PSH-15-0071

*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: September 8, 2015 ) Case No.: PSH-15-0071
_____________________________________)
Issued: January 13, 2016
______________________
Administrative Judge Decision
______________________
Shiwali G. Patel, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (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 DOE should not restore the
individual’s access authorization.2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual is an employee of a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor and holds a suspended
access authorization. After the individual was arrested in January 2014, for a domestic violence
offense, a Local Security Office (LSO) summoned the individual for a Personnel Security Interview
(PSI) with a personnel security specialist in April 2014. DOE Exhibit (Ex.) 12. After the PSI, the
LSO referred the individual to a psychologist (hereinafter referred to as “the DOE psychologist”) for
an agency-sponsored evaluation. The DOE psychologist prepared a written Report, setting forth the
results of that evaluation, and sent it to the LSO in August 2014. Ex. 10. The psychologist then
concluded that the individual did not manifest an alcohol use disorder and the individual was able to
maintain his access authorization. Ex. 10. The individual was then reinvestigated, which was
completed in June 2015. Based on new information that was received from the reinvestigation, the
DOE psychologist revised his assessment. Ex. 7. Based on the DOE psychologist’s revised
1 An 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 be referred to in this Decision as access authorization
or a security clearance.
2 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) are available on the OHA website located at
http://www.energy.gov/oha.
- 2 -
assessment, and the individual’s personnel security file, the LSO determined that derogatory
information existed that cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The LSO
informed the individual of this determination in a letter that set forth the DOE’s security concerns
and the reasons for those concerns. Ex. 2. The Notification Letter also informed the individual that
he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt
concerning his eligibility for an access authorization.
The individual requested a hearing in this matter. The LSO forwarded this request to OHA, and the
OHA Director appointed me the Administrative Judge in this case. The DOE introduced 16 exhibits
into the record of this proceeding (Exs. 1-16), and called the DOE psychologist as a witness. The
individual introduced one exhibit (Ex. A), and presented the testimony of three witnesses, including
his own testimony. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-15-0071 [hereinafter cited as “Tr.”].
II. 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 and
unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of whether granting the individual 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 review 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). 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).
III. NOTIFICATION LETTER AND ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The Notification Letter cited derogatory information within the purview of one potentially
disqualifying criterion set forth in the security regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8, subsection (j)
(hereinafter referred to as Criterion J). Ex. 2.3 In support of its Notification Letter, the LSO cited
3 Under Criterion J, information is derogatory if it indicates that the individual has “[b]een, or is, a user of alcohol
habitually to excess, or has been diagnosed by a psychologist or a licensed clinical psychologist as alcohol dependent or
as suffering from alcohol abuse.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(j).
- 3 -
the DOE psychologist’s assessment that the individual manifests an alcohol use disorder and
statement from the individual’s former marriage counselor who stated that the individual had a
condition that could impair his judgment, reliability, or ability to properly safeguard classified
national security information. Ex. 2.
I find that this information adequately justifies the DOE’s invocation of Criterion J, as it raises
significant security concerns related to excessive alcohol consumption, which often leads to the
exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and calls into question the
individual’s future reliability and trustworthiness. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The White House (December 19, 2005)
(Adjudicative Guidelines) at ¶ 21 (Guideline G).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The individual disputes the DOE psychologist’s assessment that he has an alcohol use disorder. See
10 C.F.R. § 710.27(c) (requiring Administrative Judge to “make specific findings based upon the
record as to the validity of each of the allegations contained in the notification letter”). Based on the
testimony and exhibits, I make the following findings.
A. The individual’s marriage and history of alcohol consumption
The individual is a mature adult and has been married for many years. Tr. at 12; Ex. 12 at 20. At his
PSI in April 2014, the individual stated that he began consuming alcohol when he was about 18 or 19
years old, and that starting around 2009, his consumption of alcohol increased and “became more of
a problem” because of the “progressive nature of the alcohol use.” Ex. 12 at 16-17. Around that
time, his wife began drinking more heavily and admitted herself into an in-patient treatment facility,
followed by out-patient treatment for approximately two and a half years and then participation in
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Ex. 12 at 21-22. She had periods of success but then
relapsed to binge drinking alcohol. Ex. 12 at 22. The individual started attending AA meetings with
his wife sometime in 2012 or 2013 “once [he] started having more problems [with alcohol
consumption],” but his attendance was “on and off for about a year.” Ex. 12 at 14, 22. The
individual and his wife have reduced their social circle, explaining that since alcohol became a
problem in their lives, they had to isolate themselves from their neighbors in order to control their
own problem with alcohol. Ex. 12 at 25-26.
