions set forth in
Guideline G specifically provides: “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).” Guideline G ¶ 23(b). As the evidence set forth above shows, the Individual has
acknowledged his Alcohol Abuse, has shown that he has taken several actions to address this
disorder (including attendance at AA meetings, obtaining an AA sponsor, working AA’s
Twelve-Step Program, attending individual counseling,) and has established an eight month
pattern of abstaining from alcohol use. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has resolved the
security concerns raised by his Alcohol Abuse under Criterion J.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Criterion J. I find,
however, that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns under Criterion J.
Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that granting his security clearance would not
endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.
5
Therefore, I find that the Individual's security clearance should be granted 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
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: June 18, 2014