PSH-16-0063

*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: July 11, 2016 ) Case No.: PSH-16-0063
)
____________________________________)
Issued: September 30, 2016
______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Robert B. Palmer, 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 individual’s
security clearance should be restored. 2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and was granted a
security clearance in connection with that employment. In December 2015, the individual was
arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). Because this information raised
significant security concerns, the Local Security Office (LSO) summoned the individual for an
interview with a personnel security specialist in February 2016. After this Personnel Security
Interview (PSI) failed to resolve the concerns, the LSO referred the individual to a local
psychologist (hereinafter referred to as “the DOE psychologist) for an agency-sponsored
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
evaluation. The DOE psychologist prepared a written report based on that evaluation, and
submitted it to the LSO.
In her report, she concluded that the individual did not suffer from any diagnosable mental or
emotional disorder. However, she found that he habitually used alcohol to excess, and that this
practice caused, or could cause, a significant defect in his judgment or reliability. In order to
demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation from his pattern of excessive use, the DOE
psychologist stated that the individual would have to complete an alcohol outpatient program of
at least eight weeks’ duration, comply with all recommendations made by his treatment
providers, and demonstrate a responsible pattern of alcohol use for an additional four months,
consisting of no more than two drinks on any given occasion. DOE Exhibit 7 at 11.
After reviewing this 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 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 10
exhibits into the record of this proceeding and presented the testimony of the DOE psychologist
at the hearing. The individual introduced seven exhibits and presented the testimony of two
witnesses, in addition to testifying himself.
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 relies on the DOE psychologist’s report and on the
individual’s December 2015 and November 2005 DUI arrests.
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
3
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The
White House (December 19, 2005), Guidelines G and I.
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
At the hearing, the individual did not contest the allegations set forth in the Letter or the DOE
psychologist’s findings. Instead, he attempted to demonstrate, through his own testimony and
that of his supervisor and his friend, that he no longer consumes alcohol to excess, and that he is
not currently suffering from any defect in his judgment or reliability.
The individual testified that he has not consumed any alcohol since his clearance was suspended
in May 2016, approximately four months prior to the date of the hearing. Hearing Transcript
(Tr.) at 31. He said that he quit drinking after thinking about the things that the DOE
psychologist said to him during his evaluation, and about the effects that alcohol had had on his
life. Tr. at 32. He does not keep alcohol in his house. Tr. at 35. The individual then talked about
the therapy that he has received. After his arrest, he participated in a court-ordered 12 week DUI
education program and later in a voluntary 12 week alcohol treatment program. Tr. at 37. In
these programs, he learned about the physiological effects of alcohol abuse, the underlying
causes of his excessive drinking, and ways of coping with the urge to consume alcohol and with
situations that could lead to such consumption. Tr. at 40-41. He further testified that he intends to
4
enroll in a relapse prevention program at the same facility at which he participated in voluntary
treatment, that he does not experience urges to drink, and that he has no intention of drinking
again. Tr. at 43-44, 55.
The individual’s supervisor testified that he has not seen any signs at work of alcohol abuse on
the part of the individual, and that the individual is reliable and trustworthy. Tr. at 14, 16-17. The
individual’s friend stated that he has not seen the individual consume any alcohol since the date
of his DUI arrest or seen any alcohol in the individual’s home, and that the individual takes his
treatment program seriously. Tr. at 23, 25, 28.
After hearing all of this testimony, the DOE psychologist testified. She concluded that the
individual had done everything that she had recommended, and that he was now demonstrating
adequate evidence or rehabilitation and reformation. Tr. at 61. She described his risk of returning
to an abusive pattern of drinking as “low,” and his prognosis as “favorable.” Tr. at 62-63. In
support of these conclusions, she cited the ending of his dysfunctional marriage, which she
believed triggered some of his drinking, and the quality of his treatment program. Tr. at 62.
Based on this testimony and on the record as a whole, I also conclude that the individual is now
exhibiting adequate evidence of reformation and rehabilitation. In this regard, I find it significant
that the individual was not diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder. I also believe that the
education and treatment that the individual has received has raised his awareness of the effects of
excessive alcohol consumption, and provided him with the tools necessary to control that
consumption. Finally, his testimony convinced me that he is taking his recovery seriously and
applying the lessons that he has learned to his daily life. I therefore find that he has adequately
addressed the DOE’s security concerns regarding his alcohol usage.
V. CONCLUSION
As set forth above, I conclude that no valid security concerns remain under criteria (h) and (j).
Consequently, I find that restoring the individual’s access authorization would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. I therefore conclude
that the DOE should restore the individual’s security clearance. 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: September 30, 2016