For the past few years, the individual and his wife have had several encounters with law
enforcement, some of which occurred after they consumed alcohol. In January 2010, the police
arrived at their home after his wife placed a hang up call with emergency services, but left after she
proclaimed that there were no issues. Ex. 8 at 4. In December 2011, the police arrived at his home
responding to a neighbor’s phone call reporting that the individual’s wife told him that the individual
had tried to run her over with his car. Ex. 8 at 3. The individual claimed that he was trying to leave
and avoid arguing with his wife who was drinking heavily and that while he was backing his car out
of the garage, he bumped against some unknown object. Id. He informed the police that his wife
laid down behind the car in an attempt to keep him from leaving the residence; he wrote a statement
for the police and was not charged or arrested with any offense. Id. In a separate incident that also
- 4 -
occurred in December 2011, a family member called the police because the individual’s wife
attempted to commit suicide by trying to cut her chest with a broken bottle of wine after she was
arguing with her husband. They had both been consuming alcohol at the time. Id. In January 2012,
the police arrived at the individual’s residence to conduct a welfare check at the request of his wife’s
co-worker and they found his wife lying in bed with a swollen face, bruised under both eyes, swollen
and bloody lips and bruising behind her left ear. Id. In December 2012, emergency services reported
to their home where the individual and his wife had been consuming alcohol, arguing and throwing
things. Id. The individual was not arrested or charged with an offense for any of these incidents.
In January 2014, the individual was arrested and charged with a domestic violence offense. Ex. 12 at
5. The individual and his wife were watching a game, became intoxicated, got into an argument and
then had a physical altercation. Id. The individual consumed four alcoholic beverages (three beers
and mixed drink) within about three hours, which he testified was the last time he drank to excess.
Ex. 12 at 10; Tr. at 32, 35. The individual stated that he pushed her; his wife testified that she does
not clearly remember what happened that night. Ex. 12 at 5; Tr. at 17. She also stated that she did
not remember whether he was drinking during that time. Tr. at 22. He claims that he pushed her
after she tried to bite his finger and she fell on the ground; her mouth began bleeding from the gums
and after an emergency medical technician arrived, the police arrived and arrested the individual.
Ex. 12 at 5-6, 11. Later, on February 23, 2015, the OPM investigator reviewed the police report
from that incident, which indicated that a family member observed him “punching his wife in the
face two times with his left hand, pushing her down and throwing her glasses on the floor.” Ex. 8 at
1; Ex. 16 at 42. The police records also indicate that the officers believed the individual’s “wife’s
injuries were more consistent with a fist striking her mouth than with her hitting a hard object.” Ex.
8 at 1. Subsequent to his arrest, the court ordered the individual to undergo an evaluation for alcohol
and anger management as a condition for dismissing the charges against him at the end of 12 months.
Ex. 12 at 7. As a result of an evaluation, he had to enroll in an eight or six-hour course. Tr. at 33.
Soon after appearing in court, the individual and his wife participated in marriage counseling, which
they discontinued after three months. Ex. 12 at 8; Ex. 16 at 36.
