PSH-15-0033

*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: May 7, 2015 ) Case No.: PSH-15-0033
)
____________________________________)
Issued: August 18, 2015
______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Robert B. Palmer, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
individual”) for 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 set forth below, I conclude that the individual’s
security clearance should not be restored at this time. 2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual is employed by the Department of Energy (DOE), and was granted a security
clearance in connection with that employment. In February 2014, the individual fell
approximately eight feet off of the roof of her sunroom after consuming alcohol, resulting in
serious injury. Afterwards, she reported to the DOE that she believed that she had a drinking
problem. Because this information raised significant security concerns, the Local Security Office
(LSO) summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security specialist in October
2014. After this Personnel Security Interview (PSI) failed to resolve the concerns, the LSO
1An access authorization is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for
access to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will
also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) are available on the OHA
website located at http://www.oha.doe.gov. The text of a cited decision may be accessed by
entering the case number of the decision in the search engine located at
http://www.oha.doe.gov/search.htm.
2
referred the individual to a local psychiatrist (hereinafter referred to as “the DOE psychiatrist) for
an agency-sponsored evaluation. The DOE psychiatrist prepared a written report based on that
evaluation, and submitted it to the LSO. After reviewing that report and the rest of the
individual’s personnel security file, the LSO determined that derogatory information existed that
cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility for access authorization. It informed the individual of
this determination in a letter that set forth the DOE’s security concerns and the reasons for those
concerns. I will hereinafter refer to this letter as the Notification Letter. The Notification Letter
also informed the individual that she was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in
order to resolve the substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for access authorization.
The individual requested a hearing on this matter. The LSO forwarded this request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals, and I was appointed the Administrative Judge. The DOE introduced
eight exhibits into the record of this proceeding and presented the testimony of the DOE
psychiatrist at the hearing. The individual presented the testimony of six witnesses, in addition to
testifying herself.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE DOE’S SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter included a statement of derogatory information that
created a substantial doubt as to the individual’s eligibility to hold a clearance. This information
pertains to paragraphs (h) and (j) of the criteria for eligibility for access to classified matter or
special nuclear material set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8.
Under criterion (h), information is derogatory if it indicates that an individual has an illness or
mental condition which, in the opinion of a psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist causes,
or may cause, a significant defect in the individual’s judgment or reliability.10 C.F.R. § 710.8(h).
Criterion (j) defines as derogatory information indicating that the individual “has been, or is, a
user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or licensed clinical
psychologist as alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol abuse.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j). As
support for these criteria, the Letter cites the diagnosis of the DOE psychiatrist that the individual
suffers from Alcohol Abuse, and her conclusion that this condition causes, or may cause, a
significant defect in the individual’s judgment or reliability. As additional support for criterion
(j), the Letter cites statements that the individual made during her PSI indicating that she (i)
drank half a pint of “fireball” whiskey over a two-hour period on the morning that she fell off of
the roof; and (ii) drank two beers almost every night during the week and two to four beers and a
pint of whiskey over two days of each weekend from November 2013 to February 2014,
becoming intoxicated almost every time she drank on the weekends.
These circumstances adequately justify the DOE’s invocation of criteria (h) and (j), and raise
significant security concerns. Mental conditions that involve the excessive consumption of
alcohol often lead to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and
can therefore raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. See Revised
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The
White House (December 19, 2005), Guidelines G and I.
3
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The criteria for determining eligibility for security clearances set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710
dictate that in these proceedings, an Administrative Judge must undertake a careful review of all
of the relevant facts and circumstances, and make a “common-sense judgment . . . after
consideration of all relevant information.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I must therefore consider all
information, favorable or unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of whether granting or
restoring a security clearance would compromise national security concerns. Specifically, the
regulations compel me to consider the nature, extent, and seriousness of the individual’s conduct;
the circumstances surrounding the conduct; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age
and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the absence or presence of
rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of the conduct; and any other relevant and material factors. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.7(c).
A DOE administrative proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is “for the purpose of affording the
individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization.”
