PSH-14-0062

*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 9, 2014 )
) Case No.: PSH-14-0062
_________________________________________)
Issued: September 16, 2014
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
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 not be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This 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 psychologist with Alcohol Abuse.
The Notification Letter further informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge 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 OHA. The Director of OHA appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this
matter on June 9, 2014.
2
At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e) and (g), I took testimony from the
Individual, his mother, and a DOE consultant psychologist (the Psychologist). See Transcript of
Hearing, Case No. PSH-14-0062 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted ten exhibits,
marked as Exhibits 1 through 10, while the Individual submitted no exhibits.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual has a history of two alcohol-related arrests. On November 5, 1993, he was
charged with Simple Assault, and in April 2000, he was charged with Disturbing the Peace.
The LSO conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the Individual on September 17,
2013. Exhibit 8 at 1. During this PSI, the Individual reported that his first arrest resulted from a
“domestic dispute” and occurred after he had been drinking. Exhibit 8 at 18, 20. He reported
that he could not recall the incident because he had blacked out. Exhibit 8 at 22-23; Tr. at 28.
The Individual reported that his second arrest occurred in 2000, after he had been drinking as
well. Exhibit 8 at 23. He recalled that the arresting officers found him sleeping naked on a
public beach. Exhibit 8 at 23-24. When the Individual was asked about his current alcohol
consumption, he reported that he typically consumed three alcoholic beverages a day on Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday. Exhibit 8 at 32. He further stated that he “could go through a 12-pack of
beer on a weekend.” Exhibit 8 at 33. He stated that he would sometimes drink Jim Beam and
Coke instead of beer, and that he would typically consume seven and a half ounces (or five
standard drinks) of Jim Beam on those occasions. Exhibit 8 at 33-35. He further reported that he
would typically consume a 750ml bottle of Jim Beam over a weekend. Exhibit 8 at 36-37. The
Individual claimed that he is rarely intoxicated. Exhibit 8 at 43. He estimated that it would take
four mixed drinks or eight beers to intoxicate him. Exhibit 8 at 44-45. The Individual claimed
that he had begun to reduce his alcohol consumption in the recent months. Exhibit 8 at 45. He
stated that his future intention towards alcohol is to reduce his use of it. Exhibit 8 at 53.
At the request of the LSO, the Psychologist evaluated the Individual on November 5, 2013.
Exhibit 10 at 1. In addition to conducting a forensic psychological interview of the Individual,
the Psychologist reviewed the Individual’s personnel security file and administered several
psychological tests to the Individual. After completing his evaluation of the Individual, the
Psychologist issued a report (the Psychological Report), in which he found that the Individual
has a mental condition, Alcohol Abuse which causes, or may cause, a significant defect in
judgment or reliability. Exhibit 10 at 4-5. The Psychological Report states that the Individual
informed the Psychologist that he consumes eight to nine beers or a 750 ml bottle of Jim Beam
over a typical weekend. Exhibit 10 at 3. The Psychologist found the Individual to be
“remarkably forthcoming.” Exhibit 10 at 4. However, the Psychologist further opined that the
Individual “has failed to comprehend the real effects of his binge drinking” and “appears to lack
basic information about the behavioral and health issues associated with his current report of
binge drinking.” Exhibit 10 at 4. The Psychologist stated that the Individual needs treatment by
“an experienced private practice clinician,” to “help him develop a rational approach to his
alcohol use as well as learn about approaches to his drinking such as harm reduction and relapse
prevention.” Exhibit 10 at 4.
3
III. 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 and 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
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.
Furthermore, the Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Abuse. This information
raises security concerns about the Individual under Criterion H, since the Individual’s Alcohol
Abuse constitutes an illness or condition that causes, or may cause, a significant defect in the
Individual’s judgment and reliability. Adjudicative Guidelines I at ¶ 27 and G at ¶ 21, 22(e).
