PSH-16-0090

United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: December 12, 2016 ) Case No.: PSH-16-0090
)
____________________________________)
Issued: April 6, 2017
______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Robert B. Palmer, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and was granted access
authorization in connection with that employment. In February 2016, the individual was arrested
for Aggravated Driving Under the Influence (DUI). 3 Because this arrest raised security concerns,
the Local Security Office (LSO) summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel
security specialist in June 2016. After this Personnel Security Interview (PSI) failed to resolve
these concerns, the LSO referred the individual to a local psychologist (hereinafter referred to as
“the DOE psychologist”) for an agency-sponsored evaluation. The DOE psychologist prepared a
report of his evaluation of the individual for 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.
3 This was his second alcohol-related arrest. The individual was previously arrested in 1991 for
Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol.
2
After reviewing this report and the individual’s personnel security file as a whole, 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 11
exhibits into the record of this proceeding and presented the testimony of the DOE psychologist at
the hearing. The individual introduced 18 exhibits and presented the testimony of a licensed
alcohol counselor, 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 Guidelines G and I of the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility
for Access to Classified Information, The White House (December 19, 2005) (Adjudicative
Guidelines).
Guideline G relates to alcohol consumption, and it provides that alcohol-related incidents such as
driving while under the influence, habitual or binge consumption to the point of impaired
judgment, and diagnoses by a medical professional of alcohol abuse or dependence are conditions
that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. Guideline I, “Psychological
Conditions,” is implicated when a government-contracted mental health professional concludes
that an individual suffers from a mental or emotional condition that can impair judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness. As evidence of circumstances raising security concerns under these
Guidelines, the Letter cites the DOE psychologist’s diagnosis that the individual suffers from
Alcohol Dependence, with physiological dependence, in early remission, and his conclusion that
this constitutes an illness or mental condition that causes, or could cause, a significant defect in his
judgment or reliability. The Letter also cites the individual’s statements during his PSI indicating
that, over the past two or three years, he would consume a half pint of vodka nightly over a period
of one to one-and-one-half hours.
These allegations adequately support the invocation of Guidelines G and I, and they raise serious
security concerns. The excessive consumption of alcohol and emotional or mental conditions
involving such consumption often lead to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to
control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.
Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 21 and ¶ 27.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
3
The procedures 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
The individual did not contest the allegations set forth in the Letter or the DOE psychologist’s
diagnosis. Instead, he attempted to demonstrate, through his own testimony and that of his alcohol
counselor, that his alcohol use disorder is now in remission.
The individual testified that he started drinking at around the age of 19, primarily on weekends,
and then over the years it slowly increased from two to three drinks generally three or four times
a week to a half pint of vodka every day, which was his typical level of consumption at the time
of his 2016 arrest. Hearing transcript (Tr.) at 31. Stress stemming from marital trouble and from
work drove the individual to drink. Tr. at 31-32. He asserted that, prior to his arrest, he did not
believe that he had a drinking problem, and thought that he could use alcohol to relax, but he “was
wrong.” Tr. at 32. He tried to stop drinking on his own about eight years ago because of earlier
problems with his security clearance, but relapsed after approximately nine months of sobriety. 4
4 During a 2009 PSI, the individual admitted that he used cocaine while he was going through the
process of reinstating his security clearance with the DOE. He claimed that he was drunk at the
time, and he promised during the PSI that he would never drink to intoxication again. This incident
led to the initiation of Administrative Review proceedings against the individual. DOE Exhibit
(DOE Ex.) 5.
4
The individual then talked about his February 2016 DUI arrest and the events that led up to it. As
was his practice at the time, he had consumed a half pint of vodka while “trying to relax,” but
because he had had an argument with his wife, “that didn’t work out.” Tr. at 34. He then consumed
10 vodka “minis,” all in a period of approximately two and one half hours. DOE Ex. 8 at 2.
Thereafter, he went outside, got into his vehicle, and began listening to music. Then, “for some
reason,” he “decided to drive in the neighborhood.” Tr. at 34. Realizing that he was very
intoxicated, he parked the vehicle, got out, and tried to walk home. He fell down, and a concerned
neighbor called an ambulance. The police were also summoned, and they followed him to the
hospital. Tr. at 35.
The individual attempted to stop drinking after this incident, and succeeded in abstaining until
May 2016, when he “relapsed.” Tr. at 36. He drank a half pint of vodka after another argument
with his wife. This latest incident, along with a summons that he received as a result of the February
2016 incident, prompted him to seek professional help. He enrolled in a local intensive outpatient
alcohol treatment program (IOP). Id.
He acknowledged that marital difficulties have been a primary cause of his dysfunctional drinking,
and he said that he and his wife “have been working on” it. Tr. at 38. She saw a counselor for
approximately six months after their May argument. The individual stated that his wife only spoke
to him “a little bit” about this counseling, but that he was aware that it concerned her “issues” with
her parents. Tr. at 60. She is now employed, which he said helps him in terms of supporting the
family, and helps her in that it gets her out of the house and gives her a means of defining herself
now that their children have moved out. Id. The individual asked his wife whether she wanted to
go to marriage counseling, and she replied that she didn’t think that they needed it “because
everything is going good (sic) now.” Tr. at 39. He added that he was “open to” going to marriage
counseling, and that he would raise the subject with her again at a later date. Id. He has discussed
with his alcohol counselor issues relating to his marriage, and both he and his wife have talked to
his mother and to her mother about their marital problems. The individual said that they learned a
lot about marriage and about each other from those discussions. He stated that he intends to handle
any future arguments with his wife by taking a “timeout” if things start to get too heated, rather
than by resorting to alcohol. Tr. at 45. They have started to spend more time together, and he is
paying more attention to her needs. Tr. at 59. He described their marriage as being “in a very good
place” now. Tr. at 40.
