PSH-15-0072

*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 10, 2015 ) Case No.: PSH-15-0072
)
____________________________________)
Issued: November 25, 2015
______________
Decision and Order
_______________
Robert B. Palmer, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (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 should not be granted
a security clearance at this time. 2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual’s employer, a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, requested a security
clearance on the individual’s behalf. In response to that request, the local security office (LSO)
conducted an investigation of the individual. During the course of that investigation, the LSO
obtained information about the individual that raised security concerns. The 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 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
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
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 he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the
substantial doubt concerning his 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
six exhibits into the record of this proceeding and presented the testimony of the DOE
psychiatrist at the hearing. The individual presented the testimony of three witnesses, in addition
to testifying himself.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE DOE’S SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter includes a statement of derogatory information that
the LSO concluded raises a substantial doubt as to the individual’s eligibility for a security
clearance. This derogatory information pertains to paragraph (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 (j), information is derogatory if it indicates that an 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 this criterion, the Letter cites:
 The diagnosis of the DOE psychiatrist that the individual suffers from Alcohol Abuse,
and his conclusion that the individual has been a user of alcohol habitually to excess;
 The individual’s five alcohol-related arrests, consisting of two arrests for Driving Under
The Influence and two arrests for Drunk In Public in 2000, and one instance of Driving
While Intoxicated and Possession Of Alcohol in 2002;
 The individual’s 2003 consumption of alcohol in violation of the terms of his probation,
which was detected when, after drinking, he blew into an “interlock” device that was
attached to his vehicle; and
 The individual’s consumption of alcohol since 2003, which has routinely consisted of
becoming intoxicated one to two times a month after drinking eight to ten beers on
weekends and drinking three to four beers three to four times during the week.
These circumstances adequately justify the DOE’s invocation of criterion (j), and raise
significant 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. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The White House (December 19, 2005),
Guideline G.
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. ANALYSIS
A. Mitigating Evidence
At the hearing, the individual did not dispute the allegations set forth in the Notification Letter.
Instead, he attempted to demonstrate, through his own testimony and that of his wife, a former
co-worker, and a friend, that he has established a pattern of responsible alcohol use, and no
longer represents an unacceptable security risk.
The individual testified that he has reduced his alcohol consumption, and now drinks an average
of two to three 12-ounce beers two to three times per week. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 38. The
last time he drank to intoxication, he added, was “last summer.” Tr. at 39. He has not participated
in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or any alcohol counseling since meeting with the DOE
psychiatrist, but said that he has “thought about” it. Tr. at 40. While he admitted that his alcohol
use has been the cause of discord with his spouse and has adversely affected his judgment in the
past, that has not been the case since he reduced his level of consumption. Tr. at 41. 3 The
biggest changes in his drinking pattern have occurred, he continued, in the six months preceding
3 The continued use of alcohol by the individual despite having persistent marital problems
caused or exacerbated by that use was the primary basis for the DOE psychiatrist’s diagnosis of
Alcohol Abuse. Tr. at 54.
4
the hearing. Tr. at 43. He does not drink to intoxication any more, does not drink and drive, and
no longer drinks to self-medicate, as he admitted to having done in the past. Tr. at 44, 46. His
intention is to maintain his current pattern of moderate consumption. Tr. at 44. Regarding his
relationship with his wife, he said that it is “great,” and that they are “much happier” than they
were before. Tr. at 45. He does not believe that she has a problem with his current level of
consumption. Id.
The individual’s wife also testified that the individual has changed his behavior significantly
over the past year, and no longer spends a lot of his time drinking. Whereas he used to drive after
consuming alcohol, he hasn’t done that in the past several years. To his wife’s knowledge, the
individual has not had any alcohol-related legal issues since his five arrests in the early 2000s,
and she hasn’t seen him become intoxicated in at least a year. Tr. at 14. She estimated his current
consumption at “maybe two or three beers” a couple of days a week. Tr. at 16. They used to
argue about his drinking, but do not do so anymore. Tr. at 17. Although she would prefer that he
not drink at all, she added that “an occasional beer is fine with me.” Tr. at 19. The former co-
worker testified that he never saw any indications of an alcohol problem at the workplace, and
the individual’s friend said that he has seen a drastic change for the better in the individual’s
drinking from the past to the present. Tr. at 25, 29.
B. Administrative Judge’s Determination
I found the testimony of the individual and his witnesses to be credible, and that testimony
establishes that he has significantly reduced his alcohol consumption during the last six months.
However, for the reasons that follow, I find that serious concerns remain under criterion (j)
regarding the individual’s alcohol consumption.
As an initial matter, the individual has not established a pattern of responsible alcohol use that is
of sufficient duration to convince me that a return to his previous abusive pattern is unlikely.
That pattern of abuse lasted for at least 15 years, and six months is simply not long enough to
demonstrate that the individual has permanently altered that well established behavior. The DOE
psychiatrist, who heard all of the testimony at the hearing, testified that the individual’s current
diagnosis was Alcohol Abuse in partial remission. Tr. at 57. In order to merit a diagnosis of full
remission, the DOE psychiatrist explained, the individual would have to be free of the symptoms
of his disorder for 12 months. Tr. at 58. He further opined that the individual “would have to
demonstrate for a longer period of time his ability to control” his alcohol consumption. Tr. at 57.
The DOE psychiatrist also stated that abstinence from alcohol use was required for a diagnosis of
full remission. Tr. at 58. The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may be able to
mitigate the concerns presented by Alcohol Abuse without abstaining from alcohol use. See
Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 23(b) (that the individual has acknowledged his disorder, taken
actions to address it, “and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser)” is a potentially mitigating factor). However, the DOE
psychiatrist testified that the individual has exhibited a potential for the development of Alcohol
Dependence because of his elevated tolerance of alcohol. Tr. at 54. In view of this potential, I
believe that an appropriate period of abstinence is necessary to demonstrate that the individual
5
truly has his alcohol use under control. The individual admittedly has not abstained from alcohol
use.
The individual also has not participated in any alcohol counseling or attended AA meetings since
shortly after his arrests in the early 2000s. This is of particular concern because the individual
testified that he previously would drink significantly more during periods of stress. When asked
what he intended to do during future periods of increased stress to avoid consuming alcohol to
excess, he responded that he had borne the stresses of this proceeding and of his job during the
last six months without increasing his consumption, saying that he is now “more of a happy
person,” and “that’s not the direction I go.” Tr. at 46. Still, I would be more confident of the
individual’s ability to adhere to his current pattern of consumption if he obtained counseling on
how to deal with stress and other alcohol consumption ‘triggers” without resorting to increased
drinking.
V. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I find that the individual has not adequately addressed the DOE’s concerns
under criterion (j) regarding his alcohol use. Consequently, he has failed to convince me that
granting him 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 grant the
individual a 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: November 25, 2015