10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(6). Once the DOE has made a showing of derogatory information raising
security concerns, the burden is on the individual to produce evidence sufficient to convince the
DOE that granting or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and
security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). See
Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0013, 24 DOE ¶ 82,752 at 85,511 (1995) (affirmed
by OSA, 1996), and cases cited therein. The regulations further instruct me to resolve any doubts
concerning the individual’s eligibility for access authorization in favor of the national security.
10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS
A. Mitigating Evidence
At the hearing, the individual did not contest the allegations set forth in the Letter or the DOE
psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse. Instead, she attempted to demonstrate, through her
own testimony and that of her psychologist, her husband, her father, two co-workers, and a
former supervisor, that she has been rehabilitated, and that she is not currently suffering from
any defect in her judgment or reliability.
The individual testified that she started drinking whiskey in November 2013 to help her cope
with the stress that she was experiencing, and that prior to that time, she would drink beer.
Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 88. She would drink the whiskey alone, because she did not want her
husband to worry about her, or to consider her weak. Tr. at 89. However, after her accident in
February 2014, she decided to reveal the full extent of her alcohol consumption to her family and
to the DOE. Tr. at 90-91.
During her October 2014 PSI, the individual described the accident. She said that she and her
husband kept their garden hose on the roof of their sunroom to keep their dogs from chewing on
4
it. On the day of the accident, she climbed out of her bathroom window onto the roof of the
sunroom to retrieve her hose so that it could be used. After throwing the hose to the ground, it
was her intention to climb down by grabbing and hanging off of the edge of the roof, and then
dropping to the ground. However, she moved to the edge of the roof, and the next thing that she
remembered was “waking up on the ground.” DOE Ex. 7 at 14. According to her husband, the
individual fractured two vertebrae in her fall and was taken to a local hospital, where she had to
have spinal fusion surgery. Tr. at 13.
After leaving the hospital, she began seeing a psychologist on a weekly basis. Tr. at 93, 121. She
testified that they “focus on a lot of things,” including “coping skills” and “relapse prevention.”
Tr. at 102. In July 2014, the individual began participating in an Intensive Outpatient Program
(IOP) that focused on her alcohol use disorder. She testified that this Program sought to teach her
the effects that alcohol has on the body and ways to refrain from drinking, including setting up a
support structure and identifying and avoiding “triggers” of alcohol consumption. Tr. at 114-116.
She has been attending Aftercare, and intends to continue doing so “for the foreseeable future.”
Tr. at 120.
She then discussed some of the benefits of the counseling that she has received. She said that one
such benefit is that she realizes that she is not alone in her affliction, and that it is nothing to be
ashamed of. Tr. at 95-96. Another benefit is that she now believes that she can handle social
situations in which she feels that she is expected to consume alcohol. Tr. at 96. She is now more
open and honest, she continued, and realizes that it is OK to have weaknesses and to ask people
for help. Tr. at 105. Her relationship with her mother, which was the source of a lot of stress, has
improved. Tr. at 106-107. She concluded by saying that “I really don’t see [alcohol] in my future
right now. I don’t see any future benefit of it, and it’s just not in my plans.” Tr. at 108-109.
The individual’s psychologist also testified. He stated that alcohol consumption has caused
problems for the individual, and that he agrees with the DOE psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Alcohol
Abuse. Tr. at 138, 142. The individual’s period of excessive drinking, he continued, was caused
by a combination of factors, with job-related stress and the demands of motherhood being major
contributors. Tr. at 144-145. She has learned to cope with these stresses more constructively,
which should lessen the chances that she would return to drinking. Tr. at 145. The fact that her
excessive drinking was limited to a relatively short period of time is also a positive prognostic
factor, he said, along with her motivation, determination, and intelligence. Tr. at 145-153. The
individual’s psychologist concluded by saying that he “feels more confident about a low
probability [of the individual returning to a pattern of excessive drinking] than most anybody
I’ve seen.” Tr. at 153.
