PSH-17-0053

United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: August 14, 2017 ) Case No.: PSH-17-0053
)
_________________________________________ )
Issued: November 13, 2017
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
individual”) to obtain an access authorization1 under the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart A, entitled “General Criteria and Procedures
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.” As
discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant
regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017)
(Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the individual should be granted an access
authorization.
I. Background
The individual is employed by a DOE contractor. His employer submitted a request that the
individual be granted a DOE security clearance. In reviewing this request, the Local Security
Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the individual’s alcohol use.
In order to address those concerns, the LSO summoned the individual for a personnel security
interview (PSI) in March 2016. Following the PSI, the LSO sent the individual for an evaluation
with a DOE consultant-psychologist (DOE psychologist).
On June 14, 2017, the LSO sent the individual a letter (Notification Letter) advising him that the
DOE possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to be
granted an access authorization. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained
1 Access authorization is defined as “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 be referred to variously in this Decision as access authorization or security clearance.
2
that the derogatory information fell within the purview of Guideline G (alcohol consumption) of
the Adjudicative Guidelines.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations by requesting an administrative review hearing. The Director of the Office of Hearings
and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge in the case, and I subsequently
conducted an administrative hearing in the matter. At the hearing, the individual testified on his
own behalf. The DOE Counsel presented the testimony of the DOE psychologist. The DOE
submitted nine exhibits (Exhibits 1-9) into the record, and the individual tendered fifteen exhibits
(Exhibits A-O). The exhibits will be cited in the Decision as “Ex.” followed by the appropriate
numeric or alphabetic designation. The hearing transcript in the case will be cited as “Tr.” followed
by the relevant page number.2
II. Regulatory Standard
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 is not a criminal matter, where the
government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather,
the regulations require me, as the Administrative Judge, to issue a Decision that reflects my
comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all the relevant evidence,
favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting or continuation of a person’s access
authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the
national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory standard implies that there is a presumption
against granting or restoring a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard for granting security clearances
indicates “that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont
v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that restoring
his 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 individual is afforded a full
opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part 710
regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included a statement of derogatory information
that raised concerns about the individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The information in
the letter specifically cites Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines, which relates to security
risks arising from alcohol consumption. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise
2 OHA decisions are available on the OHA website at www.energy.gov. A decision may be accessed by entering the
case number in the search engine at www.oha.gov/search.htm.
3
of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. See Guideline G at ¶ 21.
In citing Guideline G, the LSO in the Notification Letter stated that it was relying upon a May 23,
2016, report (Report) issued by the DOE psychologist regarding the individual. In the Report, the
DOE psychologist concluded that the individual met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol
Dependence, in Sustained Partial Remission, as set forth in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of
the American Psychiatric Association, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). The Report
also concluded that the individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Additionally, the LSO alleged in the Notification Letter that the individual had been
arrested for three alcohol-related offenses – once for Misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) and twice for Disorderly Intoxication (DI). The LSO also cited the individual’s admissions
in the PSI that, as of the date of the PSI, he would consume an 18-pack of beer and approximately
10-15 shots of alcohol per month. Given the information available to the LSO, I conclude that the
LSO had adequate grounds to invoke Guideline G.
IV. Findings of Facts
Pursuant to his employer’s request that he be granted a security clearance, the individual completed
a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in September 2015. Ex. 7. On the QNSP,
the individual admitted to having been arrested three times during the period 2011 through 2012,
once for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and twice for Disorderly Intoxication (DI). Ex. 7 at
19-20.3 Id. At the PSI, the individual reported that, prior to his January 2011 DUI arrest, he had
consumed a significant amount of alcohol at a local pool hall. Ex. 8 at 7. He further reported that,
prior to his October 2011 DI arrest, he had consumed approximately 4 to 6 beers and 10 shots of
alcohol. Ex. 8 at 8-9. He also reported that he consumed approximately 4 to 6 beers and 10 shots
of alcohol prior to his December 2011 DI arrest. Ex. 7 at 8-9.
In May 2016, the DOE psychologist performed a forensic psychological examination of the
individual and subsequently issued her Report. Ex. 10 at 1. In her Report, the DOE psychologist
summarized her findings regarding the individual’s history of alcohol use, his arrests, and the
results of several psychometric tests administered to the individual. The DOE psychologist
concluded that from the individual’s late teens through his early-to-mid-twenties, the individual
consumed alcohol to excess and met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th Edition Text
Revision’s criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence in Sustained Partial Remission.4 Ex. 10
at 12. The DOE psychologist also determined that, as of the date of her examination, the individual
had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 10 at 10. For the
individual to demonstrate adequate evidence of rehabilitation, the individual should abstain from
alcohol use for a period of 12 months and engage in counseling with a therapist. The DOE
psychologist also recommended that the counseling should include alcohol use education with an
emphasis on relapse prevention. Ex. 10 at 14.
