PSH-14-0101

*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: November 20, 2014 )
) Case No.: PSH-14-0101
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 27, 2015
_______________
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 restored.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves an Individual who tested positive for alcohol during a random screening
conducted at his workplace. 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 found that the Individual habitually used alcohol to excess. 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 habitually use alcohol to excess 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 is a “habitual user of alcohol to excess,” 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 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 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, his father, his brother, his girlfriend, his substance abuse counselor (the Counselor),
and the Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-14-0101 (hereinafter cited as
“Tr.”). The LSO submitted ten exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 10, while the Individual
submitted no exhibits.
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
On April 28, 2014, the Individual arrived at his workplace, where he was administered a random
alcohol screening. His breath alcohol content registered .067 percent at 9:33 a.m., and .065
percent at 9:50 a.m. Exhibit 8 at 2. This incident led the LSO to conduct a PSI of the Individual
on June 13, 2014.
During this PSI, the Individual admitted drinking 12 to 15 beers during a four-hour period on the
night of April 27, 2014. Exhibit 9 at 15. The Individual reported that he began counseling with
the Counselor on May 8, 2014. Exhibit 9 at 29. He started attending an Intensive Outpatient
Program (IOP) on May 12, 2014, at the recommendation of the Counselor. Exhibit 9 at 29, 31.
The Individual further reported that he planned to begin attending aftercare as soon as he
completed the IOP. Exhibit 9 at 33. The Individual admitted that after he separated from his
wife in May 2010, his alcohol consumption increased. Exhibit 9 at 76-77. He began to drink
almost every day that he was not on duty: at least three days a week, and up to 20 times a month.
3
Exhibit 9 at 77-78. After his separation, he started out drinking from six to ten beers over seven
hours. Exhibit 9 at 79. He estimated that he was intoxicated two to three days a week. Exhibit 9
at 79. The Individual stated that he was drinking in order to self-medicate the pain he was
experiencing because of the dissolution of his marriage and concern about its effects upon his
two daughters. Exhibit 9 at 82-83. The Individual stated that he had not consumed any alcohol
since April 27, 2014. Exhibit 9 at 83. The Individual noted that taking his daughters back to
their mother would often trigger his heavy alcohol consumption. Exhibit 9 at 85-86.
The Individual’s coworkers had expressed their concerns about his drinking to him. Exhibit 9 at
89-90. The Individual admitted that he had become concerned about his alcohol use, and that he
had tried, unsuccessfully, to quit using alcohol on his own. Exhibit 9 at 92-93. When he was
asked what his future intentions towards alcohol were, he answered: “Abstain.” Exhibit 9 at 101.
At the request of the LSO, the Psychologist evaluated the Individual on July 25, 2014. Exhibit 7
at 1. The Psychologist reviewed selected portions of the Individual’s personnel security file,
administered a battery of standardized psychological tests to the Individual, and interviewed the
Individual. Exhibit 7 at 1-2. After completing his evaluation of the Individual, the Psychologist
issued a report on July 29, 2014, in which he found that the Individual has “demonstrated a
habitual pattern of alcohol use to excess during the period prior to . . . April 27, 2014.”2 Exhibit
7 at 4. The Psychologist concluded that the Individual was not reformed or rehabilitated from
his habitual pattern of alcohol use to excess. Exhibit 7 at 4. The Psychologist recommended that
the Individual continue aftercare, individual counseling, and random alcohol screening, for six
months. Exhibit 7 at 4-5.
The Psychologist noted that the Individual appeared to be “forthright and candid” and to exhibit
“generally good mental health and adjustment.” Exhibit 7 at 3-4. He further noted that the
Individual had completed the IOP, was attending aftercare, and was seeing the Counselor on a
monthly basis. Exhibit 7 at 3.
IV. DEROGATORY INFORMATION AND SECURITY CONCERNS
The Individual’s alcohol-related incident at work and his habitual use of alcohol to excess 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 at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or
impaired condition, . . . regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or
alcohol dependent,” and “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol
dependent” are “conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying.”
Adjudicative Guideline G at ¶ 22 (b), and (c).
2 The Psychologist specifically found that the Individual did not meet the eligibility criteria for alcohol abuse,
however. Exhibit 7 at 4.
4
V. ANALYSIS
At the hearing, the Individual stipulated that he suffers from an alcohol problem. Tr. at 7. The
Individual testified, and presented the testimony of his brother, his father, his girlfriend, and the
Counselor to successfully show that he has obtained the proper treatment for his alcohol
problem, has responded to his alcohol treatment, and has established a pattern of abstinence from
alcohol use. See Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 23(b). The Individual has further shown that he
successfully completed outpatient counseling or rehabilitation, in the form of the IOP, has been
attending aftercare, has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance
with treatment recommendations, has been attending meetings of “Celebrate Recovery,” and has
received a favorable prognosis by a licensed clinical social worker, who is a staff member of a
recognized alcohol treatment program, i.e. the Counselor. See Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 23(d).
The Counselor testified that the Individual had “developed a maladaptive pattern of alcohol use.”
