PSH-17-0003

*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: January 31, 2017 )
_________________________________________ ) Case No.: PSH-17-0003
Issued: March 21, 2017
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 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, after carefully
considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the Adjudicative
Guidelines, I conclude that the Individual’s security clearance should be restored.2
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual informed the Local Security Office (LSO) that he had been arrested for Aggravated
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (ADUI). That arrest raised concerns regarding the
Individual’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. In order to address those concerns, the LSO
conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the Individual on July 7, 2016, and had the
Individual evaluated by a Psychologist (the DOE Psychologist) on October 20, 2016. Ex. 4, Ex. 9.
Because the PSI and the psychological examination did not resolve the security concerns raised by
the Individual’s ADUI arrest, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by
issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was entitled to a hearing before
an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for a
security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21. The Individual requested a hearing and the LSO
forwarded the Individual’s request to the OHA. The Director of OHA appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter on February 1, 2017. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10
C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e) and (g), I took testimony from the Individual, his friend, his substance abuse
counselor (the Substance Abuse Counselor), his therapist (the Therapist), his Employee Assistance
Program (EAP) counselor (the EAP Counselor), and the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of
1 Under the Regulations, “Access authorization” means an administrative determination that an individual is eligible
for access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. §
710.5(a). 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.energy.gov/OHA.
- 2 -
Hearing, Case No. PSH-17-0003 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted nine exhibits,
marked as DOE Exhibits 1 through 9. The Individual submitted seven exhibits, marked as
Individual‘s Exhibits 1 though 7.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance.
That information pertains to Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (December 30, 2005) (the Guidelines). The LSO
alleges, under Guideline G, that the Individual has been diagnosed by the DOE Psychologist with
Alcohol Dependence. The Individual’s Alcohol Dependence diagnosis, as alleged, adequately
justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G and raises significant security concerns. The
Adjudicative Guidelines state: “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.” Guideline G at ¶ 21. Among those conditions set forth
in the Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “Alcohol-related incidents
away from work, such as driving while under the influence,” and “Diagnosis by a duly qualified
medical professional (e.g. . . . clinical psychologist . . . ) of . . . alcohol dependence.” Guideline G
at ¶ 22 (a) and (d).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The Administrative Judge's role in this proceeding is to evaluate the evidence presented by the
agency and the Individual, and to render a decision based on that evidence. See 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.27(a). The regulations state that:
The decision on an access authorization request is a comprehensive, common-sense
judgment, made after consideration of all relevant information, favorable and
unfavorable, as to whether the granting or continuation of access authorization will
not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the
national interest. Any doubt as to an individual’s access authorization eligibility
shall be resolved in favor of the national security.
10 C.F.R. §§ 710.7(a). In rendering this opinion, I have considered the following factors:
The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding
the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of
the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the
voluntariness of participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or
reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct;
the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors.
See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the
testimony and exhibits presented by both sides in this case.
- 3 -
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
On May 28, 2016, the police arrested the Individual and charged him with ADUI.3 Ex. 8 at 4.
After the Individual was arrested, the police administered two breathalyzer tests for alcohol to him.
Both tests indicated that the Individual had a blood alcohol level of .17 percent. Ex. 8 at 5.
Because of the security concerns raised by the Individual’s May 28, 2016, ADUI arrest, the LSO
conducted a PSI of the Individual on July 7, 2016. Ex. 9 at 1. During this PSI, the Individual
provided a detailed history and description of his alcohol use.4 Prior to his arrest, the Individual
had been drinking every other day. Ex. 9 at 116. However, the Individual stated that his last use
of alcohol had occurred on May 28, 2016. Ex. 9 at 70. The Individual acknowledged that he had
an alcohol problem. Ex. 9 at 98-99. He sought assistance from the EAP, entered counseling, and
began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in order to maintain his sobriety.5 Ex. 9 at 30-34.
When the interviewer asked the Individual about his future intentions concerning alcohol, the
Individual responded by stating: “Boy, um, certainly, y-you know, total abstinence for as long as
it takes to get everything right with DOE and my clearance, and all of that.” Ex. 9 at 99. The
Individual further indicated that AA was causing him to consider permanently abstaining from
alcohol use. Ex. 9 at 99.
Because the PSI did not resolve the security concerns raised by the Individual’s May 28, 2016,
ADUI arrest, the LSO requested that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE Psychologist. The DOE
Psychologist examined the Individual on October 20, 2016. Ex. 4 at 2. On October 21, 2016, the
DOE Psychologist issued a report, in which he noted that the Individual was: obtaining individual
counseling for marriage-related issues, attending an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), obtaining
individual counseling for his substance abuse issues from his EAP, attending AA meetings, and
working the AA Twelve-Step Program. Ex. 4 at 3, 9. The Individual informed the DOE
Psychologist that he last used alcohol on May 28, 2016. Ex. 4 at 5. The Individual further reported
to the DOE Psychologist that he was considering abstaining from alcohol on a permanent basis.