During the OPM’s reinvestigation in 2015, several neighbors of the individual and his wife were
interviewed. Ex. 16. One neighbor stated that she believed that the individual and his wife were
alcoholics and that she does not think that the individual is trustworthy because of how he
manipulates his wife. Ex. 16 at 13. She also believes that he is controlling with his family. Ex. 16
at 2. Another neighbor stopped associating with the individual because of his negative interactions
with his wife and his manipulative behavior towards her. Ex. 16 at 16. She stated that she stopped
socializing with the individual and his wife a few years ago because they were always arguing with
each other because of their alcoholism. Ex. 16 at 17. She also observed the individual intoxicated at
neighborhood functions. Ex. 16 at 17. Another neighbor, who also stopped interacting with the
individual’s wife because of her alcoholism, stated that the individual and his wife often argued after
consuming alcohol because he would become upset when his wife became belligerent after
consuming alcohol. Ex. 16 at 17. The OPM investigator also interviewed the individual’s marriage
and family therapist. The therapist saw them for three months – from January to April 2014 – and
opined that the individual has a condition that could impair his judgment, reliability, or ability to
properly safeguard classified national security information. Ex. 16 at 36. He also stated the
following:
- 5 -
The subject [individual] was dealing with the drinking problem that played a big role
in a violent, nearly fatal, episode of an attack on his wife (discrepant). The subject
was attending Alcoholics Anonymous (discrepant) and had agreed to seek an alcohol
evaluation and appropriate treatment. The subject discontinued therapy before
seeking the evaluation and alcohol treatment. The subject’s prognosis is shabby until
the subject obtains the evaluation to determine the extent of the issue and to follow
the recommendation of the evaluation.
Id.
At his PSI in April 2014, the individual acknowledged that he never had an AA sponsor and stated
that he was “contemplating going back to the original group and going ahead and getting a sponsor.”
Ex. 12 at 28. He believed that he had a problem with alcohol, but that it was not difficult for him to
abstain from consuming alcohol. Ex. 12 at 30, 31. He indicated that five years ago, alcohol “became
more of a problem in that the progressive nature of the alcohol use obviously became a problem.”
Ex. 12 at 17. When asked about how his problems manifested, he responded that “I would just drink
too much at a sitting and would be impaired.” Ex. 12 at 23. He also stated that “it just became more
habituated,” “I was becoming dependent upon it,” and that when he went through periods of
abstinence for a few weeks to two to three months, he would resume drinking again, referring to the
incident in January 2014 as an example of that behavior. Ex. 12 at 24-26. At his PSI, he also
referenced the “illusion of normalcy” more than once to explain how he felt when he consumed
alcohol and his consumption increased again. Ex. 12 at 27. He asserted that he and his wife are
“enablers of each other” and they both need to abstain from alcohol. Ex. 12 at 33. He further
acknowledged that he should stop consuming alcohol and “need[s] a little bit more help on that
path.” Ex. 12 at 32. He said that we would seek counseling or therapy and was fully committed to
abstaining from alcohol. Ex. 12 at 33-34.
However, at the hearing in late 2015, when confronted about the statements that he made at his PSI
concerning his problems with alcohol and the need for treatment, the individual claimed that he did
not recall making those statements. Tr. at 42-47. He also averred that he was “dumbstruck” at the
PSI and that it was “very intimidating,” describing the interview as “Orwellian.” Tr. at 57. I
reviewed the transcript from the PSI: the individual volunteered the information about his alcohol
use and problems. The PSI does not indicate that the individual was intimidated. Nonetheless, when
asked by DOE counsel at the hearing, the individual stated that he was honest during the PSI and that
he did not feel like he was being treated unfairly. Tr. at 61. Therefore, I am perplexed why the
individual testified that he does not recall making those statements and then stated that he felt
intimidated during the “Orwellian” PSI, as if to imply that he never meant to make the statements
acknowledging his problems with alcohol. It appears that he was trying to mitigate the weight of his
statements from the PSI, while also relieving himself of liability for any purported false statements.
He also stated at his PSI that what occurred in January 2014 had never happened before and that it
was still hard for him “to believe it happened at all.” Ex. 12 at 10. Given the couple’s history with
police encounters and domestic disputes, I also find that statement from the individual dubious. For
these reasons, and the reasons explained further below, I do not find him credible.