The individual’s husband testified that, between himself and her psychologist, the individual has
a strong support system to help her abstain from alcohol. Tr. at 24. He further stated that the
individual has abstained since September 2014, and that she “doesn’t care to drink anymore.” Tr.
at 21. The individual’s father stated that the individual is committed to her treatment program,
and that it has given her a much more relaxed and positive attitude towards life in general. Tr. at
51, 53-54.
5
B. Administrative Judge’s Decision
Despite this mitigating evidence, I find that the individual has not demonstrated adequate
evidence of reformation or rehabilitation from Alcohol Abuse. I base this finding largely on the
fact that, although much of her testimony and that of her witnesses focused on the benefits that
she received from counseling, she failed to adhere to one of the key components of that
counseling, i.e., abstinence from drinking, on at least three occasions. She admitted that when
she met with her psychologist shortly after leaving the hospital, he told her that she needed to
abstain from alcohol “for a while.” Tr. at 112. Yet in March 2014, after seeing her psychologist,
she drank at least one beer while at home. Tr. at 122-123. Furthermore, the individual
acknowledged that she started IOP in late July 2014, attended four weeks of the five week
program, drank on at least two occasions while on work-related travel during the next two
weeks, and then returned for a final week of IOP. Tr. at 99. The individual attempted to explain
these incidents by saying that she was “testing herself,” and that she was not prepared to handle
the situations that arose while on travel with co-workers in which everyone else was drinking
and she felt obliged to do the same. Nevertheless, these instances raise serious doubts as to the
individual’s commitment to her treatment program.
Another major factor in my conclusion that the individual has not produced adequate evidence of
reformation or rehabilitation is her failure to satisfy the requirements set forth by the DOE
psychiatrist. In her report, the DOE psychiatrist specified that in order to make such a showing,
the individual would have to have at least one year of documented sobriety. She also stated that
the individual should participate in another IOP, since she did not “adequate[ly] benefit from
[the] previously attended IOP.” DOE Ex. 5 at 8. The individual’s psychologist testified that these
requirements were “realistic,” Tr. at 142, and that the one year of abstinence provision is “a good
rule of thumb.” Tr. at 158. 3 As of the date of the hearing, the individual had approximately nine
months of sobriety, and had not participated in a second IOP. After witnessing all of the
testimony at the hearing, the DOE psychiatrist testified that she saw no reason to change her
assessment of the individual or her specifications regarding rehabilitation or reformation, Tr. at
164, and that the individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of reformation or
rehabilitation. Tr. at 168-169. 4
In finding that the individual has not demonstrated adequate evidence of reformation or
rehabilitation, I note that the Adjudicative Guidelines do not require abstinence in order to show
mitigation in cases of Alcohol Abuse. See Adjudicative Guideline G, ¶ 23(b) (the individual
acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions
3 However, he indicated that the circumstances in each case needed to be considered, and that the
individual had “done a good job” regarding alcohol in the months since her accident. Tr. at 158.
4 On cross-examination, the DOE psychiatrist did opine that the individual’s risk of relapsing
into drinking “in the foreseeable future” was “very low.” Tr. at 186. However, given the totality
of her testimony and the vagueness of the phrase “in the foreseeable future,” I did not view this
statement as contradicting the DOE psychiatrist’s conclusions regarding the individual.
6
taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol
dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser)). However, I believe that the individual’s
repeated use of alcohol after the recommendation of abstinence by her psychologist, and during
her treatment for alcohol abuse, was itself irresponsible. Moreover, her inability or unwillingness
to abstain for one year calls into question her ability to establish a long term pattern of
responsible use. The individual has not adequately addressed the DOE’s security concerns under
criterion (j).
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I find that significant security concerns remain regarding the
individual’s alcohol usage. Consequently, I cannot conclude that restoring her access
authorization would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the
national interest. Accordingly, I find that the DOE should not restore the individual’s security
clearance at this time. Review of this decision by an Appeal Panel is available under the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Robert B. Palmer
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: August 18, 2015