Ex. 4 at 6. The Individual also admitted that he experienced cravings for alcohol. Ex. 4 at 9. In
his report, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual suffered from Alcohol Dependence, in
early full remission, under the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), and Substance Abuse-Alcohol of severe intensity, in early full
remission, under DSM-5. Ex. 4 at 7. The DOE Psychiatrist opined that this condition causes
significant effects in the Individual judgment and reliability. Ex. 4 at 8-9. The DOE Psychologist
recommended that the Individual permanently abstain from alcohol use. Ex. 4 at 8. The DOE
Psychologist opined that the Individual needed to abstain from alcohol use for nine-months in order
to establish reformation or rehabilitation. Ex. 4 at 8. The DOE Psychologist also expressed
3 The Individual was also charged with “Failure to Yield at Stop Sign, Roadway Laned for Traffic” and “Failure to
Signal when Required.” Ex. 8 at 4.
4 The Individual reported that he is subject to random alcohol tests at his work. Ex. 9 at 52. The Individual admitted
that he had been intoxicated on a weekly basis, that his tolerance for alcohol had increased, he had experienced
hangovers on a weekly basis, and that he had experienced blackouts. Ex. 9 at 63-68, 92. The Individual reported that
he would come into work with a hangover “maybe a couple of times a month.” Ex. 9 at 80. When he was married,
his spouse would express concerns about his alcohol use. Ex. 9 at 84-86.
5 The Individual had not, as of the date of the PSI, obtained a sponsor. Ex. 9 at 109.
- 4 -
concerns that the Individual’s treatment program was not as extensive as it should be, and
recommended that the Individual add “more components to his substance treatment.” Ex. 4 at 8.
V. ANALYSIS
The Individual resolved the security concerns discussed above by presenting the testimony of the
Substance Abuse Counselor, the Therapist, a friend, and the EAP Counselor, as well as by
providing his own testimony.
The Individual’s Substance Abuse Counselor testified on his behalf. The Substance Abuse
Counselor diagnosed the Individual with an Alcohol Use Disorder. Tr. at 21. The Substance Abuse
Counselor testified that he began treating the Individual on July 8, 2016. Tr. at 18. The Substance
Abuse Counselor described the Individual as “open and very cooperative.” Tr. at 21-22. The
Substance Abuse Counselor testified that the Individual had been participating in an IOP, a relapse
prevention group, a substance use education group, individual substance abuse counseling (from
the Substance Abuse Counselor), and was attending AA meetings. Tr. at 18, 23. He further
reported that the Individual has completed the IOP and is now in aftercare. Tr. at 26. The Substance
Abuse Counselor testified that he was unaware of any relapses by the Individual and that the
Individual has been maintaining his sobriety. Tr. at 22, 27 The Substance Abuse Counselor
testified that the Individual has accepted that he has a lifelong issue with alcohol and realizes that
he should never use alcohol again. Tr. at 27. The Substance Abuse Counselor feels that the
Individual’s recovery has been going well. Tr. at 28. He characterized the Individual’s likelihood
of relapse as “relatively low.” Tr. at 29.
The Therapist testified on the Individual’s behalf.6 She testified that she is treating the Individual
for his relationship and family issues rather than for his substance abuse. Tr. at 35-36. She opined
that the Individual has an alcohol disorder. Tr. at 36. She testified that she believes that the
Individual has not relapsed. Tr. at 37. The Therapist characterized the Individual as an “excellent
patient” who has been very forthcoming with her and exhibits a great deal of insight into his
problems. Tr. at 37. She testified that the Individual has a strong support system, which includes
AA. Tr. at 37-38. The Therapist testified that the Individual plans to continue with his sobriety
and to never drink again. Tr. at 38-39, 43. She testified that she would be “surprised” if he were
to relapse because he is very dedicated and understands the consequences. Tr. at 38-39. She further
described his prognosis as “excellent.” Tr. at 44.
The Individual’s friend testified on his behalf at the hearing. The friend testified that he spends a
lot of time with the Individual, and that he no longer observes the Individual using alcohol. Tr. at
49-50. The Individual has been able to navigate his circle of friends without using alcohol. Tr. at
50. The Individual’s circle of friends are very supportive of his decision to abstain from using
alcohol. Tr. at 50-51. The friend reported that the Individual now seems happier. Tr. at 52.
The EAP Counselor testified that she has been treating, monitoring, and providing case
management for the Individual since June 6, 2016. Tr. at 59, 61. She testified that the Individual
is committed to his sobriety and that he is “a refreshingly honest, candid, open, articulate,
expressive client.” Tr. at 66. She testified that she has seen him undergo “tremendous growth.”
6 The Individual has also submitted a letter written on his behalf by the Therapist. Individual’s Ex. 7.
- 5 -
Tr. at 66. She testified that she believes that the Individual has “an excellent chance of remaining
sober and in recovery,” that he is “very motivated,” and that he is “very insightful.” Tr. at 67. She
testified that the Individual accepts that he has an alcohol disorder and intends to permanently
abstain from using alcohol. Tr. at 72. She testified that the Individual’s recovery is going “very,
very well, good, excellent.” Tr. at 71. She noted that the Individual is now “genuinely happy.”