- 6 -
At the hearing, the individual recalled that when he met with the DOE psychologist for an
assessment in the late spring or early summer of 2014, which was a few months after his PSI, he was
consuming alcohol. Tr. at 35. He would typically consume beer after work, about two to four times
a week. Tr. at 35. He testified that his understanding was that the DOE psychologist only
recommended that he abstain from alcohol, not that he needed to abstain as a condition of his
clearance. Tr. at 36. He does not recall committing to abstinence. Tr. at 51. In fact, he stated that
if he was directed to completely abstain from alcohol in order to keep his security clearance, he
would have done so. Tr. at 39. However, that rationale misunderstands the importance of abstinence
for personnel security purposes. The abstinence helps the individual exercise good judgment and
control his impulses so there are no concerns with his honesty and reliability. After his meeting with
the DOE psychologist, he stopped drinking alcohol for a month or two, and then resumed consuming
alcohol again. Tr. at 37. He did this a few times over the last year – stop drinking alcohol for one or
two months and then resume drinking. Tr. at 37. When asked at the hearing why he stopped
consuming alcohol, he stated, “I don’t have a specific reason. I just felt like maybe I needed to lose a
little weight. I didn’t have any compelling, you know, reason.” Tr. at 37. He did not say anything
about his marriage or his children as a reason to stop consuming alcohol.
The individual last consumed alcohol on August 1 or 2, 2015, which was approximately three
months before the hearing. Tr. at 39. He also stated that he promises to abstain from alcohol for his
security clearance and that he does not have any cravings for alcohol, which he claims would make it
easy not to consume. Tr. at 36-37, 59. His wife testified that there is no alcohol in the home, except
for one beer that has been untouched for months. Tr. at 22-23. She also believes he last consumed
alcohol sometime in the summer, and she has not known him to express a desire to consume alcohol
since then. Tr. at 14, 26. She testified that she did not know why her husband decided to abstain
from alcohol and that she cannot recall ever having a conversation with him about his decision to
abstain. Tr. at 24-25. However, in contradiction to her testimony, the individual stated that he and
his wife in fact talked about abstaining from alcohol when he insisted that they stop because their
relationship was in jeopardy and that he would end their relationship if she consumed alcohol again.
Tr. at 48, 56. His wife stopped consuming alcohol, and he claims that with abstinence, he and his
wife are in a “healthy relationship again.” Tr. at 52. They are not currently participating in any
counseling or treatment for alcohol or their marriage, as the individual claims that they do not need
counseling and are both “very happy.” Tr. at 53. The individual also testified that he does not need
counseling for his alcohol consumption. Tr. at 54.
At the hearing, his wife could not recall details from the incidents involving the police, including the
January 2014 incident. Tr. at 18. I did not find her testimony credible. It is also hard to believe that
she only recalled one time when the police came to their home when the record indicates that the
police came to their home many times, sometimes at her request. She stated that she recalled a time
the police arrived and she and her husband were “sitting very calmly,” allegedly having no idea why
the police were there. Tr. at 17-18. She also did not remember the time when the police arrived at
her home in January 2012 and found her with a bruised face and cut lip. Tr. at 19.
B. The DOE psychologist’s assessments in 2014 and 2015
- 7 -
When the DOE psychologist met with the individual in August 2014 and made his assessment, he
only had the information regarding the domestic violence arrest in January 2014, without the police
report, and the individual’s PSI in April 2014. He did not have information concerning prior
incidents involving law enforcement at the individual’s home or the notes from interviews of
neighbors regarding their opinions of the individual and his wife. The DOE psychologist concluded
that the individual suffered from alcohol abuse from January 2013 through January 2014. Ex. 10 at
4. However, he also concluded that the individual did not manifest any alcohol use disorder at the
time of their interview, noting the following: “He stopped drinking for several months after his
January arrest. He has been drinking in moderation and does not present a risk of resuming an
alcohol use disorder, particularly as he agreed to become abstinent from alcohol.” Ex. 10 at 4. He
also stated the following regarding the individual’s condition:
There is adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his episodic alcohol abuse for 1.5
years prior to January 2014. He completed an assessment and recommended class at
a local outpatient treatment program. He clarified during his interview his
commitment to resolve issues raised by the impact of his wife’s alcohol use starting
with not consuming alcohol himself.
Ex. 10 at 4. In his report, the DOE psychologist cited the individual’s commitment to abstinence
several times, stating that “he decided to make a commitment to stop drinking alcohol as he faces the
emotionally daunting task of supporting his adult children emotionally while setting boundaries with
his wife.” Ex. 10 at 3. He stated that the individual “needs to abstain from alcohol as he faces the
task of dealing with his conflicted family situation,” noting again that the individual “agreed that his
plan for moving forward in his family situation is stop drinking alcohol for health reasons and for
concern over being present for his family, to attempt to get his wife to listen to reason and change her
behavior, and, if indicated, separate from her for the purpose of reducing stress and anxiety.” Ex. 10
at 5. Id. Accordingly, and as the DOE psychologist reiterated during the hearing, his assessment was
largely based the individual’s promise to abstain from alcohol.