Tr. at 13. She testified that the Individual had attended and successfully completed the IOP and
is continuing to attend aftercare. Tr. at 17-18. The Counselor testified that the Individual “did
exceptionally well” in the IOP. Tr. at 17. The Individual is also continuing to receive individual
counseling. Tr. at 19. The Counselor noted that the Individual has been making significant
progress in his alcohol treatment, having developed insight in how to avoid relapsing and
developing the skills to resist using alcohol. Tr. at 20. She noted that the Individual was initially
deeply saddened by his divorce and concerned about his relationship with his children, but now
he is feeling better and managing his relationships with his ex-wife and children better. Tr. at
20-21. The Individual is now exhibiting a much more positive attitude. Tr. at 21. The
Counselor testified that the Individual has taken his treatment very seriously and has worked
very hard to recover. Tr. at 22. She further testified that the Individual’s prognosis is good and
that the risk of him relapsing is low. Tr. at 22. The Counselor testified that his last reported
alcohol use had occurred on April 27, 2014, and that all the reports and observations she had
obtained very strongly suggest that the Individual has not used alcohol since that date. Tr. at 22-
23.
The Individual’s brother and father both testified on his behalf at the hearing as well. The
Individual’s brother testified that the Individual’s mood and outlook had greatly improved since
the Individual stopped using alcohol. Tr. at 29. The Individual is now a “different person” and
has “a lot of joy.” Tr. at 29. The Individual’s brother characterized these changes as “dramatic.”
Tr. at 30. The Individual’s father testified that the Individual’s divorce had been very difficult
for his son and granddaughters. Tr. at 39. The Individual’s father testified that his son’s
outlook and attitude had improved, and that he was now a different person. Tr. at 43, 46. Both
the brother and father noted that they had not observed any evidence of alcohol use since April
of 2014. Tr. at 31, 42.
The Individual’s girlfriend also testified. She testified that before the Individual had stopped
using alcohol, he had recognized that he needed to address his drinking, and that the incident at
work had provided the final motivation he needed to start making the necessary changes. Tr. at
50-51. She testified that the Individual seemed relieved when he recognized that he was going to
get help. Tr. at 51. She testified that she and the Individual had begun attending Celebrate
5
Recovery meetings together. Tr. at 61. She testified that the Individual is a very responsible
person. Tr. at 53. She testified that the Individual likes his new alcohol-free lifestyle. Tr. at 56.
She testified that the Individual does not keep alcohol in his house. Tr. at 110. She further
testified that the Individual’s mood had improved during the past year. Tr. at 57. The
Individual’s girlfriend testified that he had a great family and that they provided him with an
excellent support system. Tr. at 58. She testified that the Individual is enjoying his alcohol-free
lifestyle so much she cannot see him returning to alcohol use. Tr. at 58. She testified that she
does not consume alcohol in the Individual’s presence. Tr. at 60.
The Individual testified that he recognized that he had an alcohol problem, and no longer uses
alcohol. Tr. at 65, 82. His last use of alcohol occurred on April 27, 2014. Tr. at 85. He testified
that he was enjoying his treatment and Celebrate Recovery. Tr. at 72. He has learned and
implemented strategies to cope with stress, and to avoid “triggers” that could lead to him
relapsing. Tr. at 72-74. He has also learned to work with his ex-wife in order to care for his
daughters, and to accept his family situation. Tr. at 73-75. He is exercising, umpiring baseball
games and attending church to keep himself meaningfully occupied. Tr. at 75-76, 83. He noted
that he feels much better about himself now, and that he is much happier. Tr. at 73, 77. He
testified that his life is better without alcohol. Tr. at 81. He intends to continue attending
aftercare, individual counseling, and Celebrate Recovery. Tr. at 79, 89. He no longer has any
urges to use alcohol. Tr. at 80, 82. He does not see himself using alcohol in the foreseeable
future. Tr. at 80. He sees his involvement with alcohol as a negative experience. Tr. at 86.
At the hearing, the Psychologist listened to each of the other witnesses’ testimony before he
testified. He testified that the Individual had a significant problem with alcohol, which he was
using as a “maladaptive strategy to deal with grief and the loss of a family and relationship.” Tr.
at 94. He further testified, however, that the Individual had immediately sought help for his
problem and had completely complied with his treatment plan. Tr. at 95. He noted that the
Individual had always been very transparent about his problems, had exhibited “strong
character,” and had “a good foundation in terms of his upbringing.” Tr. at 95. The Psychologist
testified “I’m more optimistic about his prognosis than anybody that I’ve seen in a long, long
time.” Tr. at 95. The Psychologist testified that the Individual was rehabilitated, and that “there
is every reason to believe that it will be long term.” Tr. at 95-96. The Psychologist noted that
the Individual: has established a stable relationship with his children and ex-wife, has focused on
his physical fitness, is attending church, is structuring his free time, and attending aftercare. Tr.
at 96-97. Each of these factors support the likelihood that he is rehabilitated. Tr. at 97.
As the evidence set forth above shows, the Individual has acknowledged his alcohol problem,
has shown that he has taken several actions to address this disorder (including successfully
completing the IOP, attending individual counseling, attending Celebrate Recovery, and making
the necessary changes in his life) 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 past excessive use of alcohol under Criterion J.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Criterion J. I find,
6
however, that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns under Criterion J.
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, I find that the Individual's security clearance should be restored 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: February 27, 2015