3 The Notification Letter states that the three arrests occurred in January 2011, October 2011, and December 2011
which varied from the dates of arrests the individual reported in the PSI. Ex. 3 at 4; see Ex. 9 at 73-81.
4 The DOE psychologist also opined that under the more recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition, the
individual could be diagnosed as suffering from Alcohol Use Disorder. Ex. 10 at 12.
4
V. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. 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 should be granted a security clearance. In this regard, I find that
granting a security clearance to the individual would not endanger the common defense and
security, and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The
specific findings that I make in support of this decision are discussed below.
At the hearing, the individual admitted that he had a problem with his alcohol consumption. Tr. at
34-35. He testified that after receiving the Notification Letter and speaking to a LSO official he
decided to stop consuming alcohol. Tr. at 26. His last alcohol consumption was on July 19, 2016.
Tr. at 21; Exhibit A. at 1. He later consulted a substance abuse counselor (Counselor) who advised
him that, in addition to abstaining from alcohol, he should enter into a relapse prevention course.
Tr. at 25. The individual successfully completed the 15-session relapse prevention course in May
2017. Tr. at 26; Ex. A at 7. The course helped the individual to realize that one of the triggers for
his alcohol use was a feeling of being “left out.” Tr. at 40.
The individual also testified that he has significantly changed his lifestyle. The individual has
earned two Associate Degrees in college and is participating in an on-line Bachelor of Science
degree program. Ex. A at 23-37. As part of his commitment to be abstinent, he no longer associates
with friends with whom he consumed alcohol. Tr. at 28-29. While his fiancé does consume
alcoholic beverages at social occasions, they do not keep any alcohol in their residence. Tr. at 24.
Additionally, the individual now exercises in the local YMCA after work. Tr. at 39.
The individual submitted a written statement from his fiancé in which she states that the individual
has made significant changes in his life since his examination by the DOE psychologist.5 Ex. B at
1. She affirmed that the individual has not consumed alcohol for approximately a year, and as a
result he has been more focused on things to improve their life together such as saving money and
improving his skills to build a better future. Ex. B at 1. She believes that the individual is “honest,
caring . . . and motivated.” Ex. B at 1. The individual also submitted written statements from two
of his supervisors attesting to the high quality of his job performance and his unique ability to work
with other employees. Ex. A.
The individual entered into the record a report from his Counselor. Ex. A at 6. In her report, the
Counselor states that the individual has provided “well thought out responses” and has shown
“increased awareness of addiction issues. Ex. A. at 6. Further, over the past year, the Counselor
has observed a more focused and settled mindset. Ex. A at 6. The Counselor found that the
individual has developed a greater awareness of “how important decisions made today can impact
tomorrow’s lifestyle.” Ex. A. at 6.
5 The individual’s fiancé was not able to testify personally because of her employment at a hospital. Tr. at 51.
5
At the hearing the DOE psychologist listened to all of the testimony and had the opportunity to
question the individual. The DOE psychologist also reviewed all of the exhibits submitted by the
individual. After this review, the DOE psychologist opined that the individual was now
rehabilitated from his alcohol use disorder. Tr. at 62. In making this determination the DOE
psychologist found that the individual is “a person of great integrity interpersonally,
professionally, financially, personally” Tr. at 62. She also testified as to her opinion that the
individual is “highly motivated, not just in his professional life and the ways that he approaches
things outside of his professional life, but he is very motivated regarding his recovery.” Tr. at 62.
The DOE psychologist noted that the individual accepted that he had an alcohol problem even
before the date she first examined him. Tr. at 62. She also testified that the individual’s exhibits
regarding his education and relapse prevention course were “impressive.” Tr. at 62-63. In
conclusion, the DOE psychologist testified that the individual’s counseling sessions with his
Counselor and his participation in the relapse prevention classes substantially met her Report’s
treatment recommendations. Tr. at 64-66.
After reviewing the record before me, I find that the individual has resolved the security concerns
arising from the Criterion G derogatory information recorded in the Notification Letter. The
individual credibly testified as to his acceptance of his alcohol problem. Further, the individual has
provided convincing documentary evidence as to his efforts to change his lifestyle through his
pursuit of college degrees and his efforts at receiving counseling for his problem. The individual
has submitted documentary evidence attesting to his successful completion of the relapse
prevention course. Significantly I found the DOE psychologist’s opinion as to the state of the
individual’s rehabilitation to be well-founded and based upon significant evidence. I thus find that
the following Adjudicative Guideline Criterion G mitigating factors are applicable in the present
case: ¶ 23(b) - the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established
pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations;
and ¶ 23(c) - the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous
history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment program.
Adjudicative Guidelines, Criterion G, ¶ 23.
VI. Conclusion
In the above analysis, I have found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the
possession of the DOE that raised serious security concerns under Guideline G. 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 find
that the individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns associated
with that guideline. I therefore find that granting the individual an access authorization will not
endanger the common defense and is clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I
have determined that the DOE should grant the individual an access authorization.
Richard A. Cronin, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: November 13, 2017