After the LSO received more information about the individual from a reinvestigation, they requested
that the DOE psychologist complete a record review. In June and July 2015, the DOE psychologist
reviewed the individual’s personnel security case evaluation and the record of an enhanced subject
interview from investigations from February through March 2015. Ex. 7. Without interviewing the
individual again, but with knowledge that the individual resumed consuming alcohol, the DOE
psychologist concluded this time that the individual manifested an alcohol use disorder (303.90,
moderate). Ex. 7. He stated that as the individual did not maintain abstinence from alcohol, he is
“very likely to engage in binge drinking with related impaired functioning.” Ex. 7. He further stated
that he diagnosed the individual with this condition because “as indicated by a long history of
alcohol often taken in larger amounts over a longer period than was intended, there is persistent
desire and unsuccessful effort to cut-down or control alcohol use, recurrent alcohol use resulting in a
failure to fulfill major role obligations at home, and continued alcohol use despite having recurrent
social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol.” Ex. 7.
At the hearing, the DOE psychologist explained that when he received the follow up investigation
report with the police reports and additional interviews of his neighbors and wife, he had more
- 8 -
clarity and information than he did during the first review. Tr. at 87. He also learned that the
individual resumed drinking alcohol a few months after they spoke in August 2014, which also made
him change his assessment. Tr. at 87. He stated that his confidence about the individual being able
to manage his issues and exercise good judgment was based on the fact that he would remain
abstinent. Tr. at 87.
The DOE psychologist testified that there was no evidence of rehabilitation by the individual and
concluded that there is a greater than reasonable risk of further alcohol consumption. Tr. at 91-92.
He cited the fact that the individual has tried to stop drinking more than once, but always resumed,
and noted that when the individual is under duress, he drinks alcohol. Tr. at 110-111. He also noted
that alcohol consumption, and specifically the January 2014 incident, caused their autistic son duress,
who had to call the police. Tr. at 113. Thus, as the causes of the stress within the family and of the
individual have not been resolved, the DOE psychologist maintained that there is a “high probability
of more duress in the family.” Tr. at 113-114. He believes that to address the underlying issues that
are exacerbated by their alcohol consumption, the individual and his wife would need to enter into a
treatment that involved marital therapy and the individual would need to be abstinent from alcohol
for at least one year. Tr. at 125-126.
C. The individual’s expert’s assessment
Prior to the hearing, the individual’s expert, a chemical dependency professional, conducted an
evaluation of the individual’s alcohol use based on a two-hour review. Ex. A; Tr. at 63. In his
assessment that he conducted in October 2015, he concluded that the individual did not meet the
diagnosis for alcohol use disorder. Ex. A. He evaluated the individual’s drug and alcohol history
and administered a chemical dependency assessment. Ex. A. According to his assessment, the
individual last consumed alcohol on August 2, 2015. Ex. A. When asked in the assessment whether
he has “any history of combative and/or assaultive behavior,” he answered “no.” Ex. A at 3. He also
answered “no” when asked if the individual ever “tried to cut down or control [his] use but been
unsuccessful.” Ex. A at 6. In summarizing one part of the assessment questionnaire, the clinical
supervisor wrote that “Client is aware of behaviors connected to family member’s alcohol use history
that were the focus of the problem and appears to be taking steps to resolve [them]. These issues did
not appear[] to be caused by, at least recurrently, by his reported alcohol use.” Ex. A at 5.
At the hearing, he explained how he conducted the assessment, which was by reviewing six different
dimensions and relying on the individual’s reports that he compared with the DOE psychologist’s
assessment. Tr. at 64-65. He examined when the individual last consumed alcohol, whether it
impeded his health, whether he could recognize if it impacted his family life, his readiness to change,
his relapse potential, and his environment for recovery. Tr. at 65-67. He took into consideration the
boundary that the individual set with his wife – that if she continues to drink, he would end the
relationship. Tr. at 67. The chemical dependency professional stated that he was not concerned
about the individual’s alcohol consumption affecting his judgment and reliability. Tr. at 68-69.