The individual began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings in August 2016. He attends
one meeting per week, and he has a sponsor. Tr. at 42. He has remained abstinent since May 2016.
It has “totally changed [his] life for the better,” Tr. at 71, and it is his intention to refrain from
alcohol consumption for the rest of his life. Tr. at 43. The individual acknowledged that he had
previously tried to stop drinking and was unsuccessful, but he insisted that this time would be
different, because he now has the knowledge and support provided by his IOP and by AA. He
stated that towards this end, he intends to continue going to AA indefinitely and to complete his
IOP, including aftercare. Tr. at 44, 63. He asserted that through these programs, he has learned
how to deal with stress without resorting to drinking. Tr. at 46.
The individual’s licensed alcohol counselor also testified. He said that the individual began seeing
him in May 2016 when he enrolled in the IOP. The program staff performed an intake assessment,
5
and diagnosed him as suffering from alcohol dependence. They developed a treatment plan for the
individual, which initially consisted of three group sessions and one individual counseling session
per week. After 90 days, they suggested that he consider attending AA, and he agreed. The
individual began attending one AA session, two group sessions, and an individual counseling
session per week. Tr. at 13. The focus of the individual’s treatment has been to reinforce the idea
that he doesn’t need to resort to drinking to deal with his problems. Tr. at 21. The individual and
the counselor have discussed the individual’s marital situation, the stressors arising from it, and
the possibility of the individual and his wife participating in marriage counseling. The counselor
said that the individual has done “great,” has remained sober, and has been compliant with his
treatment regimen. Tr. at 14.
The counselor recommended that the individual remain in treatment for at least a year, and that he
participate in aftercare. Tr. at 24. He termed the individual’s current status as “early remission,”
and stated that the individual would be considered to be in “full remission” only after one year of
treatment and sobriety. Tr. at 25. Although the individual had not yet achieved a year of treatment
as of the date of the hearing, the counselor believes that he is “in full recovery,” and that his
prognosis is “good” for remaining sober, given his age, his maturity, and “the consequences that
he’s faced.” Tr. at 15, 25.
B. Administrative Judge’s Decision
The evidence in this case indicates that the individual had abstained from alcohol use for
approximately nine months as of the date of the hearing, that he acknowledges his alcohol use
disorder and has taken steps to overcome it, and that he has received a positive prognosis from the
substance abuse professional who is treating him. These are significant mitigating factors. See
Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 22(b) and ¶ 22(c). Nevertheless, I am not convinced that the chances of
a relapse are sufficiently remote to warrant restoration of the individual’s security clearance. I
reach this conclusion primarily due to his failure to satisfy any of the reasonable recommendations
for reformation or rehabilitation set forth in the DOE psychologist’s report.
In that report, the DOE psychologist opined that, in order to demonstrate adequate evidence of
reformation or rehabilitation, the individual would have to remain abstinent for 12 months,
complete his treatment program, and enter into marriage counseling. DOE Ex. 8 at 7. As indicated
above, as of the date of the hearing, the individual had been abstinent for nine months, had not
completed his treatment program, and had not entered into marriage counseling.
I am particularly concerned about the fact that the individual and his wife have not entered into
marriage counseling. At the hearing, the DOE psychologist testified that the individual is “on the
right path” with his abstinence and treatment, Tr. at 94, and that his prognosis for “the next year
or two” would be good if he finishes his treatment program, continues with aftercare, and enters
marital therapy. Tr. at 92. He specifically noted that marital counseling is not “an optional thing,”
because the individual’s marital difficulties were a significant “fuel” for his drinking. Tr. at 85.
The evidence in this case amply supports the conclusion that marital therapy is integral to the
individual’s rehabilitation. The individual’s last two instances of excessive drinking, the one
leading up to his February 2016 DUI and his relapse in May 2016, were triggered by stress and
6
anger caused by arguments with his wife. The amount of stress and anger experienced by the
individual in February 2016 was apparently so severe that, after drinking a half pint of vodka failed
to achieve the desired effect, he consumed 10 vodka “minis,” all in a period of approximately two
and one half hours. DOE Ex. 8 at 2. According to the DOE psychologist, the individual had
consumed nearly enough alcohol to reach a blood alcohol content that would kill 50 percent of the
population. Tr. at 95. The level of dysfunction in his marriage was so significant that, at the time
of his psychological evaluation, the individual was considering separating from his wife. DOE Ex.
8 at 7. While the individual’s testimony that their marriage has improved and that his wife has
received counseling is a positive factor if true, I note that the individual has indicated that his wife
has not been fully open with him regarding counseling; this raises a question regarding whether an
adequate level of trust and communication has been established between the individual and his
wife.
As previously mentioned, the Adjudicative Guidelines require me to resolve any doubts about the
individual’s eligibility for access authorization in favor of the national security. For the reasons set
forth above, I continue to harbor significant doubts about the individual’s ability to refrain from
excessive drinking in the future, and therefore about his eligibility for a security clearance. The
individual has not adequately addressed the DOE’s security concerns under guidelines G and I.
V. CONCLUSION
I find that significant security concerns remain regarding the individual’s alcohol usage.
Consequently, I cannot conclude that restoring his 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: April 6, 2017