V. ANALYSIS
I find that the Individual has not adequately mitigated the security concerns raised under Criteria
H and J.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he typically consumed less than a 12-pack of beer
over a typical weekend. Tr. at 12. He testified that he did not volunteer that he would consume
a 12-pack over a weekend, instead the Personnel Security Specialist suggested that amount. Tr.
at 12. He admitted that when he drank mixed drinks, he would consume a 750ml bottle of Jim
Beam whiskey over a weekend. Tr. at 13-14. The Individual emphasized that he did not
consume beer and a 750ml bottle of Jim Beam whiskey over the same weekend, but rather would
consume one or the other. Tr. at 25. The Individual testified that he has never received
treatment for alcoholism or alcohol abuse. Tr. at 17. He testified that, until he received the
Psychologist’s Report, he did not believe his alcohol consumption was excessive, and was not
4
concerned about his drinking until he read the Psychologist’s Report and the Notification Letter.
Tr. at 26. However, once he received the Notification Letter, he reduced his alcohol
consumption, “considerably,” and described his present use of alcohol as “carefully controlled.”
Tr. at 26, 32, 36. He has reduced his consumption of alcohol to a six-pack of beer or a pint or
half-pint of whiskey over a weekend. He drinks three out of four weekends a month. Tr. at 14-
15, 22. The Individual testified that he never drinks to intoxication. Tr. at 15. The Individual
testified that he does not believe that he has a problem with alcohol. Tr. at 34.
At the hearing, the Psychologist listened to the testimony of the other witnesses before he
testified. The Psychologist testified that nothing he had heard at the hearing had changed his
opinion that the Individual suffers from Alcohol Abuse. Tr. at 57. The Psychologist testified
that that Individual appeared to be unusually forthcoming and sincere. Tr. at 58, 61-62. The
Psychologist testified that the quantities of alcohol that the Individual reported consuming should
have raised his blood alcohol level “in the range of well over point one, pushing up into point
two blood alcohol.”1 Tr. at 59. The Psychologist noted that the Individual’s testimony that he
wasn’t becoming intoxicated when consuming such large amounts of alcohol reveals the
Individual’s significant lack of insight into his relationship with alcohol and shows that he is in
denial about his alcohol problem. Tr. at 60. The Psychologist testified that the Individual is a
binge drinker and needs to work with a certified alcohol instructor to understand his drinking and
its consequences. Tr. at 60-61, 66. The Psychologist testified that while the amounts of alcohol
that the Individual has reported are “enormously problematic from a medical and substance
abuse standpoint,” it is likely that the Individual would respond well to treatment. Tr. at 62.
However, the Psychologist is concerned that, without proper treatment, the Individual will return
to problematic drinking. Tr. at 63-67.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I find that the Individual has not shown that the
Psychologist’s conclusion that he suffers from Alcohol Abuse is in error, and I find that the
Psychologist’s opinion to be well supported in the record, and by his convincing testimony at the
hearing. Moreover, as the Psychologist has opined, the Individual has not received sufficient
treatment, developed sufficient insight into his Alcohol Abuse, or shown that he can consume
alcohol responsibly for a sufficient period of time, to establish reformation or rehabilitation from
his Alcohol Abuse. Nor has the Individual shown that he has met any of the mitigating criteria
set forth in Adjudicative Guideline G at ¶ 23, or Adjudicative Guideline I at ¶ 29. Based upon
the foregoing, I find that the Individual has not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised
by his Alcohol Abuse under Criteria H or J. The Individual has offered no expert testimony to
the contrary.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Criteria H and J. After
considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a common sense manner, I find
that Individual has not mitigated the Criteria H and J security concerns. Accordingly, the
Individual has not demonstrated that granting him a security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, the
1 This blood alcohol level would have produced profound intoxication in most people. See
http://www.nhtsa.gov/links/sid/ABCsBACWeb/page2.htm.
5
Individual's security clearance should not be granted at this time. The Individual 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: September 16, 2014