Tr. at 72.
The Individual testified on his own behalf at the hearing. He testified that the stress of his
deteriorating marriage contributed to his Alcohol Dependence. Tr. at 77-78. He noted that his
ADUI arrest was a turning point for him, because it forced him to address his problems. Tr. at 78.
The Individual testified that shortly after his arrest, he decided to separate from his spouse and to
seek assistance from the EAP and the IOP. Tr. at 78-79. He testified that he has not used alcohol
since his May 28, 2016, arrest, and intends to permanently abstain from using alcohol. Tr. at 78-
79, 81, 86, 95-96. The Individual testified that he is highly motivated to avoid future alcohol use,
since he recognizes that he should not drink because he has an alcohol problem and that he cannot
control his alcohol use. Tr. at 86, 97-98. The Individual testified that he attended a 20-week IOP
for two hours per week.7 Tr. at 79. He had been attending one to two AA meetings each week,
until January 1, 2017, when at the suggestion of the DOE Psychologist, he began attending three
AA meetings each week. Tr. at 79-80. The Individual testified that he meets with the EAP
Counselor every three to four weeks, in addition to meeting with the Therapist every two to three
weeks. Tr. at 79. The Individual testified that he has also attended 12 hours of “DWI school,” a
DWI victim’s panel, and 24 hours of community service. Tr. at 80. The Individual began attending
a twelve week drug and alcohol education class on January 5, 2017. Tr. at 80. The Individual
testified that his employer has been testing him for drug and alcohol use several times each week,
and that none of these tests have detected alcohol or illegal drug use.8 Tr. at 79, 94. The Individual
testified that sobriety has had a “huge” positive impact on his life, and has provided him with
“mindfulness” and “clarity.” Tr. at 98. He testified that he is now “as happy as I’ve ever been.”
Tr. at 99.
After DOE Psychologist observed the testimony of these witnesses, he testified that the Individual
had resolved the concerns about the Individual’s judgment and reliability raised by the Individual’s
Alcohol Dependence, and has concluded that the Individual has been reformed or rehabilitated
from his Alcohol Dependence. He testified that when he conducted his examination of the
Individual on October 20, 2016, he did not believe that the Individual had been sufficiently
rehabilitated. Tr. at 104. The DOE Psychologist noted that, at that time, he had opined that the
Individual needed to establish “nine months of documented sobriety” in order to show that he has
been rehabilitated. Tr. at 104-105. He testified that he normally recommended a full year of
sobriety for individuals with Alcohol Dependence, but he reduced his recommendation for the
Individual because he “was impressed with the clarity of his honesty.” Tr. at 105. The DOE
Psychologist further testified that he had formed an opinion that the Individual “was a man of high
character, high morality, that he did, in fact, see and understand the nature of his alcohol issue and
what kinds of things in the past that he had been struggling with that contributed to that.” Tr. at
7 The Individual has submitted a certificate of completion for the IOP. Individual’s Ex. 6.
8 The Individual corroborated this testimony by submitting Individual’s Ex. 4, which consists of the results of 82
alcohol tests administered to him by his employer from June 8, 2016, through February 28, 2017. Each of the 82 test
result forms indicate that the Individual tested negative for alcohol or illegal drugs. Individual’s Ex. 4.
- 6 -
105. He noted that the Individual had increased his AA attendance from one to three time a week.
Tr. at 105. The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s negative alcohol test results
confirm that the Individual has been, and is able to, remain abstinent from alcohol. Tr. at 108. The
DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual “has met all the criteria that I had proposed, and I
have confidence that he will be able to sustain his abstinence not just for a year or two but probably
much longer than that.” Tr. at 111. He further testified that he sees no current defect in the
Individual’s judgment and reliability. Tr. at 111. The DOE Psychologist testified that the
Individual’s prognosis is “very good.” Tr. at 113.
Guideline G sets forth four conditions which can mitigate security concerns arising from an
individual’s Alcohol Dependence. In the present case, the evidence discussed above establishes
that the Individual has met three of these conditions. The Individual has acknowledged his Alcohol
Dependence, has provided evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem (including his
completion of the IOP, his participation in AA and aftercare, his seeking assistance from his EAP,
and his participation in individual counseling) and has established a nine-month pattern of
abstinence. Guideline G at ¶ 23(b). The Individual is a current employee who is participating in a
counseling or treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, and is making
satisfactory progress. Guideline G at ¶ 23(c). As discussed above, the Individual has successfully
completed inpatient or outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along with any required aftercare,
has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations, such as participation in AA meetings and aftercare, and has received a favorable
prognosis by the DOE Psychologist, his Therapist, his Substance Abuse Counselor, and his EAP
Counselor. Guideline G at ¶ 23(d). Accordingly, I find that the Individual has resolved the security
concerns, raised under Guideline G by his Alcohol Dependence.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G. After
considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a common sense manner, I find
that Individual has sufficiently mitigated all of the security concerns raised under Guideline G.
Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not
endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.
Therefore, the Individual’s security clearance should be restored at this time. The Local Security
Office may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the procedures set forth at 10
C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: March 21, 2017