When asked whether the incident in January 2014, would change his opinion about the individual’s
judgment and reliability or history of assaultive or combative behavior, he stated that it was not
something that he heard was recurrent and that it was a “non issue.” Tr. at 69, 71. Notably, he did
not have the full record, consisting of the police reports and summaries of interviews with their
neighbors, which the DOE psychologist did, and therefore, only considered the individual’s report of
what happened between him and his wife in January 2014. Tr. at 71.
- 9 -
V. ANALYSIS
In resolving the question of the individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided
by the applicable factors prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
due deliberation, I have determined that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
First, I credit the DOE psychologist’s opinion as to the individual’s diagnosis and find that the
individual suffers from alcohol abuse. The DOE psychologist adequately explained why he changed
his diagnosis of the individual from his first assessment in 2014 – the individual resumed consuming
alcohol despite his expressed commitment that he would abstain and there was new, damaging
information about the individual’s alcohol consumption from previous police reports and interviews
with neighbors that the DOE psychologist did not have when he met with the individual in 2014.
While the individual’s expert, a chemical dependency professional, testified that the individual did
not meet the criteria for alcohol abuse, he did not have all the information about the individual that
the DOE psychologist was privy to in making his conclusion. Notably, the individual’s expert relied
primarily on the individual’s own reports when completing his assessment. As I do not credit much
of the individual’s testimony given the inconsistencies from what he stated in his PSI, to the DOE
psychologist in 2014, and at the hearing, I question the reliability of the information he provided to
his own expert in completing his assessment.
Thus, the issue that I must consider is whether the individual’s risk of relapse is sufficiently low at
the time of the hearing. In the end, OHA Administrative Judges accord deference to mental health
professionals regarding issues of rehabilitation, reformation and risk assessment. Duration of
abstinence is always an important factor in determining risk of relapse, especially considering the
individual’s lengthy history of consumption and intoxication. See Adjudicative Guideline G, ¶ 23(a).
Here, the DOE psychologist stated that there is insufficient evidence of rehabilitation or reformation
because of the individual’s history and pattern of stopping consumption for two to three months at a
time, but then resuming. He did this after meeting with the DOE psychologist in 2014 and did this
again a few times until his last drink in August 2015. While his last alcoholic beverage was in
August, it was only three months before the hearing, and therefore an insufficient period to conclude
that he will not relapse into the same pattern that he has been exhibiting for years. The DOE
psychologist believes that in order to address the underlying issues of the individual’s consumption,
he should enter into treatment that involves marital therapy and be abstinent for at least a year, none
of which the individual has completed.
In addition, the individual has not acknowledged his condition. See Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 23(b). He made the decision to be abstinent with his wife, who has a history of excessive alcohol
consumption, just a few months before the hearing without undergoing therapy and without
acknowledging that he has a problem with alcohol abuse. His plan is ambitious, but it does not
convince me that he is reformed. Moreover, another issue of concern to me is whether the individual
has displayed honesty throughout this entire process. At his PSI, he indicated that he had a problem
with alcohol and he later made a commitment to the DOE psychologist to stop consuming alcohol.
However, when confronted about his statements from his PSI, he claimed that he was intimidated
when making those statements so as to imply that they should be disregarded. He also averred that
- 10 -
he never committed to abstinence to the DOE psychologist, contrary to the DOE psychologist’s
testimony and Report. As I credit the DOE psychologist and already expressed my concerns about
the individual’s candor, I find his claims to be indicative of his disingenuousness.
Thus, in addition to not considering the individual to be reformed, I do not consider the individual to
be reliable or trustworthy. As I am to resolve any doubts concerning the individual’s eligibility for
access authorization in favor of the national security, I conclude that his access authorization should
not be restored. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
VI. CONCLUSION
As stated above, I have found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raises serious security concerns under Criterion J. After considering all the relevant
information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive common-sense manner, including
weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I have found that the
individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated with
these criteria. I therefore cannot find that restoring the individual’s access authorization will not
endanger the common defense and is clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I have
determined that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored at this time. The parties
may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. §
710.28.
Shiwali G. Patel
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: January 13, 2016